GNS, AI, and psychology.
Aaron Blain:
Whoa!
I tossed out an anecdote because the OP fascinated me but stopped short of citing actual play. I didn't mean to present any sort of argument, just to validate the connection between cognitive survival strategies and modes of role-playing.
Forgive me. I would like to participate, but I am not smart enough to navigate this conceptual labyrinth. What exactly are we talking about here?
Permit me to reload my spaghetti cannon.
Could we have some more illustrations drawn from game experiences, however tenuous or imperfect? I'm fascinated that you mention Sim City, and I've often made your same observation. I enjoy the old "The Settlers" myself, watching the little animated guys tote their raw materials around through my meticulous infrastructure.
I have also noted that, amongst my friends, I am the one who feels most compelled to get "the good ending", to produce a result in a video game which reflects my values. For example, I am into Spelunky pretty hardcore right now. If you haven't played it, which you all should, the method of regaining your hit points is rescuing dames who are trapped in the cave and getting them to the exit. After the level ends, she gives you a kiss and says, "My hero!" and you get a heart restored. Sometimes I drop a dame on some spikes and she dies and I feel disappointed. Not because of the hit point. Do you follow me?
You could address this old phenomenon we all know -- I choose in DnD to play "finesse fighters" whose efficacy stems from their investment in their own minds and bodies, rather than being reliant on their possessions. This is clearly my desire to somehow communicate my worldview. This causes my agency in the game to become suboptimal when we drift G-ward. Why do I do this?
And am I the only one who has, separated from his trusted gaming circle, gone straight back to RISK and the like?
Alfryd:
Aaron- I'm sure there was some useful observation on the topic in the anecdote you presented, I probably just wasn't 'keyed in' enough to winkle it out. As for the 'conceptual labyrinth'- I need to get down to nailing down what I think the precise meanings and correlations between cognitive processes and GNS agendas would be, and hopefully give some examples of how an AI would handle these in formal logical terms. If I've been unclear, it's because I don't know exactly what I'm talking about.
As for specific in-game examples: I can probably cite a few, certainly on the subject of video games, but my actual hands-on experience with tabletop RPGs has been fairly limited- maybe a dozen sessions of D&D, CoC, and Advanced Fighting Fantasy down the years (perhaps more if you include things like CCGs or the Milton Bradley HeroQuest.) Most of my interest in tabletop RPG design and rulesets has been theoretical, since video games and game design are sort of my long-term career goal.
The Settlers seems to be another Sim favourite, and off the top of my head I'd probably add Majesty, Stronghold and the Citybuilder series to the list. The Quest for Glory series also seems to have been rather Sim-influenced, in terms of their system of practice-based skill progression, environmental puzzles and enforcing actual time limits on quest deadlines.
On the subject of "good endings" in games, one of the most interesting things I've observed is that Gamists seem to have... unexpected reactions to 'morality incentives'. A friend of mine who enjoys GTA4, for example, deliberately goes out of his way to murder innocent pedestrians, not because he takes any particular pleasure out of the act itself, but because it makes the character's life harder. i.e, when the cops and military get called in to bring him down, that increases the Challenge, and hence the fun.
Conversely, the Thief series of games has a protagonist, Garrett, and is widely considered to encourage moral behaviour in the player when moral behaviour is actually penalised. Using the blackjack or expensive gas arrows to knock out opponents is more difficult (or costly) that simple skewering them on pieces of sharp metal. In other words, because the moral option is harder, it represents more of a challenge, and Gamists rise to the occasion. (The Garrett I played was a murdering psychopath, natch.)
Ron Edwards:
Hi Morgan,
It may be that we've bashed the topic to the limits of where you're currently able to go with it, but that's your call. I do think it's time to review the thread and decide whether it should be let lie, perhaps to serve as a foundation for later ones.
I do want to point out that although I agree each identified Agenda in my model is an expression or application of larger-scale social and possibly psychological phenomena, I discuss each of them only in terms of the specific activity of role-playing (or "table-top," the particular activity focused on at this site). In other words, CCGs, video games, and any number of other hobby gaming activities aren't really accounted for or encompassed by my model, which again, is more about this single limited context for application of Agendas (or failure to do so) than about the sources of the Agendas in the larger picture.
Finally, I want to stress that I really am talking about a social phenomenon, which cannot be summarized as a list of each participant's miniature internal version. I think there's a quantum shift in actual content and definition involved, i.e., I do not think there is an "atomic" notion of Creative Agenda per person (aside from expectations/hopes/fears regarding the group experience), nor do I think smaller-scale aspects of play like a specific Technique or a time-span limited to a single session or scene can be similarly atomized in GNS terms. This is not to slap you down via spouting definitions, but to clarify my outlook so you'll know where some of my posts are coming from.
Best, Ron
Alfryd:
I appreciate that, Ron, and I don't want to dismiss or minimise the significance of social input and reinforcement in the hobby- in particular, I think that the 'mutual exclusiveness' you mention is probably the result of social feedback, insofar as useful group cooperation requires a consistent, strong agenda in order to work. In other words, social interactions are the reason why you don't see a full spectrum of coherent, fun, Group-CAs within the 'GNS triangle'- that G, N and S represent the 'stable equilibria' within the space of possible group interactions. So that, somewhat ironically, the group dynamic highlights those psychological drives more clearly than analysis of individuals in isolation could.
I agree that individual preferences aren't 100% G, N or S- indeed, I'd suspect the 'GNS triangle' is probably valid when it comes to describing individual preferences or aptitudes (it certainly shows up in rulesets.) When I say 'a Gamist', I mean 'person with marked preference or aptitude for Gamism', not that this person couldn't turn their hand to other agendas with reasonable success. (The GTA player I mentioned loves SimCity and Morrowind, for example.) I recognise that single techniques or scenes do not a CA make, (e.g, 'environmental puzzles' can complement either a G or S agenda, and even that's a little narrow,) but I think looking at the overall pattern of techniques or scenes used in CRPGs often reveals interesting GNS correlations (particularly since many of the former are lifted directly from tabletop ancestors.)
I suppose my eventual 'goal' with these 'investigations' would actually be to try programming a simple game which can demonstrate AI capacities of this kind. (Most likely text-based, since that defines the simplest possible 'environment' for either a human player or resident AI agents to deal with, when/if specified in formal logical terms.) Ideally, I'd like to establish some form of 'pattern recognition' that could recognise emergent 'themes' behind the player's actions and challenge them accordingly, since that's pretty well virgin territory in the industry.
Anyway- on the subject of whether to close up the thread: There is another topic I'd like to visit (on the subject of processing-in-sequence vs. processing-in-parallel, which I suspect ties in to the autism spectrum, multitasking, communicative ability, measured IQ and introversion vs. extroversion,) but it's only tangentially GNS-related. I'll probably try to revisit the general subject of AI at a later date, if and when I can get some formal examples ready. But overall, I suppose I'd leave it there for now?
Caldis:
I dont have much to add but I have two examples that show the difficulty of assuming GNS as atomic elements of play.
In table top roleplaying and in computer games there are many games that are heavy fighty games that most people would assume facilitate a gamist agenda. The D&D games I played in the 80's were like that as is the World of Warcraft MMO. The way we used them however ended up being very Sim/right to dream. D&D play that doesnt challenge the players to step on up was how we played. We entered dungeons and faced "dangerous" situations but the game was balanced out so there was no actual risk of failure, we used the system to put our characters through these situations and then level up to face bigger and more scary dangers.
WoW (and all MMO's) works in much the same way with the level grinding and zones that put you up against appropriate levels of competition. There's is little risk of failure just an amount of time spent to play out the dream.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page