A quick revisit to the Social Axis
Brian Gleichman
a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
considered Social Corner.
Originally I was against it (thinking that Social concerns were what
determined one's leaning in the Threefold in the first place). Then I was
for it, now I'm back to uncertain.
Consider the following example:
Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
the Empire State building. End of character.
However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
turn out better and her character survives.
From where I set, there are two ways to look at this:
1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
OR
2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
Ok everyone, vote time (except those who hate the Threefold in the first
place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of flys
or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
And of course, your reason for your opinion.
--
Brian Gleichman
Age of Heroes: http://home.earthlink.net/~bgleichman/
Free RPG Reviews: http://home.earthlink.net/~bgleichman/Reviews.htm
Joshua Macy
I think your scenario presents a compelling argument for Social being
distinct from the other three. If killing the character would make a
distinctly better story, according to whatever normal criteria for
judging stories the group uses, then violating that for the sake of the
player having a bad day isn't a story-driven decision. "We decided that
Hamlet would survive because the actor was feeling a bit blue today..."
So I vote that it's a Social concern unrelated to the current corners.
Joshua
Warren J. Dew
Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such
that things turn out better and her character survives.
I am pretty sure that Berkman would have considered this 'making a better
story', rather than 'an invalid way to play'. By that measure, I'd classify it
as story.
It might matter what the effect on the other players was, though. If the
sudden happy ending ruined the story for the other five players, who had had
good weeks, I'd be more willing to believe it wasn't a story issue.
Examples that I can think of that ought to fit into any social corner if it
existed:
- gamesmaster gives special treatment to characters of a player because that
player is the gamesmaster's boyfriend/girlfriend
- gamesmaster gives disproportionate spotlight time to the characters of a
player because that player does more things that are interesting to the
gamesmaster (though this one might be making a better story for the
gamesmaster)
I guess my position is that the corner shouldn't be added to the model until we
can tell what a game that is predominantly social - in the way that Berkman's
games were predominantly story, or mine world, or Brian's game/skill - would
look like.
It definitely belongs in Bradd's version of the model, though. It would be fun
to answer a newcomer's innocent "what is the threefold?" with, "first,
visualize a hexadecitant of a hypersphere...."
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Rupert Boleyn
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
>consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
>about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
>the Empire State building. End of character.
>
>However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
>doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
>turn out better and her character survives.
>
>From where I set, there are two ways to look at this:
>
>1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
>
> OR
>
>2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
>the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
Once I would've said it was Story (and thus evil) without hesitation,
these days I'm not so sure. I've found myself being tempted to do
things for this reason, and I certainly wasn't thinking in any sort of
Story related way. I was however aware of the damage this would do to
the world, and to a lesser extent various gamist considerations
(actually thinking carefully about it they were all world
considerations at the time). OK, to me social considerations at this
point in time are another, fourth corner in the model.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
John Kim
Joshua Macy <amu...@webamused.com> wrote:
>Brian Gleichman wrote:
>> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
>> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
>> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
>> the Empire State building. End of character.
>>
>> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
>> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
>> turn out better and her character survives.
>
>distinct from the other three.
I think it is a little silly to present this as a sole example
(with a binary "is" vs "is not" vote) without also considering examples
of why the Social axis is problematic. Consider these other examples:
1) Jane has had a depressing bad week -- so the GM considers whether
her character should get killed. However, the GM decides that Jane
likes a good story more than she cares about her PC -- so he decides
to give her PC a grand death scene. Is this Social or Drama?
2) Jane has had a depressing bad week, and her PC's should be killed.
However, the GM knows that the other players really care about there
being a real chance of death in the game rather than script immunity.
Thus he decides to let her PC die for the group's enjoyment. Is this
a Social decision?
IMO, in order for "Social" to be a workable axis, it has to be
defined as something more specific than "doing the players and/or GM
enjoys".
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Athanasia Steele
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Consider the following example:
>
>Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
>consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
>about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
>the Empire State building. End of character.
>
>However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
>doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
>turn out better and her character survives.
>
>From where I set, there are two ways to look at this:
>
>1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
>
> OR
>
>2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
>the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
>
>
>Ok everyone, vote time (except those who hate the Threefold in the first
>place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of flys
>or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
>
>And of course, your reason for your opinion.
It isn't story. Most emphatically, it isn't story, and anyone
asserting that making a choice like that serves the story in my
campaigns could not more deeply err. This is the *real* tradeoff that
crops up in my campaigns, the repeating dilemma, and I have frequently
ended up damaging the world and the story at once to accommodate a
player. I've become less socially accommodating over the years because
the damage was sufficiently annoying that in retrospect I tend to
think the accommodation was usually a mistake -- in practice, I've
found that someone who's out of sync with my style enough to create a
dilemma once will tend create dilemmas repeatedly, so accommodation is
often just putting off the problem and allowing the damage to
accumulate.
Regardless of what I think of the Threefold, I don't want the word
'story' to be bastardized to mean 'anything someone likes or dislikes
about a campaign which we haven't identified as a gamist interest or a
simulationist interest.' That just makes the dramatist vertex the
catch-all vertex instead of the gamist vertex -- we're just sweeping
the stuff we don't want to account for under a different rug.
The failure to distinguish to between 'story' in its general sense of
narrative and 'story' in the more restricted artistic sense of a
narrative of conflict meant to engage the listener was the fallacy
that underlay the arguments of David Berkman. His arguments worked
like this:
All RPGs are stories (bare narrative sense).
A good story (artistic sense) has certain characteristics produced by
the employment of certain techniques.
Therefore all RPGs will be improved by using those techniques.
Since he used 'story' in one sense in his first proposition and in
another sense in his second proposition, his conclusion didn't follow
from his premises even if one didn't dispute the second proposition.
Calling a decision made to render the narrative more pleasing to a
player 'story-oriented' when it doesn't improve the narrative as
an *artistic* story is making the same logical error: 'story' means
artistic story when someone wants to assert that story has a definite
enough form to be incompatible with game and simulation somehow; but
when they want to push a consideration that has no necessary
connection with story-as-art into a Threefold corner because they're
afraid of the consequences of adding a social vertex, they drop back
to using 'story' in the not-very-definite narrative sense. But RPG is
narrative by nature, and *any* decision made to produce a good RPG
can be characterized as being made to serve 'narrative' purposes.
I care about the word 'story,' not about the Threefold. The reason
I'm addressing the question is that the Threefold is sufficiently
pervasive around here that the use of 'story-oriented' bleeds back
into 'story,' and I want to be able to talk about story without
having to fend off the implicit bizarre and wildly erroneous
constructions that follow from classifying social decisions as story
decisions: 'It would have been a story-oriented decision -- a decision
made to improve the story -- to accommodate Player V's desire to add
scenes with the feel of Spiderman-vs.-the-Hulk to the slow brooding
intrigue of Keranset, because it would have made the narrative more
satisfying for *him.*' And, yes, it *would* have made the narrative
more satisfying for him -- but if any reader thinks that scenes that
feel as if they'd belong in Spiderman-vs.-the-Hulk improve a story of
slow brooding intrigue, I don't think it'd be useful to attempt to
shout across the chasm that separates our literary tastes. :)
--
Athanasia Steele
airaz...@mail.com.clip
http://azurite.betterbox.net/
Remove '.clip' from address to send email.
Athanasia Steele
<snip>
>It definitely belongs in Bradd's version of the model, though. It would be fun
>to answer a newcomer's innocent "what is the threefold?" with, "first,
>visualize a hexadecitant of a hypersphere...."
I like it! :D
Brian Gleichman
news:20010604213006...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Since I'm on the fence here, I'm going to play both sides against the middle
for a while and argue from both points. I'm not actually disagreeing with
anyone in this thread, rather I'm just exploring.
> - gamesmaster gives special treatment to characters of a player because
that
> player is the gamesmaster's boyfriend/girlfriend
Like the other examples, this could be seen a pitching the story to one
person. In this case the significant other. If that person enjoys the
pitched events better, it could be looked at as simply matching the story to
the target audience.
> I guess my position is that the corner shouldn't be added to the model
until we
> can tell what a game that is predominantly social - in the way that
Berkman's
> games were predominantly story, or mine world, or Brian's game/skill -
would
> look like.
I remember you claiming this before. It's an interesting requirement.
I can point out players who operating nearly completely within a Social
axis, but not GMs. Unless of course the Monty Haul type campaign is an
expression of such a campaign. One could agrue that it is driven by the
desire to please the players at the expense of any other corner.
> It definitely belongs in Bradd's version of the model, though. It would
be fun
> to answer a newcomer's innocent "what is the threefold?" with, "first,
> visualize a hexadecitant of a hypersphere...."
:-)
I haven't seen Bradd's posts in months, but this matched so many other
people's direction that it's funny anyway.
Brian Gleichman
news:9fhm3l$mql$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> I think it is a little silly to present this as a sole example
> (with a binary "is" vs "is not" vote) without also considering examples
> of why the Social axis is problematic. Consider these other examples:
Ok.
> 1) Jane has had a depressing bad week -- so the GM considers whether
> her character should get killed. However, the GM decides that Jane
> likes a good story more than she cares about her PC -- so he decides
> to give her PC a grand death scene. Is this Social or Drama?
I think this would easily be judged Story under the current view since the
deciding points in question here (caring about PC and caring about Story)
aren't outside the current Threefold coverage.
> IMO, in order for "Social" to be a workable axis, it has to be
> defined as something more specific than "doing the players and/or GM
> enjoys".
Of course, after all it can be said that all the corners do that. In this
case, it's doing something unrelated to the other corners because of
player's desires.
Brian Gleichman
good story vs. one players concern for good story.
"Athanasia Steele" <airaz...@mail.com.clip> wrote in message
news:A946BCD50C0E243D.CFF407FD...@lp.airnews.net...
> It isn't story. Most emphatically, it isn't story, and anyone
> asserting that making a choice like that serves the story in my
> campaigns could not more deeply err.
You go on to claim Story as art. Who's art?
I didn't like Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (I hate tragic movies) and other
people were wild about it.
If a Story based GM pitched that specific one to me as a player, I would
think it was a awful Story. Completely worthless. Heck, I'd likely leave the
game. Another player in the game may have loved it.
Does this not make the decision Story focused in either case? Are we to
judge a decision as Story focus based upon majority rule or artistic
evaluation when such things so often cause disagreements when viewing real
life Stories?
Or should we not go for the ego trip, and simply acknowledge that any story,
even bad ones, are stories that some people actually strive for? That
perhaps the target audience is the important thing and that not every story
is aimed at the critics?
Athanasia Steele
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I didn't like Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (I hate tragic movies) and other
>people were wild about it.
>
>If a Story based GM pitched that specific one to me as a player, I would
>think it was a awful Story. Completely worthless. Heck, I'd likely leave the
>game. Another player in the game may have loved it.
>
>Does this not make the decision Story focused in either case? Are we to
>judge a decision as Story focus based upon majority rule or artistic
>evaluation when such things so often cause disagreements when viewing real
>life Stories?
