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