I'm bored, I've got a theory, and RPGnet's software is cockblocking me tonight.

So, fuck it.  I came here.  Let's dance.

Everything written here is opinion – mine.  None of it is particularly original, some of it you've probably seen before, and a lot of it was inspired by (http://onlyagame.typepad.com).  What I want to know here is how well this matches, or does not match, with your experiences.  

It's got some made-up words in it.   Sorry about that.

Part One: Group Modes
The following four modes of play are described in terms of authority, and how it changes as the group does.  Differing play styles are composed of different amounts of each – some groups prefer or avoid specific modes.  Groups will, can, and do mix and match modes, making asides, 'cueing' each other into the other modes, and so on.

Exploration
When a group is in exploration mode, the active players are describing the actions of their characters "from the outside", even though statements like "I open the door" are common. The GM (or whoever) is describing the environment. The dynamic of authority here is the classically-described one: The players are in charge of their characters, and the GM is in charge of the environment.  For many groups, exploration is seen as being the 'base state' of play.

Characterization
When a group is in characterization mode, everyone is speaking as if they were a character. The authority is simple – you're in charge of your character, like everyone.

Collaboration
When a group is in collaborative mode, they're throwing ideas around, sometimes just however suits, sometimes in a sort-of formalized way. In groups that do this a lot, someone (often the GM or some similar such) acts as a sort of "chairperson" or "facilitator".  Collaboration of some sort is very, very common in character creation; in some games, it also appears elsewhere.

Adversity
When a group is in adversity mode, each of the players is playing their character, and the GM is providing their opposition.   The authority structure here is usually based on "playing by the rules"; the GM often has the right to ignore rules – players usually don't.  Adversity is often identical to "combat".

Part Two: Individual Goals
There are a lot of goals that people bring with them to the table, things they want from play and which emerge through play.  People often, even usually, have multiple goals at the same time, and absolutely do change goals for differing games.  Here are a few goals:

Catharsis
There's a feeling of release that follows an intense or overwhelming experience.  Not necessarily a tragic or traumatic experience, but usually an emotional one.  Catharsis is served best by very particular uses of the four modes; it's not that one or another is best, but each has very definite places and uses to a player out for the kinds of experiences that create catharsis.  And, yes, there's argument about whether catharsis (especially the strong-form versions, which *do* hit on the tragic or traumatic buttons) is a good idea in RPGs.  That's an interesting argument, but one for a different thread, please.

Character Immersion
Some players seek the feeling of being deeply engaged in their character or in the fiction as a whole.  Players looking for immersion (especially really serious kinds) often aim for a lot of characterisation.  They also often (but not always) want to avoid types of collaboration that will pull them "out of the groove".   Serious character-immersion is one of many "flow states" that goes on in tabletop gaming, I'm sure of it, but I'm not sure how to talk about how any of the others work.

Contentment
The feeling that there is nothing more that need be done, and that the thing is finished, is something many people enjoy out of games.  Contentment requires closure and resolution to whatever the matter at hand may be.  This goal isn't especially tied to any of the modes, but does require that either the GM make the in-character goals and end points clear, or that they actively listen to the players (in a way that often has some features like slow-moving collaboration).

Creative Expression
This one is tricky, because it covers a lot of ground.  Some people at the game want to create a story (and may have varying definitions of what that means).  Others want to create bits of world that surround a character, or create the world itself, or write fiction based on the game, or you-name-it.  Each kind of creative impulse comes with different preferences on using the modes of play.  

Humour
Games can be played for laughs, and often are.  Amusement is served by all four of the modes.  Notably, a player that really pushes for it will often end up pushing for collaboration, even to the point of attempting to dictate the actions of other player characters, because some of the humor that comes to mind most easily can step outside the specific boundaries of authority the other modes often lay down.

Triumph (Fiero)
The feeling of winning, of defeating a challenge, or overcoming adversity.  Fiero, the word in brackets, is lifted from serious game-study, and included here because I think it sounds awesome.  Fiero.  Go on, say it out loud.  Anyhow, people looking for that feeling are on the lookout for adversity – and they tend to want adversity where they can be partisan for their characters and the GM is actually playing against them a bit.

Fun (Paidial)
Everyone always wants to have fun, right?  You bet, but they want different kinds of fun.  One kind, Paidial fun (another stolen word), is free-wheeling player fun, where rules are a convenience.  Players looking to get some Paidial fun would prefer winging the rules-calls, going for whatever feels right at the moment.  If there are involved adversity-resolving rules, Paidial players avoid adversity.  Novelty and wonder are often, but not always, associated with this goal.  Goofy characters are sometimes signals that someone wants this kind of fun.  

Fun (Ludus)
Some people also take their fun a little more seriously.  The rules-tinkerers and the optimal-builders are chasing the fun that often sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from the people looking for paidial fun.  To someone looking for ludus fun, the rules are the game, a toy that the group is here to play with.  Wherever the mechanics of the game are, whatever modes they attach to, that's where ludus-seekers go.