Sure it's story-focused -- if story means bare narrative, or
"everything anyone might like or dislike about an RPG." But if it
means that, the whole Threefold collapses to the ground, the
other vertices being redundant.
Others may please themselves, but I'm not going to use the word
'story' in a fashion that depends on confusing its senses, regardless
of what the Threefold's advocates decide to do.
<snip>
>Or should we not go for the ego trip,
This is the last time I'm going to respond to you because I'm not
interested in a round of silly bickering over who's on an ego trip.
>and simply acknowledge that any story,
>even bad ones, are stories that some people actually strive for? That
>perhaps the target audience is the important thing and that not every story
>is aimed at the critics?
No, not every story is aimed at critics. Mine aren't.
The campaign *might* fail if enough players are sufficiently
displeased with it to leave, but if I'm GMing, it *will* fail if I'm
sufficiently displeased with it to leave. Therefore, in case of
disagreement among the participants over what constitutes a
satisfactory story, when I'm GMing, the definitive artistic evaluation
is mine. I say that the Keranset story was not improved by scenes
shaped by a cinematic and comic book aesthetic -- indeed, that
adulteration with such an aesthetic was intolerable -- and since I was
running, I have the deciding vote.
I have an ordering of people I mean to please when I run. I'm at the
top. The players whose play usually pleases me come next. Players
whose play often displeases me come after everyone else. Critics are
nowhere at all.
Brian Gleichman
> This is the last time I'm going to respond to you because I'm not
> interested in a round of silly bickering over who's on an ego trip.
That's a pity, because you a) apparently missed the post where I said was
playing devil's advocate and b) made a valid counter argument with:
> The campaign *might* fail if enough players are sufficiently
> displeased with it to leave, but if I'm GMing, it *will* fail if I'm
> sufficiently displeased with it to leave.
For this holds an interesting concept.
Is Story to be judged not by audience, but rather only by its creator? I see
in this concept the chance to better define a number of areas.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this point?
Hal
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You go on to claim Story as art. Who's art?
Definitely the GM's vision here -- at least if we still see
the threefold as being about GM decisions.
>I didn't like Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (I hate tragic movies) and other
>people were wild about it.
>
>If a Story based GM pitched that specific one to me as a player, I would
>think it was a awful Story. Completely worthless. Heck, I'd likely leave the
>game. Another player in the game may have loved it.
Do you really think of all stories you don't like as
'awful'?
For even if I do not like something, I should be able --
within limits, perhaps -- to evaluate it somewhat
objectively, i.e. by standards other than my own.
For instance, I'm currently preparing a seminar paper on a
medieval epic. I don't like the epic at all, and yet I
acknowledge that the author is successful in evoking a
certain mood (and unsuccessful at other endeavours).
So is Tiger & Dragon an awful tragedy, or was it merely an
awful experience for you because you don't care for
tragedies at all?
*-*-*
Myself, I'm currently tentatively leaning towards a fourth
corner.
This may be in part because I am currently GMing
ultra-cliched genre-heavy games, where the 'right' story is
usually pretty obvious, and deviations are thus obviously
motivated by social concerns (e.g., dropping the plan to
have the arch-zombie/terminator/villain rise from the dead
for an encore because the players want to finish the
adventure before midnight and go home).
Come to think of it, this may be seen as contradicting my
firts point: that the GM's vision of the story is the one
which counts. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to reason
this through right now.
Regards,
Hal
Robert Scott Clark
>
>Joshua Macy <amu...@webamused.com> wrote:
>>Brian Gleichman wrote:
>>> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
>>> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
>>> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
>>> the Empire State building. End of character.
>>>
>>> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
>>> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
>>> turn out better and her character survives.
>>
>>I think your scenario presents a compelling argument for Social being
>>distinct from the other three.
>
> I think it is a little silly to present this as a sole example
>(with a binary "is" vs "is not" vote) without also considering examples
>of why the Social axis is problematic. Consider these other examples:
>
>1) Jane has had a depressing bad week -- so the GM considers whether
> her character should get killed. However, the GM decides that Jane
> likes a good story more than she cares about her PC -- so he decides
> to give her PC a grand death scene. Is this Social or Drama?
Both.
>
>2) Jane has had a depressing bad week, and her PC's should be killed.
> However, the GM knows that the other players really care about there
> being a real chance of death in the game rather than script immunity.
> Thus he decides to let her PC die for the group's enjoyment. Is this
> a Social decision?
Depends on why they care about there being a chance for death.
If they like death being possible because of the challenge/"reward for
bad play", then it's gamist.
If they like the possibility of death because it should really happen
in the world, then it's simulationist.
...
and so on.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jason Corley
> I guess my position is that the corner shouldn't be added to the model until we
> can tell what a game that is predominantly social - in the way that Berkman's
> games were predominantly story, or mine world, or Brian's game/skill - would
> look like.
Just to (again) throw cold water on this kind of thing, it would not
surprise me at all if this were impossible - nor would it make a "Social
axis" meaningful if there was such a game. It would only result in
defining a bundle of unrelated behaviors as "the Social axis" and the
identification of particular persons and decisions as "Socialist". As
delicious as this semantic possibility is, it isn't going to help
understand the behaviors that are going to be bundled up.
Now, I agree that a lot of times I make decisions for reasons that have
nothing to do with "the game" at all - the most obvious is that I try to
reach "a stopping place" when everyone is getting tired or bored. But this
is not "GM intent at critical interesting resolution points", and the same
kind of behavior can be seen on other "axes of the model". ("This episode
should be wrapping up now, I need to use good pacing here." "The player
skill I am testing is not stamina. I should stop the game soon in order
that they and I might be at our best.")
Why does everything that might conceivably pass through a GM's mind need a
place on the Threefold, when nearly always, it could go /anywhere/ on the
model? Why ruin a perfectly good observation by tacking it (nearly
irretrievably, by all accounts) onto a model that does not in fact tell us
anything about anyone but those rare few at the extremes - and not very
much about them?
This has been your Threefold-axis cold-water-throwing post. Thank
you. Carry on.
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason Corley | le...@aeonsociety.org | ICQ 41199011
James C. Ellis
>
> "Warren J. Dew" <psych...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010604213006...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
> > model until we can tell what a game that is predominantly social -
> > in the way that Berkman's games were predominantly story, or mine
> > world, or Brian's game/skill - would look like.
>
> I remember you claiming this before. It's an interesting requirement.
>
> I can point out players who operating nearly completely within a
> Social axis, but not GMs. Unless of course the Monty Haul type
> campaign is an expression of such a campaign. One could agrue that it
> is driven by the desire to please the players at the expense of any
> other corner.
The Monty Haul campaign is the one I was going to bring (back) up in
answer to Warren's challenge. The classic dungeon-crawl, wherein the
characters will easily triumph over any baddie up to and including
Tiamat for the sheer thrill of amassing great weights of treasure/magic
items personifies the Social campaign run amok.
If one doesn't get quite so extreme, I have tangible examples of
Social concerns influencing the campaign in my own history. There was
one player in particular who squicked (unexpectedly to me) at the
inclusion of certain religious elements. I was forced to dampen them,
to the detriment to the Story (and I'm sure that that detriment was
sensed not only by me, but by the other players aside, perhaps, from the
one in question). This - in my eyes - was a characteristic
Three(Four)fold tradeoff, but with an axis other than World/Story/Game.
See also Mary's anecdote about the feral fetus.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leszek Karlik
>I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
>a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
>considered Social Corner.
[...]
>And of course, your reason for your opinion.
I've already made one post here, that I consider the Threefold to be
a Fourfold really but it was ignored. :)
Yes, I think a Social Corner is needed. I played in predominantly
social games - the main reason to play was to get together, swap
new jokes, eat pizza, tell the newbies the old war stories
(a year ago, we had that really memborable event. "no shit, I was
there, and..." ;))). Oh, and to play an enjoyable game, too,
but I'd rank it as 60% social, 20% gamist, 20% simulationist.
That's why I like to think of the model as a tetrahedr.
(Besides, it's cool. "Imagine the styles of roleplaying can be
represented as a giant four-sided die." ;))))
>Brian Gleichman
Leslie
--
Proszę wyłączyć UseNet, muszę zacząć się uczyć na sesję.
Robert Scott Clark
>Warren J. Dew <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess my position is that the corner shouldn't be added to the model until we
>> can tell what a game that is predominantly social - in the way that Berkman's
>> games were predominantly story, or mine world, or Brian's game/skill - would
>> look like.
>
>Just to (again) throw cold water on this kind of thing, it would not
>surprise me at all if this were impossible - nor would it make a "Social
>axis" meaningful if there was such a game. It would only result in
>defining a bundle of unrelated behaviors as "the Social axis" and the
>identification of particular persons and decisions as "Socialist". As
>delicious as this semantic possibility is, it isn't going to help
>understand the behaviors that are going to be bundled up.
So, it would fit in fine and dandy with the other corners?
Rick Cordes
Brian Gleichman <bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
>a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
>considered Social Corner.
>Ok everyone, vote time (except those who hate the Threefold in the first
>place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of flys
>or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
Why pick-on innocent vermin? Like so much about the threefold is
the pounding of square pegs into round holes, the social axis is -as you
dawningly seem to be comprehending- not representable in any reasonable
way as a simple axis. The social realm is how players choose to
participate, or are allowed to, from the stances of author, actor,
director and audience. ("Players" includes referees.)
Whatever the motivations of the players, regardless their
threefoldesque conceptions or their motives are to please or not,
these are the objective social pigeonholes, whatever their utility.
An immediate objection to this is that player preferences
will dictate what stances each should assume but while there seems to
be an appreciation how motive is not divorced from stance, entirely,
the threefold elements are imagined to be divorced, usefully. The
problem (as is emerging in the discussion) is the impossible task
of illuminating the social elements without acknowledging how gamism,
dramatism and simulationism are entwined, and not usefully divorced
from one another. That is, without limiting understanding to preference
and defering questions of ethics and aesthetics -social philosophy-
to it, as has been so much else in conduct of an rpg.
-Rick
Athanasia Steele
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Yes, I think a Social Corner is needed. I played in predominantly
>social games - the main reason to play was to get together, swap
>new jokes, eat pizza, tell the newbies the old war stories
>(a year ago, we had that really memborable event. "no shit, I was
>there, and..." ;))). Oh, and to play an enjoyable game, too,
>but I'd rank it as 60% social, 20% gamist, 20% simulationist.
<snip>
That style of game was my nomination for the Social game years ago,
but we didn't have anybody around then who ran one to confirm or deny
the suitability of calling it social.
Steve Mading
: I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
: a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
: considered Social Corner.
[snip example]
(slight nomenclature nitpick)
I think you need to make it clear that you mean PLAYER social
concerns rather than CHARACTER social concerns. This isn't clear
by just saying "social corner". It was not clear what you meant
until several examples appeared. There are those who like
roleplaying social situations (The King's Ball) more than playing
combat situations, and with a label like "Social Corner", it looks
like that's what you mean. It wasn't until several examples came
out that it was clear to me that this was about out-of-character
socialization.
Steve Mading
: I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
: a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
: considered Social Corner.
