Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by ewilen, July 11, 2005, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: Trevis MartinI'm looking at this topic with great hesitation. I read a post on a blog not long ago that mourned the loss of the war of turning the creative agendas according to Ron's big model into identity politics. That is, it is absolutely critical to understand that a person isn't Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist. There are no G, N or S people, there are only instances of play that are G, N, or S.
QuoteSimilarly, how can I tell which CA each person is prioritizing, and whether they might possibly be prioritizing different CA's, except by either (a) asking them, (b) observing a clash in their agendas (analogous to having the ice cream eaters rotate their cones and then watching their reactions), or (c) playing the game myself (which just makes me another ice cream eater)?
Quote from: xenopulseYou're right, my response was more aimed at your second question.I think the ice cream comparison is a bit flawed, because we're talking decision making here. Which is still imperfect when observed from the outside, but has a better chance. It's more like people who choose what car to drive--and then you can guess why one picked a Mustang while another picked a Prius. You might be wrong, but you have some chance.E.g., think back to moments in play when a player had the choice to either show off their skills and/or character power, or make a thematic statement by not doing that. What did they do? When creating a character, are they taking "flaws" in order to buy better powers, or to give thematic openings, or because they seem "appropriate" given the character concept?
QuoteThe primary player in my group is clearly a Gamist, and he has no clashes. How do I know? Because he scolded me for my choice of skills upon leveling. "We have to maximize our potential," he said. "So you should max out your sneaking and hiding, because player B already has the lockpicking and trap finding down." That's a very clear Gamist statement; he thinks about maximizing the group's ability to face challenges.
Quote from: ewilenBankuei, what I think you're saying is that an experienced theorist can recognize GNS modes in person more reliably than an untrained person who is self-identifying. But it's still not entirely clear to me what the theorist is going to be looking for. I suppose the biggest problem for the third-party observer might be distinguishing so-called Vanilla Narrativism from certain forms of Simulationism within a given instance of play, since Vanilla Nar is described as Narrativist play which lacks certain identifying techniques.Note that I can easily see that there would be no difficulty in identifying a mode transition from an instance of Narrativist play, say during character creation, to Sim play later on. But while xenopulse's example contains an overt "symptom" of Gamist preferences, and a gateway into observing coherent Gamist play (such as players engaging in metagame strategizing), I'm at a loss to see how one would identify Vanilla Nar as Nar.
Quote from: ewilenYou write, "I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim." Do you mean my play, or anyone's actual play? Either way, that's a very interesting comment. Do you think it also applies to analysis of game design?