[snip]
Would this also include such concepts as how much tolerance there
is for out-of-character table talk? If the players view the game
as a social event, they might tolerate a lot more cracking of
out of character jokes, or drifting into side topics. I think
*that* might make sense to be another fold of the n-fold thingy,
but not the example you gave. Why? Because your example was
simply a matter of altering the game to give the player the kind of
game she wants, which is what the whole model is about in the first
place. I would say that (for example) adding extra plot elements
to a story-based group (because you know they want it as players),
is just as much a social player issue as deciding not to kill a
character for the player's sake. And viewing it that way, player
social concerns end up being one meta-level above the rest of the
n-fold model. They are the main reason for looking at the model
in the first place.
Russell Impagliazzo
> I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
> a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
> considered Social Corner.
>
> Originally I was against it (thinking that Social concerns were what
> determined one's leaning in the Threefold in the first place). Then I was
> for it, now I'm back to uncertain.
>
> Consider the following example:
>
> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
> the Empire State building. End of character.
>
> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
> turn out better and her character survives.
>
> From where I set, there are two ways to look at this:
>
> 1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
>
> OR
>
> 2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
> the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
>
> --
> Brian Gleichman
I think one question that has been begged in the endless
discussion of the threefold is WHAT TYPE of object is the
threefold. There are at least two possibilities:
The threefold is a MODEL of the thought-processes players
go through while making decisions about how to play
role-playing games. For this interpretation, I think your
example would require there to be a separate Social
category, because certainly Social considerations are
frequently taken into account, even when they are conflicting
with the other three goals. For example, a new player has
joined the game, with a ``first-level;'' character that I know my
experienced character
would have nothing to do with. I'll still have my
character approach this new guy, because otherwise
the new player won't have fun. It is neither a dramatist
decision (a better story would be to ignore him), a
simulationist decision (it 's going against my understanding
of the character) or a gamist decision (the new character
doesn't have abilities that help mine accomplish goals).
So this is certainly a situation where my decision isn't
motivated by any aspect of the three-fold. Nevertheless,
I do this frequently, and do not consider it ``bad
roleplaying''. So any ``model'' of ``good role-playing
practices'' should include this type of decision.
A second interpretation of the threefold, which I prefer,
is that it is a TAXONOMY of ESTHETICS for
role-playing games. An esthetic is a criterion by
which you evaluate a work of art. (I am using
``art'' in a loose sense here.) A taxonomy is a system
for classification, showing relationships between
different elements of the domain classified. So
what I'm saying is that the threefold gives is a
classification scheme for how people describe
what they find appealing about role-playing games.
Note that I am not saying there are three
esthetics of role-playing, the dramatist, the gamist,
and the simulationist. This is manifestly false;
even among people who accept the threefold
and classify themselves in one corner, there
are clear differences. A dramatist who likes
adventure movies has a different esthetic
than one who likes existentialist drama. I am
merely saying that the two esthetics are similar
in that they evaluate based on story.
Looking at the threefold as a classification scheme
for esthetics I don't think a separate category
for Social is needed. For example, social
concerns are important when discussing one's
experience of drama. Who you went to the
theater with and who you met there and what
your relationship was at the time and what
was discussed over dinner are all important
to your experience of the dramatic work. But
they aren't that important to how you evaluate
the play.
Joshua Macy
>
>
> I guess my position is that the corner shouldn't be added to the model until we
> can tell what a game that is predominantly social - in the way that Berkman's
> games were predominantly story, or mine world, or Brian's game/skill - would
> look like.
>
munchkin/Monty Haul game--particularly where the players and GM "cheat"
(break the rules) in the players' favor. It doesn't seem to me to be
properly Gamist, since actual skill and challenge isn't desired.
Another example might be "cathartic" games, which if I understand it
(which I probably don't) are more about putting the players as actors
into certain emotional states for the sake of experiencing those states
rather than constructing a story about those emotions (which wouldn't
have to be felt by the player at all if story were really the goal).
Joshua
Brian Gleichman
news:3B1D4359...@cs.ucsd.edu...
> The threefold is a MODEL of the thought-processes players
> go through while making decisions about how to play
> role-playing games.
I think this was the intent of the threefold.
>Who you went to the
> theater with and who you met there and what
> your relationship was at the time and what
> was discussed over dinner are all important
> to your experience of the dramatic work. But
> they aren't that important to how you evaluate
> the play.
No, but who I bring to the theater doesn't effect the script for the play.
However there is the expection (for most games) that bringing someone to an
rpg will change the course of the session.
Brian Gleichman
Hal and Anthanasia is Key to the question at hand.
"Hal" <Halz...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3b1cdb61...@news.rwth-aachen.de...
> >You go on to claim Story as art. Who's art?
>
> Definitely the GM's vision here -- at least if we still see
> the threefold as being about GM decisions.
Under this viewpoint, and I'm making a small leap here to assume that it's
the same as Athanasia, a decision is Story as long as it derives from the
GM. If however it is the case of the decision being made to create a better
story/experience for the player, it has ceased to flow from the GM and has
become Social.
Was this your intent?
If so, it calls into question the entire idea of ownership in threefold
corners.
Let's move it into the Game corner in an attempt to make it clearer. The
example is one from real life of a failed campaign I tried to start in Plano
Texas.
I'm running my typical gamist campaign with heavy focus on tactical play but
with new (to my campaign) players. Thing went well for a while until the
players ran out of patience and demanded that treasure and advancement rates
were increased. In short, they were of a gamist school that valued resource
management more than tactical play.
Now I could have given in and altered my campaign to be more like their
desires (in real life I declined their request and the campaign ended) and
it would have still undeniable been a gamist campaign, just of a difference
subtype than my preference. This seems to meet the case of altering a
campaign and events in it (in this case treasure and advancement) in order
to create a better experience for the players.
Is this a case of Social Concerns overriding Gamist ones?
If so, does one now define much of the modified campaign as Social instead
of Gamist?
> Do you really think of all stories you don't like as
> 'awful'?
Nope, but I'm playing devil's advocate in this thread in order to shake out
my views. So I'm putting forth opinions and viewpoints as they come up,
without reference to what I in fact think.
Brian Gleichman
news:slrn9hqjh8...@fnord.ideefixe.com.pl...
> Yes, I think a Social Corner is needed. I played in predominantly
> social games
Interesting. Do you run the game or play?
Brian Gleichman
news:9fjeav$ifs$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> Would this also include such concepts as how much tolerance there
> is for out-of-character table talk? If the players view the game
> as a social event, they might tolerate a lot more cracking of
> out of character jokes, or drifting into side topics. I think
> *that* might make sense to be another fold of the n-fold thingy,
Not really, as such things have no in-game impact. They start, exist and end
in the meta-game and as such are outside the threefold's concerns.
> but not the example you gave. Why? Because your example was
> simply a matter of altering the game to give the player the kind of
> game she wants, which is what the whole model is about in the first
> place.
This matches my first take on the Social Corner idea from a long time ago.
The idea is that a campaign's position in the threefold is determined by
social forces in the first place, i.e. a negotiated agreement between
everyone as to how they'll play. Since nothing's static, one would expect
whatever Social influences that affected that game in the first place to
make occasional changes latter.
From this perspective, it seems unwise to model the controlling influence
within a representation of its final effect.
Did that make sense? The first time I present that idea I don't think anyone
caught it but me...
Jason Corley
> Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>>
>>Just to (again) throw cold water on this kind of thing, it would not
>>surprise me at all if this were impossible - nor would it make a "Social
>>axis" meaningful if there was such a game. It would only result in
>>defining a bundle of unrelated behaviors as "the Social axis" and the
>>identification of particular persons and decisions as "Socialist". As
>>delicious as this semantic possibility is, it isn't going to help
>>understand the behaviors that are going to be bundled up.
> So, it would fit in fine and dandy with the other corners?
Yes, but I was trying to be at least a /little/ good. :)
Robert Scott Clark
>"Steve Mading" <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:9fjeav$ifs$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
>> Would this also include such concepts as how much tolerance there
>> is for out-of-character table talk? If the players view the game
>> as a social event, they might tolerate a lot more cracking of
>> out of character jokes, or drifting into side topics. I think
>> *that* might make sense to be another fold of the n-fold thingy,
>
>Not really, as such things have no in-game impact. They start, exist and end
>in the meta-game and as such are outside the threefold's concerns.
Not a big suprise, but I disagree here. I have quite often had
characters crack out of character jokes, or the course of the game
directly affected by, or affect the table talk.
One symptom of social gaming might likely be a bluring of a strong
division between game and metagame.
Steve Mading
: "Steve Mading" <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:9fjeav$ifs$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> Would this also include such concepts as how much tolerance there
:> is for out-of-character table talk? If the players view the game
:> as a social event, they might tolerate a lot more cracking of
:> out of character jokes, or drifting into side topics. I think
:> *that* might make sense to be another fold of the n-fold thingy,
: Not really, as such things have no in-game impact. They start, exist and end
: in the meta-game and as such are outside the threefold's concerns.
Well, then that even more backs up the notion that the social aspect
of gaming has nothing to do with your n-fold model. Because it *is*
mostly a meta-game concept, and you seem to imply above that your
n-fold model should have nothing to do with metagame concerns.
Warren J. Dew
argument for the inclusion of a social apex in the triangle model, Robert Scott
Clark posts, in part:
Not a big suprise, but I disagree here. I have quite often had
characters crack out of character jokes, or the course of the game
directly affected by, or affect the table talk.
I think this is a good point. To some extent the clear distinction between in
game and metagame is a world oriented thing; other aesthetics might well focus
more on other aspects of the game - though I think that to fit in with the
threefold, there needs to be at least some relevance to the fact that we're
talking about a roleplaying game, and not just some general social activity.
On the other hand, this specific point may still be story: certainly the
disjunction between character knowledge and audience knowledge is often used to
good effect, humorous and otherwise, in nonroleplaying forms of narrative.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
John Kim
Brian Gleichman <bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"John Kim" <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> IMO, in order for "Social" to be a workable axis, it has to be defined
>> as something more specific than "doing the players and/or GM enjoys".
>
>Of course, after all it can be said that all the corners do that. In this
>case, it's doing something unrelated to the other corners because of
>player's desires.
It seems to me that you are defining "Social" as a catchall here:
i.e. 'Social' play is anything which the players like unless it is
drama-, game-, or simulation-oriented. I think a "catchall" of this
sort isn't very useful. On your web-page review, you criticized the
threefold for having a negative definition for simulation -- but I
think a catchall like this is even more negatively defined.
-*-*-*-
An offhand thought here: what about instead having a "Vicarious"
style? This would be a sort of style where the players identify with
the PC's and prefer it when things go well for the PC. There still may
need to be risk of failure and bad things, so that the player can continue
identifying with the PC. This isn't neccessarily a good explanation of
the concept, I am just thinking out loud.
I think this covers much of the calls for a Social axis, while
potentially having a more positive definition. Vicarious play could
cover Monty Haul games, Australian "cathartic" role-play, and others.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Ingeborg Denner
>
<snip>
>
> Consider the following example:
>
> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
> the Empire State building. End of character.
>
> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
> turn out better and her character survives.
>
<snip>
> Ok everyone, vote time (except those who hate the Threefold in the first
> place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of flys
> or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
>
> And of course, your reason for your opinion.
Just some not-quite-formed opinions:
I don't see the action as motivated by any of the threefold styles, but
rather a metagame thing, comparable to "we'll play the encounter with
the villain next week, because everyone is tired today".
The "social" category seems -- for me -- to reach pretty far into
out-of-game concerns, being more of a different level than a different
corner, so I'm not really comfortable with it.
Maybe a "social" axis could be defined along the lines of 'player/group
preferences take precedence over story, world or fair challenge', but in
this case the example isn't too useful IMO because it focuses only on
one player and the GM, leaving the rest of the group out.
Plus, I doubt the usefulness of a "social" category. One main advantage
of the threefold is IMO that you can tell a new player (who's familiar
with it) "we're playing heavy dramatist here", and she'll know what to
expect. But what should "we're playing for social reasons here [that
sounds patently stupid, but 'socialist' would be completely wrong and I
can't think of a good word right now]" mean? The speaker would propably
mean "to have a good time" or, "to do something with our friends". But
the new player wouldn't be any wiser.
inge
--
I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every time I looked at the
speedometer, I got lost.
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
Joshua Macy
> If a Story based GM pitched that specific one to me as a player, I would
> think it was a awful Story. Completely worthless. Heck, I'd likely leave the
> game. Another player in the game may have loved it.
Would you really claim that it was an awful story, as opposed to a
good story that you didn't like? I think most people find it pretty
easy to distinguish between what is artistically good and what they
enjoy. "It was very well done; I hated it." seems to me to be a
perfectly reasonable ordinary thing to say about a story in a genre or
mode I don't like. Sometimes I dislike something so much that I am
unable to tell whether it's actually bad or not--but even then I can
usually tell that I've lost my objectivity.
Joshua
Brian Gleichman
> Well, then that even more backs up the notion that the social aspect
> of gaming has nothing to do with your n-fold model. Because it *is*
> mostly a meta-game concept, and you seem to imply above that your
> n-fold model should have nothing to do with metagame concerns.
Not entirely true. Both Gamist and Drama currently make use of meta-game
reasons to change in-game events.
But neither concern themselves with purely meta-game events (who makes a
food run, who's house is played at). And I think one would want the Social
Corner to do much the same, only concern itself with factors that cause a
in-game change.
One possible contender is systems mechanics like Deadlands which reward a
player with a fate chip (think in-game experience/event modifier) when they
cause the table to burst into laughter. A number of games do this
mechanically, and I've seen a number of GMs change the course of an event
(without the use of mechanics) as a result of such things too. Heck, so have
I on rare occasions.
However...
Is this again a case of the GM altering events in order to entertain his
audience in much the same fashion as oral story tellers have done since the
dawn of time? If so, isn't this a story method properly covered by the Drama
Corner?
Brian Gleichman
news:20010606013111...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> On the other hand, this specific point may still be story: certainly the
> disjunction between character knowledge and audience knowledge is often
used to
> good effect, humorous and otherwise, in nonroleplaying forms of narrative.
It could easily be considered that, and is in fact my first thought.
It seems to me that we need to answer the question of corner ownership I've
raised in two other posts before we can tackle and decide this point. Is
something still Story driven when the GM alters it so that the players are
happier with the outcome?
However everyone seems to be avoiding the question for some reason. And
right now, I don't see how we can make any judgment on the Social corner
without an answer to this one point.
Brian Gleichman
news:9fki3r$9oi$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> It seems to me that you are defining "Social" as a catchall here:
> i.e. 'Social' play is anything which the players like unless it is
> drama-, game-, or simulation-oriented. I think a "catchall" of this
> sort isn't very useful. On your web-page review, you criticized the
> threefold for having a negative definition for simulation -- but I
> think a catchall like this is even more negatively defined.
Indeed I did. And I don't think that definition would fly for the same
reasons.
But as I said in the opening of this thread, I'm arguing everything just to
make things clear in my own mind.
So, is there a positive definition we can look at?
> An offhand thought here: what about instead having a "Vicarious"
> style? This would be a sort of style where the players identify with
> the PC's and prefer it when things go well for the PC. There still may
> need to be risk of failure and bad things, so that the player can continue
> identifying with the PC. This isn't neccessarily a good explanation of
> the concept, I am just thinking out loud.
How do we tell this apart from the concept of 'Aiming you story to please
your audience' or do we specifically say that Drama is only viewed from the
GM's eyes?
Brian Gleichman
news:3B1DF4CB...@erlf.siemens.de...
> Maybe a "social" axis could be defined along the lines of 'player/group
> preferences take precedence over story, world or fair challenge', but in
> this case the example isn't too useful IMO because it focuses only on
> one player and the GM, leaving the rest of the group out.
Way back when, I argued that Social had to be the layer that determined
where a group operated on the Threefold in the first place, and thus
modeling it there wouldn't as it alone has the ability to alter the other
corners.
If we go in that direction, shouldn't we make note of the existence of this
higher level of control?
> Plus, I doubt the usefulness of a "social" category. One main advantage
> of the threefold is IMO that you can tell a new player (who's familiar
> with it) "we're playing heavy dramatist here", and she'll know what to
> expect. But what should "we're playing for social reasons here [that
> sounds patently stupid, but 'socialist' would be completely wrong and I
> can't think of a good word right now]" mean? The speaker would propably
> mean "to have a good time" or, "to do something with our friends". But
> the new player wouldn't be any wiser.
Wouldn't they?
I'd take it as a game that wanders with lots of non-related table talk and
little attention paid to the other threefold values.
That tells much just about as much as the term Gamist, which after all can
describe campaigns ranging from Hack and Slash to Mechanical-less solve the
murder mysteries.
And remember, the Threefold is about individual decisions first and campaign
descriptions second.
Brian Gleichman
news:3B1D2A85...@webamused.com...
> Would you really claim that it was an awful story, as opposed to a
> good story that you didn't like?
Must be net lag because I answered this before. I'm not really making the
claim, I'm arguing a point to make the Social corner concept clear to me.
However, here's a more complete answer from my actual POV- depends.
With respect to books and movies...
In reality if I hated it to a great enough extent, I wouldn't be able to
judge it on it's own merits. Most of the time however I would just say that
it's a movie I didn't like and leave the judgment of 'good' up to the next
person who actual cares about moves.
Now on the game front, yes I would consider it an awful rpg event. The GM
has forced things onto a path that I didn't agree with and had no chance to
prevent. This viewpoint shouldn't be surprising or outrageous for a
self-declared Gamist player.
But all that wasn't that isn't my point.
Does or does not the Drama corner have the option to pitch it's stories such
that they are both good *and* liked by the players.
Or must it only pitch towards 'good' stories in which the GM couldn't care
less about the fact that players like or dislike it.
Robert Scott Clark
>Brian Gleichman wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>>
>> Consider the following example:
>>
>> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
>> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
>> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
>> the Empire State building. End of character.
>>
>> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
>> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
>> turn out better and her character survives.
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Ok everyone, vote time (except those who hate the Threefold in the first
>> place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of flys
>> or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
>>
>> And of course, your reason for your opinion.
>
>
>Just some not-quite-formed opinions:
>
>I don't see the action as motivated by any of the threefold styles, but
>rather a metagame thing, comparable to "we'll play the encounter with
>the villain next week, because everyone is tired today".
>
>The "social" category seems -- for me -- to reach pretty far into
>out-of-game concerns, being more of a different level than a different
>corner, so I'm not really comfortable with it.
Here's the thing though, that's what it's supposed to do. If I'm
still not out in left field here, they purpose is to describe the GM's
decision making process. This process might include metagame
concerns. In order for all decisions to be present, the model needs
to include such metagame concerns. At present it does not (with the
exception of the small subset included in the game corner)
Robert Scott Clark
But the simulationist corner fails that one also. They aren't
concerned with what happens in the world, so much as what decision
making process is used to determine what happens. The decision
making process is a metagame concern.
Peter Knutsen
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Brian Gleichman <bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : I was working on the r.g.f.a section of my Threefold debate page and reached
> : a point where I need to decide where I stand on a specific issue. The oft
> : considered Social Corner.
>
> [snip]
>
> Would this also include such concepts as how much tolerance there
> is for out-of-character table talk? If the players view the game
I've been thinking that in addition to the Threefold model there
should be an axis which measures Seriousness, i.e. how serious you
are about the game. Whether the most important thing to you is the
game or the socializing with the other players. Whether you role-
play because you love roleplaying, or if you wouldn't mind doing
something other than rolelpaying with the other players.
Of course this suggests that roleplayers are divided into two
categories, the casuals/slackers/sloppies and the Serious Elite(tm).
The Serious Elite(tm) doesn't have to fit anywhere special in the
Threefold Model. They can be Dramatists, Simulationsts, Gamists
or somewhere in between.
But I think the huge realization is that just as the majority of
roleplayers are Dramatists and most of the rest are Gamists, the
majority of roleplayers are sloppies. They don't really take
their game very seriously and they're intimidated by us, the Elite
minority who keeps talking and thinking and analyzing and thinking,
and if their groups breaks up then they're likely to just stop
roleplaying, whereas an Elite roleplayer would in such a case
attempt to find a new group (an Elite roleplayer aware of the
Threefold Model would try to find a group which matches his or
her style).
This observation is quite explosive, I'm aware of that, but
unfortunately it's the truth.
> as a social event, they might tolerate a lot more cracking of
> out of character jokes, or drifting into side topics. I think
> *that* might make sense to be another fold of the n-fold thingy,
> but not the example you gave. Why? Because your example was
No, the reason for adding a fourth fold to the model is that the
preference of this fourth fold is somehow opposite to the other three
folds.
If you make your game more Dramatist, it by definition becomes less
Simulationist. It cannot avoid becoming less Simulationist. This is
why the three axes of the Threefold can be combined into a 2D triangle.
> simply a matter of altering the game to give the player the kind of
> game she wants, which is what the whole model is about in the first
> place. I would say that (for example) adding extra plot elements
> to a story-based group (because you know they want it as players),
> is just as much a social player issue as deciding not to kill a
> character for the player's sake. And viewing it that way, player
> social concerns end up being one meta-level above the rest of the
> n-fold model. They are the main reason for looking at the model
> in the first place.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Ingeborg Denner wrote:
> Just some not-quite-formed opinions:
>
> I don't see the action as motivated by any of the threefold styles, but
> rather a metagame thing, comparable to "we'll play the encounter with
> the villain next week, because everyone is tired today".
If what happens is that the GM decides that they will cease playing
for the evening, and resume playing next week, then it is a case of
a metagame prefernece which has no impact on the actual game.
[...]
> Plus, I doubt the usefulness of a "social" category. One main advantage
> of the threefold is IMO that you can tell a new player (who's familiar
> with it) "we're playing heavy dramatist here", and she'll know what to
> expect. But what should "we're playing for social reasons here [that
Actually, I'd appreciate to be told that a group I'm about to join
was playing for social reasons. Because then I'd run like hell.
> sounds patently stupid, but 'socialist' would be completely wrong and I
> can't think of a good word right now]" mean? The speaker would propably
> mean "to have a good time" or, "to do something with our friends". But
> the new player wouldn't be any wiser.
I *would* be wiser, after having been told that.
> inge
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>
> Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Well, then that even more backs up the notion that the social aspect
> >of gaming has nothing to do with your n-fold model. Because it *is*
> >mostly a meta-game concept, and you seem to imply above that your
> >n-fold model should have nothing to do with metagame concerns.
>
> But the simulationist corner fails that one also. They aren't
> concerned with what happens in the world, so much as what decision
> making process is used to determine what happens. The decision
> making process is a metagame concern.
No. The Simulationist decision making process is by definition
free of metagame concerns. The decision making process, if it's
Simulationist, takes only into account the properties of the
in-world objects.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> How do we tell this apart from the concept of 'Aiming you story to please
> your audience' or do we specifically say that Drama is only viewed from the
> GM's eyes?
I see the Threefold as having to do with priorities and expectations.
A Dramatist player expects the GM to try to create a "good" story,
which implies lots of metagame notions such as that the Hero(tm)
must not die before reaching the end of the story and other such...
Likewise a Gamist player would expect the GM to present him and the
other players with situations in which the players can apply their
own (player) skills.
And a Simulationist player would expect the GM to strictly resolve
the in-world conflicts without taking metagame issues into
consideration.
> --
> Brian Gleichman
--
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark
>
>The Serious Elite(tm) doesn't have to fit anywhere special in the
>Threefold Model. They can be Dramatists, Simulationsts, Gamists
>or somewhere in between.
>
>But I think the huge realization is that just as the majority of
>roleplayers are Dramatists and most of the rest are Gamists, the
>majority of roleplayers are sloppies. They don't really take
>their game very seriously and they're intimidated by us, the Elite
>minority who keeps talking and thinking and analyzing and thinking,
I'm not sure if you mean it this way, but this is very inflamatory.
It implies that just because people play casually, they do not think
about their games.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>Actually, I'd appreciate to be told that a group I'm about to join
>was playing for social reasons. Because then I'd run like hell.
Here's a big assumption clash. You don't really "join" a "group" that
is playing for social reasons. You are part of a group of friends,
and decide to play with them. One thing I have noticed is people
here speaking of a "gaming group" which is something I have never been
a part of.
Robert Scott Clark
A decision making process is, itself, metagame. Being concerned with
it is therefore a metagame concern.
James C. Ellis
>
> It seems to me that we need to answer the question of corner ownership
> I've raised in two other posts before we can tackle and decide this
> point. Is something still Story driven when the GM alters it so that
> the players are happier with the outcome?
Well, I'd say that that was a Social decision. Look at the driving
intent; to increase _player_ satisfaction. If the intent was to make a
"better story" or to increase GM satisfaction, I'd consider that a
Story-driven decision.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Corley
> But I think the huge realization is that just as the majority of
> roleplayers are Dramatists and most of the rest are Gamists, the
> majority of roleplayers are sloppies.
I dispute that "the majority of roleplayers are Dramatists and the rest
are Gamists" (I think the terms are nearly meaningless), but I agree that
most gamers don't take the hobby very seriously. Just like with any hobby.
> They don't really take
> their game very seriously and they're intimidated by us,
Bullshit. I'm a sloppy player and GM and I think it's hilarious the
overanalytical depths to which self-appointed "Elites" will dive.
> the Elite
> minority who keeps talking and thinking and analyzing and thinking,
> and if their groups breaks up then they're likely to just stop
> roleplaying, whereas an Elite roleplayer would in such a case
> attempt to find a new group (an Elite roleplayer aware of the
> Threefold Model would try to find a group which matches his or
> her style).
I would also try to find a new group. However, this does not make me 733T,
(which is really what you mean when you write "Elite"), it just means I
enjoy gaming.
James C. Ellis
>
> "Ingeborg Denner" <Ingebor...@erlf.siemens.de> wrote in message
> news:3B1DF4CB...@erlf.siemens.de...
>
> > Maybe a "social" axis could be defined along the lines of
> > 'player/group preferences take precedence over story, world or fair
> > challenge', but in this case the example isn't too useful IMO
> > because it focuses only on one player and the GM, leaving the rest
> > of the group out.
>
> Way back when, I argued that Social had to be the layer that
> determined where a group operated on the Threefold in the first place,
> and thus modeling it there wouldn't as it alone has the ability to
> alter the other corners.
I can see that, and empathize with that position, but what about the
(possibly rare, possibly not) times where you overrule all of the other
inputs to satisfy a particular player(s)?
F'rinstance, we have a hypothetical case where World, Story, and Game
Rules all point to the death of a character, but the GM knows that
killing that character at that moment will drive the player out of the
game and kill the campaign.
This is a case of metagame-affecting-game, but as a point effect, it
doesn't really reflect a change in the overall Threefold preferences.
(That characterizes the influence of the Social in my campaigns;
always short-term, and influencing a single event or plot. It doesn't
have the same constant tension that the rest of the Threefold parameters
exert.)
James C. Ellis
>
> I'm running my typical gamist campaign with heavy focus on tactical
> play but with new (to my campaign) players. Thing went well for a
> while until the players ran out of patience and demanded that treasure
> and advancement rates were increased. In short, they were of a gamist
> school that valued resource management more than tactical play.
>
> Now I could have given in and altered my campaign to be more like
> their desires (in real life I declined their request and the campaign
> ended) and it would have still undeniable been a gamist campaign, just
> of a difference subtype than my preference. This seems to meet the
> case of altering a campaign and events in it (in this case treasure
> and advancement) in order to create a better experience for the
> players.
>
> Is this a case of Social Concerns overriding Gamist ones?
Yes and No.
If it just alters your Threefold positioning, I would consider it
metagame-affecting-metagame, which would not change (IMM) your overall
Gamist leanings.
If it causes you to reassess the amount of treasure given out *at the
moment the complaint is raised*, then I would consider it
metagame-affecting-game, and *that* decision was made for Social
concerns.
I think that we are in danger of letting too much purely metagame
stuff creep into the mix here. Purely metagame stuff - like the amount
of OC chat, where the game is played, etc. - is not a Threefold concern,
Social though it may be.
Leszek Karlik
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
>> Yes, I think a Social Corner is needed. I played in predominantly
>> social games
>Interesting. Do you run the game or play?
At first I played, then I ran some games, but then I've stopped
because I tended more towards the simulationist angle and the
group didn't like that, so we just stopped playing.
>Brian Gleichman
Leslie
--
Proszę wyłączyć UseNet, muszę zacząć się uczyć na sesję.
Hal
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'm running my typical gamist campaign with heavy focus on tactical play but
>with new (to my campaign) players. Thing went well for a while until the
>players ran out of patience and demanded that treasure and advancement rates
>were increased. In short, they were of a gamist school that valued resource
>management more than tactical play.
>
>Now I could have given in and altered my campaign to be more like their
>desires (in real life I declined their request and the campaign ended) and
>it would have still undeniable been a gamist campaign, just of a difference
>subtype than my preference. This seems to meet the case of altering a
>campaign and events in it (in this case treasure and advancement) in order
>to create a better experience for the players.
>
>Is this a case of Social Concerns overriding Gamist ones?
Yep.
>If so, does one now define much of the modified campaign as Social instead
>of Gamist?
"Instead" suggests that there is no middle ground. Warren's
and your campaigns not withstanding, there *is* a middle
ground.
As far as I can see the above decision would make your
campaign at least 1% social by showing that you're willing
to accomodate the players.
In light of this view, the vast majority of games are *at
least potentially* social, simply because most GMs are bound
to compromise the other axes if something extreme happens at
the social corner, so to speak (e.g. the GM unwittingly
steps on a player's personal problems: very few people will
ignore a player in tears -- especially if it's a
face-to-face game. They might not invite the player again,
though, and even retcon the social decisions.)
Theoretically, we are thus stuck with defining games only in
retrospect (e.g., 43% of decisions where the corners
conflicted were decided in favor of gamism).
In practice, we can make predictions, of course. For
instance, Warren's game will probably be 100% simulationist,
as it is very unlikely that there will be a player in tears
(prompting a social decision) or an overpoweringly
attractive story-opportunity (prompting a dramatist
decision) etc.
*-*-*
Two notes:
(1) Many decisions do not lead to a conflict between the
corners, but are equally acceptable to all four aesthetics
(even if made for the sake of only one).
(2) It seems to me that a decison catering to the social
corner will often feel less 'clean' than a gamist or
simulationist decision.
Let me try to explain...
(1) Social decisions may be less than clean-cut because - by
the very nature of the social corner - you are often
negotiating a compromise between several people.
(2) Gamist/Simulationist decisions will seem clean when they
are made by falling back on the rules or the vision of the
world (if available).
(3) Story decisions are probably just as difficult as social
ones unless the GM has a strong vision of how to handle
things. Cf. people's disagreement on what makes a good
story.
*-*-*
Regards, Hal
Brian Gleichman
news:3B1E50C2...@knutsen.dk...
> I see the Threefold as having to do with priorities and expectations.
> A Dramatist player expects the GM to try to create a "good" story,
And there in is the problem.
GM thinks Story #1 is best, Player A thinks Story #2 is best, Player C
thinks Story #3 is best.
Is the resolution of that conflict and the selection of a Story a Social
matter? Only a Social Matter if the GM doesn't get his way? Never a Social
matter as the result is always a Story arrived at by someone's Story
concerns?
Feel free to replace Story above with Game at any point. I'm not certain one
could sub Simulation...
So far most people posting in this thread seem to favor defining the above
as part of a Social corner, but in so doing I think we are defining the
other corners as true only when the decision is made by owner without
reference to anyone else. Is that really what we want to do?
And then there is the matter that I feel Game must be defined in terms of
player skill, which hoses the whole concept of 'only from the perspective of
the owner'.
Brian Gleichman
news:slrn9hth3g...@fnord.ideefixe.com.pl...
> >> Yes, I think a Social Corner is needed. I played in predominantly
> >> social games
> >Interesting. Do you run the game or play?
> At first I played, then I ran some games, but then I've stopped
> because I tended more towards the simulationist angle and the
> group didn't like that, so we just stopped playing.
Interesting.
Would you consider the Social phase of the game to match Peter's non-serious
play description in another post?
Brian Gleichman
news:3B1E74...@cadvision.com...
> I can see that, and empathize with that position, but what about the
> (possibly rare, possibly not) times where you overrule all of the other
> inputs to satisfy a particular player(s)?
It's the case of a controlling influence stepping in and modifying things.
It would be like cooking a stew, you've settled on the recipe in use and
normally follow it. If however something on the stove breaks (the equal of a
story driving a player away), you fix the store. The recipe remains
unchanged until you decide that you want something different.
In this example, the Threefold is obviously the recipe while Social is the
cook and meta-game issues are represented by the stove.
> (That characterizes the influence of the Social in my campaigns;
> always short-term, and influencing a single event or plot. It doesn't
> have the same constant tension that the rest of the Threefold parameters
> exert.)
This matches my experience quite well.
Brian Gleichman
> If it causes you to reassess the amount of treasure given out *at the
> moment the complaint is raised*, then I would consider it
> metagame-affecting-game, and *that* decision was made for Social
> concerns.
So you'd limit the Social Axis only to short term effects, even if that
immediate decision became the future trend of the game?
I find that counter-intuitive.
> I think that we are in danger of letting too much purely metagame
> stuff creep into the mix here. Purely metagame stuff - like the amount
> of OC chat, where the game is played, etc. - is not a Threefold concern,
> Social though it may be.
It definitely takes the Threefold into a play where it hasn't been before.
And I do consider it a good question if anything is to be gained by it.
Steve Mading
: One possible contender is systems mechanics like Deadlands which reward a
: player with a fate chip (think in-game experience/event modifier) when they
: cause the table to burst into laughter. A number of games do this
: mechanically, and I've seen a number of GMs change the course of an event
: (without the use of mechanics) as a result of such things too. Heck, so have
: I on rare occasions.
I was under the impression that the fate chip for laughter was for
stuff said IN character only though. That clearly places it into
the story category, as a mechanic to encourage a humourous
storytelling. (Last night I was in a DL game - got a chip for
saying "No, thanks... I don't like guns.. they're dangerous.",
which is funny given that my character was a hexslinging kid who
played with stuff far more dangerous on a regular basis, and has
frequently backlashed with it, and the party members were trying
to get him to use a gun instead because a kid with a gun is less
scary than a kid casting a hex.)
: However...
: Is this again a case of the GM altering events in order to entertain his
: audience in much the same fashion as oral story tellers have done since the
: dawn of time? If so, isn't this a story method properly covered by the Drama
: Corner?
Again, I say it's a story thing, due to the fact that it's for
IN-character jokes. If a chip gets awarded for OUT of character
joking, then maybe that would be a social thing, about the player
interaction.
Joshua Macy
>
>
>
> Must be net lag because I answered this before.
Yep. Sorry.
>
> Or must it only pitch towards 'good' stories in which the GM couldn't care
> less about the fact that players like or dislike it.
>
Only to the same extent that the simulationist GM couldn't care less
about whether the players like or dislike the simulation. That is to
say, for a purist, yes, but that's why there are very few purists for
any of the corners.
Joshua
Steve Mading
: Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
:>
:>Actually, I'd appreciate to be told that a group I'm about to join
:>was playing for social reasons. Because then I'd run like hell.
: Here's a big assumption clash. You don't really "join" a "group" that
: is playing for social reasons. You are part of a group of friends,
: and decide to play with them. One thing I have noticed is people
: here speaking of a "gaming group" which is something I have never been
: a part of.
One can mutate into the other. When I first moved to the city I
live in now one of the things I did was to go down to the gaming
store and check the bulletin board for gaming groups. I figured
that if I picked the right sort of group I'd probably find some
people who were also like minded on other leasure activities,
and make a few friends that way. It worked out quite well in
the long run.
Steve Mading
: No, the reason for adding a fourth fold to the model is that the
: preference of this fourth fold is somehow opposite to the other three
: folds.
: If you make your game more Dramatist, it by definition becomes less
: Simulationist. It cannot avoid becoming less Simulationist. This is
: why the three axes of the Threefold can be combined into a 2D triangle.
I hadn't realized that that was a part of the model. In that
case I disagree with it's validity. While there *can* be
conflict between the three styles, I don't agree that such
conflict is inevitable - it depends a lot on what situations
you happen to encounter in the course of gameplay. An X-ist
model doesn't *necessarily* have to become less X-ist just
because a Y-ist element was added. It *usually* will, but I
wouldn't go so far as to say it *must*.
Robert Scott Clark
Brian Gleichman
> > Or must it only pitch towards 'good' stories in which the GM couldn't
care
> > less about the fact that players like or dislike it.
>
> Only to the same extent that the simulationist GM couldn't care less
> about whether the players like or dislike the simulation. That is to
> say, for a purist, yes, but that's why there are very few purists for
> any of the corners.
I don't think simulation can be liked or disliked, but only agreed or
disagreed with. Somehow I think the difference is important...
...perhaps because one could more easily forgive a sub-par story, but a
break in perceived simulation could destroy reality?
That may be completely off. I think it might be better to ask one of the
simulationists about this point.
Brian Gleichman
> I was under the impression that the fate chip for laughter was for
> stuff said IN character only though.
Likely so given the wording in book, if it's not I'd have to rule (assuming
that I used that specific reward, which I don't) that was in order to
prevent even more distractions than I have now.
However I don't see this as a difference. Such things, while amusing to the
audience, are almost never funny to any of the characters in the game. To
me, that's playing to the meta-game.
But then one could say that the entire Drama corner plays to the meta-game.
So maybe it fits after all. Although I'd still have to say it's a bad rule
for that specific genre (unless you want the game to turn to camp).
Brian Gleichman
> : If you make your game more Dramatist, it by definition becomes less
> : Simulationist. It cannot avoid becoming less Simulationist. This is
> : why the three axes of the Threefold can be combined into a 2D triangle.
>
> I hadn't realized that that was a part of the model. In that
> case I disagree with it's validity.
The concept of the model is that any individual decision could be acceptable
for one or more of the corners. For example, most gamist decisions during a
resolution point would be quite acceptable to a simulationist.
Peter is speaking more of the weight of the many decisions that make up a
campaign. A lean towards one corner over the long haul will determine the
campaigns character in the sense that a tilt towards making more decisions
on the basis of (for example) Game requirements means that there less
decisions available to be made by other concerns.
Assuming of course that the number of decision remain constant.
Robert Scott Clark
>...perhaps because one could more easily forgive a sub-par story, but a
>break in perceived simulation could destroy reality?
This betrays a bias. A simulationist would forgive a sub-par story
more easily, and maybe so would you, but a dramatist would not.
That's what makes him a dramatist instead of a simulationist.
Zoran Bekric
<7y3T6.6881$XN6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
> You go on to claim Story as art. Who's art?
>
> I didn't like Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (I hate tragic movies) and other
> people were wild about it.
Are you then suggesting that "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" isn't a story?
Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, allow me to suggest that
if you're going to define "story" as "that which is enjoyable to me" then I
really don't see how that helps matters. If you happen to like chocolate-
flavoured ice cream, then chocolate-flavoured ice cream becomes a Story and
if you don't like "The Hobbit" then "The Hobbit" isn't a Story. Such a usage
would seem to be at odds with the accepted meaning of "story".
There are a range of established aesthetics, from Aristotle's "Poetics" to
Syd Field's "Screenplay", and if a game is deliberately trying to produce a
narrative that conforms to the standards set by one of these aesthetics then
it can legitimately be described as attempting to do Story as Art rather
than just producing a Story as accidental narrative.
This doesn't mean that a game that isn't working within the strictures of an
established aesthetic isn't trying to produce a story -- it may or may not
be -- but I think it is safe to say that a game that is deliberately working
within such strictures is trying to tell a story as defined by the
appropriate aesthetic.
This means that it is possible to recognise a narrative as a story even if
one doesn't like it personally or doesn't care for the aesthetic from which
it springs. It also means that other people can also reach the same
conclusion, regardless of their personal likes and dislikes.
To be fair, this is what you seem to do in your next comment:
> If a Story based GM pitched that specific one to me as a player, I would
> think it was a awful Story. Completely worthless. Heck, I'd likely leave the
> game. Another player in the game may have loved it.
You may regard "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" as an "awful Story", but you
do seem to recognise it as a story.
Regards,
Zoran
______________________________________________________________
"Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee,
and just as hard to sleep after."
-- Anne Morrow Lindbergh
Zoran Bekric
> Since I'm on the fence here, I'm going to play both sides against the middle
> for a while and argue from both points. I'm not actually disagreeing with
> anyone in this thread, rather I'm just exploring.
In that spirit allow me to offer the following:
Yes there should be a Social Axis. Why? Because none of the other three axes
take the desires of the players into account, so any decision made on the
basis of what the player(s) want wouldn't fit into any of the other corners.
As I understand it, the basis for assigning something to a specific corner
is the basis on which a decision is made. To wit:
* If the decision is made on the basis of what would make for a better
STORY, then it is Dramatist.
* If the decision is made on the basis of what would be most true for
the WORLD or CHARACTER, then it is Simulationist.
* If the decision is made on the basis of what would make for a better
CHALLENGE or lead to a more interesting RESOLUTION POINT, then it is
Gamist.
Note that none of the three make any mention of Players. It seems entirely
possible to apply any of the three criteria whithout any reference to
players at all. For example, someone writing a RPG senario for publication
can make a series of decisions along the way about how to present and
structure elements and situations in the scenario on the basis of Drama,
Simulation or Game concerns without ever once having to encounter players or
their desires. All that matters is Story, World or Resolution Points.
As such, if a decision is made that takes the actual preferences, desires,
likes and dislikes of the players into account, it falls outside all three
other corners and would justify a new vertix, thus:
* If the decision is made on the basis of what the PLAYERS would like or
enjoy, then it is Socialist.
Of course, it could be argued that all the other corners represent versions
of what different players want. This would mean that they are all just
subsets of the Social Axis and that the only games that aren't part of the
Social Axis are those run by GMs who maintain that the way their doing
things is absolutely right and if their players can't see that it's because
the players are stupid, selfish, disruptive, etc. I think it would be
legitimate to describe such GMs as anti-Social.
Zoran Bekric
> Consider the following example:
>
> Jane Smith's character has found herself in a pickle. Under the normal
> consider of any of the threefold corners in this campaign, her character is
> about to get capped by the big bad villain and then tossed off the top of
> the Empire State building. End of character.
>
> However Jane has had a depressing bad week and the GM decides that he
> doesn't have the heart to add to it. He arranges things such that things
> turn out better and her character survives.
>
> From where I set, there are two ways to look at this:
>
> 1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
>
> OR
>
> 2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
> the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
Why wouldn't this be considered a Game based decision?
I mean, how does the GM know that Jane has had a depressing bad week?
Presumably because she (i) told the GM and/or (ii) she's giving off
depressed vibes (slumped shoulders, listless expression, difficulty in
summoning any enthusiasm for the game, etc.). Why did Jane tell the GM of
her troubles? Why isn't she trying to maintain a facade of "everything's
okay with me"?
Jane could be stressing her "bad week", either consciously or unconsciously,
as a way to manipulate the GM into giving her a break and sparing her
character. If that's the case, then events in the game (whether Jane's
character lives or dies) is being decided by player skill (Jane's ability to
manipulate the GM and elicit sympathy), rather than character actions. That
fits the definition of the Gamist corner of the three-fold. And, for
whatever it's worth, such behaviour is referred to as "game playing" when it
occurs outside of RPGs.
It's a Game based decision because Jane played the Sympathy card very
effectively and the GM had no good defence.
Why automatically assume that it's a Story based decision when there doesn't
seem to be anything story oriented about it?
Wayne Shaw
<mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
It's also complex. For all the fact I consider them fairly good
friends, I don't do much with most of my gaming group outside of
gaming. We usually chat a bit about non-gaming subjects before we get
started, but we don't actually see each other outside of games (this
isn't true for all members of the group, mind you; just me and them).
Of course, I'm semi-antisocial anyway, and don't see most other people
outside of a work environment very often, either.
Hal
<zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>As I understand it, the basis for assigning something to a specific corner
>is the basis on which a decision is made. To wit:
[snip]
Exactly. The model is first and foremost about GM decisions.
Whether it can be extended to players (what is a dramatist
player, anyway?) is another issue.
> * If the decision is made on the basis of what the PLAYERS would like or
> enjoy, then it is Socialist.
>
>Of course, it could be argued that all the other corners represent versions
>of what different players want. This would mean that they are all just
>subsets of the Social Axis and that the only games that aren't part of the
>Social Axis are those run by GMs who maintain that the way their doing
>things is absolutely right and if their players can't see that it's because
>the players are stupid, selfish, disruptive, etc. I think it would be
>legitimate to describe such GMs as anti-Social.
Hmm. That sounds too negative for my tastes.
After all, the GM merely takes a take-it-or-leave-it
approach. As long as this doesn't come as a painful surprise
to the players in the middle of the game, I think it's a
valid approach (not least because the GM usually does most
of the 'work').
[Such a GM would not label dissatisified players as 'stupid,
selfish, disruptive', but merely as having come to the game
with the wrong expectations. A problem of communication, not
one of anti-social or selfish people.]
Regards, Hal
Brian Gleichman
news:B7454085.EBFB%zbe...@dingoblue.net.au...
> Why wouldn't this be considered a Game based decision?
A person could make that argument.
However in doing so we've moved the definition of Game-based from the common
idea of a game bound test of skill (maneuver well in combat, handle
resources properly, solve the mystery) to a pure meta-game test of non-game
related skills. In so doing, we run the risk of running over the other
corners. After all, isn't a good story really nothing more than a nice
mind-game to make other people approve of what you're saying? That's how
writers slip in social comment.
Brian Gleichman
news:3b1f3e31...@news.rwth-aachen.de...
> Exactly. The model is first and foremost about GM decisions.
> Whether it can be extended to players (what is a dramatist
> player, anyway?) is another issue.
I've never seen a good argument as to why it wouldn't apply to players
unless you consider them not to make decisions.
Brian Gleichman
> Yes there should be a Social Axis. Why? Because none of the other three
axes
> take the desires of the players into account
Actually the FAQ is silent on the issue, and that silence leaves the
question open. I can easily see Story and Game taking into account player
desires, Simulation however must reject such influence.
The question is, in order for a Social Axe to exist must we define all the
other corners as rejecting Player desires. And does the benefits of adding a
Social Axes outweigh whatever problems such a redefinition causes.
Altin Gavranovic
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Now I could have given in and altered my campaign to be more like their
>desires (in real life I declined their request and the campaign ended) and
>it would have still undeniable been a gamist campaign, just of a difference
>subtype than my preference. This seems to meet the case of altering a
>campaign and events in it (in this case treasure and advancement) in order
>to create a better experience for the players.
>
>Is this a case of Social Concerns overriding Gamist ones?
Yes.
The same applies for two dramatists with conflicting ideas of 'story'
who compromise their asthetics in order to be able to play with each
other. The same would, I should think, apply for two simulationists
with conflicting world visions.
>If so, does one now define much of the modified campaign as Social instead
>of Gamist?
Not if you're looking for a functional model. What this would create
is not a 'social' corner but rather a 'compromise' corner, which
wouldn't be very helpfull.
An additional corner is needed only if scenarios exist in which the
current model fails to reflect the goals or concerns which drive the
decision. To my mind, these may include:
1)A situation arrises where the murder (or other harming) of a PC by
another PC would create a better story, be true to the game-world and
create a fair challenge (or otherwise benefit the Gamist corner) but
it does not occur.
Another aspect of this is where one PC should (according to threefold
concerns) take direct control over another (by mind-control, usually)
and this is not allowed to happen.
These are both common enough situations that their lack of
representation in the model are a rather major difficulty.
2) Game types not covered by the threefold. Most outstandingly (from
my perspective as an Australian roleplayer) the angst-cathart game
which places the focus on the experience of the *player* and
undermines story, consistancy or challenge in order to achieve said.
This type of game could theoretically fit to a corner which revolves
around the concerns of the effect of the game on the players. This
would, I believe, also extend to cover (1). I know this sounds a
little broad and more than a little meta-game influcence, but
hopefully it serves to illustrate what I'm saying.
Additionally, the creation of a Social corner would probably require a
redefinition of metagame as most of what could potentially be put into
this corner is currently instead placed under the metagame heading.
Yours,
Altin
Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter.
Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
- Samuel Beckett
Athanasia Steele
<zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Why wouldn't this be considered a Game based decision?
<snip>
It has been, in the past. It's traditional to cram the Social
concerns into whichever corner is least defended at the moment. :)
I've more or less given up on the Threefold, but I'd prefer not to
have to deal with people insisting that I when I made a decision that
was obviously bad for the story in order to accommodate a player, I
did it because it was good for the story. I may have to develop an
official ceremonial way of smacking people who tell me that. (Maybe
I could collaborate with Bradd on it. He could use it on people who
insist he is too telling a story. :)
--
Athanasia Steele
airaz...@mail.com.clip
http://azurite.betterbox.net/
Remove '.clip' from address to send email.
Irina Rempt
> I can easily see Story and Game taking into account player
> desires, Simulation however must reject such influence.
I beg to differ. It's perfectly possible to run a world-oriented game
but to choose *which* parts of the world to present to the players
(according to their preferences, for instance) without doing any harm
to the world orientation. There are places in Valdyas where I
wouldn't take my current players, even though things are happening
there; they like it where they are.
World orientation doesn't mean you have to show everything; just that
the things you do show have to be as faithful to the in-world reality
as possible.
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org http://www.valdyas.org/irina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Caution: breathing may be hazardous to your health. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Ellis
>
> "James C. Ellis" <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> news:3B1E77...@cadvision.com...
>
[re: switching from one Gamist orientation to another Gamist one
midstream to satisfy the players]
> > If it causes you to reassess the amount of treasure given out *at
> > the moment the complaint is raised*, then I would consider it
> > metagame-affecting-game, and *that* decision was made for Social
> > concerns.
>
> So you'd limit the Social Axis only to short term effects, even if
> that immediate decision became the future trend of the game?
>
> I find that counter-intuitive.
Not precisely. Where does the need of the GM to satisfy the players
(the Social force) impact the game? Only for that particular decision,
causing the GM to change his adjudication.
Thereafter, the GM is once again adjudicating according to a
pre-determined set of Gamist parameters, even if they are different
parameters than the ones he used prior to the Social influx.
To regard this differently, I think, is to dilute any possible Social
influence beyond the point of usability. I don't know about you, but I
try to anticipate player preferences when I 'set' the initial Threefold
balance, so if I were to regard a long-term change in balance caused by
a Social need to be a Social concern, then the whole campaign has been
reduced to a Social concern.
Ecch. Poor explanation.
I suppose what I am arguing is that we have to go back to the original
quantum view of the Threefold. If a *single* decision is affected most
strongly by GM desire to satify player preferences, then *that decision*
was a Social one.
If *a plurality* of decisions are made, without regard to Plot, World
or Game, but solely based upon what the GM feels the player(s) to want
*at that given moment*, then that campaign is a Social one. (Like a
Monty Haul campaign where the next monster to be encountered is chosen
based upon how interesting/fresh it will be to the players, or how well
it would allow them to show off their new gadgets.)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Corley
> "Hal" <Halz...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:3b1f3e31...@news.rwth-aachen.de...
>> Exactly. The model is first and foremost about GM decisions.
>> Whether it can be extended to players (what is a dramatist
>> player, anyway?) is another issue.
> I've never seen a good argument as to why it wouldn't apply to players
> unless you consider them not to make decisions.
I've never seen a reason why it doesn't apply to design and /only/ to
design, because in design, the GM's motivation is both transparent and
omnipotent, two traits it distinctly does not have in play.
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason Corley | le...@aeonsociety.org | ICQ 41199011
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> "Peter Knutsen" <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
> news:3B1E50C2...@knutsen.dk...
>
> > I see the Threefold as having to do with priorities and expectations.
> > A Dramatist player expects the GM to try to create a "good" story,
>
> And there in is the problem.
>
> GM thinks Story #1 is best, Player A thinks Story #2 is best, Player C
> thinks Story #3 is best.
Yes but they all think story is important, whereas I don't care at
all about story. So it's still useful to narrow the priorities
down to story.
> Is the resolution of that conflict and the selection of a Story a Social
> matter? Only a Social Matter if the GM doesn't get his way? Never a Social
> matter as the result is always a Story arrived at by someone's Story
> concerns?
Good question. I'm not a Dramatist so I can't answer it. I could
in theory try to answer Gamist questions because I think I have
a limited understanding of the preference (for instance it's not
news to me that you, in your article, focus on the application
of player skill. That was obvious for me from about the time I
first read the Threefold, back in 99) whereas Dramatism seems
utterly confused and unfocused to me.
> Feel free to replace Story above with Game at any point. I'm not certain one
> could sub Simulation...
I think you can. For instance two Simulationists might disagree
about what makes good character creation rules. One simulationist
would prefer a very weak impact of attributes on skill learning
speed (as in CORPS) while another would prefer a stronger impact
(as in FFRE or Quest FRP).
I'm not sure if there exists any Simulationists who actually prefers
the extremes of FUDGE (no impact of attributes on skills) or GURPS
(absurdly high impact of attributes on skills).
> --
> Brian Gleichman
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
You're right about that. There can be situations where a Gamist,
for instance, couldn't care less about what choice was made, so
he'd leave it to the Dramatists and the Simulationists.
But that's the exception, not the rule. And it's important to
emphasize because there are lots of people who say that they don't
make their games less appealing to, say, Simulationists or Gamists
just because they emphasize story. But they do. And they need to
realize that and I believe the best way to help them realize that
is by taking a hard and unforgiving rherotical stance in debates.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> "Joshua Macy" <amu...@webamused.com> wrote in message
> > Only to the same extent that the simulationist GM couldn't care less
> > about whether the players like or dislike the simulation. That is to
> > say, for a purist, yes, but that's why there are very few purists for
> > any of the corners.
>
> I don't think simulation can be liked or disliked, but only agreed or
> disagreed with. Somehow I think the difference is important...
You're right that like and dislike doesn't really enter the
picture, but I'm not sure that the agree/like disagree/dislike
difference is important.
> ...perhaps because one could more easily forgive a sub-par story, but a
> break in perceived simulation could destroy reality?
Depends a bit on what break it is.
If it's just a random but improbable event, it can probably be
forgiven. I'm thinking that the worst crime is to have bad rules,
for instance I'd go nuts if I were to play CORPS and my Agility 2
character learned physical skills at the same speed as another
Agility 5 character. Given the coarseness of the CORPS attribute
scale, I'd find that unacceptable.
As for non-rules simulation, well the crime would be a persistent
series of improbable events. But I think that most Simulationists
would react in character and try to find a cause for the improbable
events, rather than blame the GM.
> That may be completely off. I think it might be better to ask one of the
> simulationists about this point.
In thise case I think it may be best to ask several Simulationists.
Peter Knutsen
Zoran Bekric wrote:
> In that spirit allow me to offer the following:
>
> Yes there should be a Social Axis. Why? Because none of the other three axes
> take the desires of the players into account, so any decision made on the
> basis of what the player(s) want wouldn't fit into any of the other corners.
One would assume that the players would try to find a GM that
shares their preference. Doesn't this solve the prolem?
> As such, if a decision is made that takes the actual preferences, desires,
> likes and dislikes of the players into account, it falls outside all three
> other corners and would justify a new vertix, thus:
>
> * If the decision is made on the basis of what the PLAYERS would like or
> enjoy, then it is Socialist.
Where I come from, the word "socialist" is a strong insult, and I
really think we should use something else.
> Zoran
--
Peter Knutsen
Leszek Karlik
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
>> At first I played, then I ran some games, but then I've stopped
>> because I tended more towards the simulationist angle and the
>> group didn't like that, so we just stopped playing.
>
>Interesting.
>
>Would you consider the Social phase of the game to match Peter's non-serious
>play description in another post?
Yes. In my own model I use 'seriousness' as a vertical axis over the
dramatist/simulationist/gamist triangle. And since I was trying to
move the game more towards the simulationist corner, I tried to
reduce the amount of OOC chatter etc. And failed... oh well. :)
I don't like the Peter's term 'Elite', though, as it has rather
negative conotations IMO.
>Brian Gleichman
Leslie
--
Proszę wyłączyć UseNet, muszę zacząć się uczyć na sesję.
Jason Corley
> But that's the exception, not the rule. And it's important to
> emphasize because there are lots of people who say that they don't
> make their games less appealing to, say, Simulationists or Gamists
> just because they emphasize story. But they do. And they need to
> realize that and I believe the best way to help them realize that
> is by taking a hard and unforgiving rherotical stance in debates.
But that is not what the Threefold says either.
It says that someone who has a preference /against/ Story will dislikes
Stories.
Not that everyone with a preference for game or simulation will dislike
stories.
The Threefold is near to meaningless, in my experience and opinion, but
it's not /that/ meaningless.
Arthur Boff
> nothing to do with "the game" at all - the most obvious is that I try to
> reach "a stopping place" when everyone is getting tired or bored. But this
> is not "GM intent at critical interesting resolution points", and the same
> kind of behavior can be seen on other "axes of the model". ("This episode
> should be wrapping up now, I need to use good pacing here." "The player
> skill I am testing is not stamina. I should stop the game soon in order
> that they and I might be at our best.")
Yes, but people can make similar decisions for very different reasons. My
understanding is that the Threefold is more about the motives behind
GM/player decisions than the actual decisions themselves.
Arthur Boff
> Another example might be "cathartic" games, which if I understand it
> (which I probably don't) are more about putting the players as actors
> into certain emotional states for the sake of experiencing those states
> rather than constructing a story about those emotions (which wouldn't
> have to be felt by the player at all if story were really the goal).
See, for example, Paranoia. It's not really about simulation - Alpha Complex
isn't nearly as detailed as most other campaign settings out there, and
often is merely a backdrop for chaos, it's not about Gamism (since the
players will fail whatever they do), and it's not about story (the plot is 9
times out of 10 abandoned in favour of intra-party killing and accusations
of treason).
Gareth Hanrahan
>
> 1) It's a new Social concern unrelated to the current Threefold corners.
>
> OR
>
> 2) It's actually a Story based decision. The audience would disapprove of
> the current Story track, and it's been adjusted to a better path.
>
>
> place, you guys can find something better to do like pull wings off of
flys
> or something), which do you think it is? Or is it something else.
>
> And of course, your reason for your opinion.
<delurks>
Hmm. Basically, one way of looking at threefold is a way of describing
priorities. Do you value story over tactics? Do you let a particular
inventive use of the game rules override world logic?
In the example you give, we're prioritising a Social concern over other
concerns, which would argue that Social is a valid corner. And I think we've
all seen enough games which were basically a gaggle of geeks messing about
with dice and quoting Monty Python to each other (or sipping a fine liquor
and playing Munchausen) to accept that you can play a game mainly for social
rewards - you're not trying to win or simulate a world or create an
entrancing story, you're just hanging around.
However...I can't think of any games which really emphasise social concerns
over others, apart from maybe some of the comedy games like Land of Og or
something...
Gar
http://www.mytholder.f2s.com
Robert Scott Clark
And there is the biggest problem I have with the threefold. Some
people don't care *how* a decision is made, only what the result is.
Jason Corley
>>> Now, I agree that a lot of times I make decisions for reasons that have
>>> nothing to do with "the game" at all - the most obvious is that I try to
>>> reach "a stopping place" when everyone is getting tired or bored. But this
>>> is not "GM intent at critical interesting resolution points", and the same
>>> kind of behavior can be seen on other "axes of the model". ("This episode
>>> should be wrapping up now, I need to use good pacing here." "The player
>>> skill I am testing is not stamina. I should stop the game soon in order
>>> that they and I might be at our best.")
>>
>>Yes, but people can make similar decisions for very different reasons. My
>>understanding is that the Threefold is more about the motives behind
>>GM/player decisions than the actual decisions themselves.
>>
> And there is the biggest problem I have with the threefold. Some
> people don't care *how* a decision is made, only what the result is.
Furthermore, unless the GM is a Threefold extremist, their decisions are
going to be made for a variety of reasons at a variety of times, thus
making player Threefold preferences (even if the players are all
Threefold extremists too) meaningless.
Contextual, fluid, and subjective descriptions work better.
Hal
<arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>See, for example, Paranoia. It's not really about simulation - Alpha Complex
>isn't nearly as detailed as most other campaign settings out there, and
>often is merely a backdrop for chaos,
But you can try to run the world true to a certain vision of
that world. That's not the usual style, granted, but
certainly a valid option.
>it's not about Gamism (since the
>players will fail whatever they do),
Well, the question is *how* you fail. Provided you can
succeed at some things due to skillful play (e.g. dying
last), gamism can accomodate Paranoia perfectly well.
>and it's not about story (the plot is 9
>times out of 10 abandoned in favour of intra-party killing and accusations
>of treason).
Arguably, that's also 'story'. In fact, last time I played
'Paranoia', it was handled in a dramatist style (the GM
chucking 'interesting' difficulties at the PCs on the spur
of the moment*).
As far as I can see, any of the corners can support just
about any game world, be it TOON, Paranoia, or Tele Tubbies
The RPG.
Regards,
Hal
*This being one of many dramatist approaches, but certainly
not the only or even the predominant one.
Steve Mading
: "Steve Mading" <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:9fme7r$png$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> I was under the impression that the fate chip for laughter was for
:> stuff said IN character only though.
: Likely so given the wording in book, if it's not I'd have to rule (assuming
: that I used that specific reward, which I don't) that was in order to
: prevent even more distractions than I have now.
: However I don't see this as a difference. Such things, while amusing to the
: audience, are almost never funny to any of the characters in the game. To
: me, that's playing to the meta-game.
Then again, so is getting exp for "advancing the plot", which is used
in most systems I've seen. If you want exp rewards to be a purely
realistic in-character thing, then it shouldn't matter whether or not
you succeed at defeating the bad guy, or getting lucky enough to
find the right clue - your character would get just as much learning
from failing as he would from succeeding. If that is your complaint,
then these gamist XP rewards are just as meta-game as the dramatist
XP rewards you mention. Only simulationist XP rewards would be
non-metagame.
: But then one could say that the entire Drama corner plays to the meta-game.
: So maybe it fits after all. Although I'd still have to say it's a bad rule
: for that specific genre (unless you want the game to turn to camp).
Uh, Deadlands IS supposed to be a campy genre. At least that's the
impression I get from the writing style and artwork in the books.
Steve Mading
: "Steve Mading" <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
:> : If you make your game more Dramatist, it by definition becomes less
:> : Simulationist. It cannot avoid becoming less Simulationist. This is
:> : why the three axes of the Threefold can be combined into a 2D triangle.
:>
:> I hadn't realized that that was a part of the model. In that
:> case I disagree with it's validity.
: The concept of the model is that any individual decision could be acceptable
: for one or more of the corners. For example, most gamist decisions during a
: resolution point would be quite acceptable to a simulationist.
Then in that case I'll ignore what Peter said, because he DID use
phrasings such as "cannot avoid", making it sound much more rigid
than it seems you intended.
Steve Mading
: On 6 Jun 2001 23:48:17 GMT, Steve Mading
: <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
Well, the gaming group I am in is atypical in that it has about
30 members. What it really is an intersection of several seperate
games where the gamers all know each other and when one game ends
people migrate to other games or start a new one. While each
game is rather ephemeral, the group as a whole continues on and
when one game ends you know another will take its place somewhere.
At any given time there are about 8 different weekly games running
within the group, where each gamer is participating in a small
subset of those games. (Some play one game a week, some of the
more die-hard play in four or so.) Another atypical thing about
this group is that almost everyone likes to GM, and has done so
a few times at least. This tends to put all the players into a
mode where they are highly sympathetic of the GM.
Now, within this group, not all 30 of them are into doing things
with each other outside of gaming, but some are.
(My figure of 30 is a guess. We haven't counted our number in
quite a while. It has a tendency to grow when nobody's looking.)
Brian Gleichman
news:9fo0nt$s1q$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> > I can easily see Story and Game taking into account player
> > desires, Simulation however must reject such influence.
>
> I beg to differ. It's perfectly possible to run a world-oriented game
> but to choose *which* parts of the world to present to the players
Not related to the question at hand. We're concerned about actual events
that by the rules of simulation *must* be presented to the players. Thus one
may skip over a murder in New York if the players are in Kansas and don't
know or care about the event, however failing to present the murder of close
NPC friend is quite another.
Brian Gleichman
> I think you can. For instance two Simulationists might disagree
> about what makes good character creation rules.
That's a reflection of reality, not a judgement of Simulation as defined by
the Threefold (which only requires the removal of meta-game from decision).
The name for that corners really needs to be changed.
Brian Gleichman
news:slrn9i00mi...@fnord.ideefixe.com.pl...
> Yes. In my own model I use 'seriousness' as a vertical axis over the
> dramatist/simulationist/gamist triangle. And since I was trying to
> move the game more towards the simulationist corner, I tried to
> reduce the amount of OOC chatter etc. And failed... oh well. :)
If 'seriousness' really was a vertical axis over the threefold, any
reduction or increase in OOC chatter would have no effect on the degree of
simulation.
Brian Gleichman
news:9foksl$ntr$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Yes, but people can make similar decisions for very different reasons. My
> understanding is that the Threefold is more about the motives behind
> GM/player decisions than the actual decisions themselves.
You are correct.