Socialisation
For most gamers, the game and the acts that make up "playing the game" are a way of being social (for others, the event is also – or only – an excuse for being social outside of play).  People looking to get especially significant gameplay-as-socialisation often try to match their other goals with the rest of the group, but do want to chat in general –if they aren't engaging in characterisation, they will often enjoy general table talk.  

Sensory Enjoyment
Miniatures, maps, game book illustration, tokens, and dice are all visual and tactile things that are enjoyable about RPGs.  I haven't yet met anyone that considers these things their number one priority, but they show up on a lot of lists.  

Part Three: Tension And Solutions
Now, what's hopefully more or less clear is that some goals favor specific modes.   Other goals favor a variety of modes in different circumstances.  Some goals don't tie into the different modes of play at all.  And the modes of play are only one of a whole bunch of different "bodies of technique" that go on at a gaming table.  Not only that, but people can change some of their goals from time to time.  So there's a whole lot of stuff going on there.  Now, friction between players chasing disparate goals can and does lead to less-than-great play, and to problems at the table.   It happens.  It's not the only kind of problem that afflicts groups, and probably not even the most common.

There are two "big solutions", and they're not quite exclusive of each other, but there are some pretty loud adherents to either side of the spectrum.

The Top-Down Solution
One way to deal with this possible tension is "top down", where the game designer builds their game to serve a fairly narrow, focused range of player goals, making it clear what those goals are.  The group then knows how to approach that game, and can jump right in.  The big advantages of this method include the ability to get the group all on one page quickly, and the ability for the rules to do cool and supportive things to aid the style those goals create.  Good stuff.  The downside is that, well, you get a narrow game – it only satisfies that range of goals.

The Bottom-Up Solution
The other method is, of course, compromise – a little of my stuff, a little of yours.  I get the joy of the stuff I want, and I *also* get the pleasure of getting carried along with you as you play through the stuff that you want.  Building a compromise that works well is all about active listening, about looking for cues and picking up on them.  The big advantage here is that groups are more responsive and flexible than game texts; a group that's got a good "language" of cues and is on their game can hit a range of goals that's far broader than a top-down design, and hit those goals with wicked accuracy.  Which is awesome.  The downside is that it can take time for the group to really start rocking, and it always requires honest effort all around.

...

Anyhow.   That's my theory.

How does it sound?

Well... honestly it sounds like yet another variation of this old paradigm. I don't say, it is wrong, because it has its bright moments here and there, generally it covers most if not everything I belive are individual preferences of players here and there.

What I think is the main problem of this model or theory or whatever (which is quite common with those other models) is the fact, it adress mostly the personal priorities. Even those "group modes" in the first part sounds hell like individual.

What I am mising here is serious dimension of group (or team) relations, which is hard to catch, because it is quite unique or rather there are so many combinations it sounds unique. The RPGs are team-work and here the individual might be less important than the relations.

Have you ever get a group of fine players with the same preferences ending with chaos? That is because the relations issue was overlooked. I've got a theory about RPGs as well. It is like a mission to Mars, or work collective. It needs a team roles. And relations. And I am seriously missing them.

Just juggling with individual preferences is not getting us anywhere. Sorry.

Yep, not that much is new here.  

Stating goals in terms that help people say "I want more of this thing, and I get that by doing X,Y,Z; what I'd need from you is A,B,C", and hear "Sure, I can see why you would want that, no problem, man.  And, hey while we're on the topic...", is pretty much what I'm aiming for with this.

And it's true that isn't not there, yet.   That's going to take yet more specific looking at goals, and going "So, when I want this, what do I need from other players, GM, and the game?  How do people work together to get these things?".

Take a look up there at Triumph (Fiero).  See, when I'm down with that goal, if I'm playing with a group that's all about creatively working together, I'm not frustrated that I can't beat up orcs in the game - I'm frustrated because I want some goddamn opposition, here, or the win is meaningless.  Which is relational, but not actually written down.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCharacter Immersion
Some players seek the feeling of being deeply engaged in their character or in the fiction as a whole. Players looking for immersion (especially really serious kinds) often aim for a lot of characterisation. They also often (but not always) want to avoid types of collaboration that will pull them "out of the groove". Serious character-immersion is one of many "flow states" that goes on in tabletop gaming, I'm sure of it, but I'm not sure how to talk about how any of the others work.

In suspense / horror / mystery games in particular, Immersion doesn't need to go hand-in-hand with characterisation (eg. "Acting").  It's very possible to play a suspenseful game, deeply immersed, without doing much (or any) 1st person character narration / acting.

Quote from: StuartIn suspense / horror / mystery games in particular, Immersion doesn't need to go hand-in-hand with characterisation (eg. "Acting").  It's very possible to play a suspenseful game, deeply immersed, without doing much (or any) 1st person character narration / acting.

Very true.

I was waffling on trying to hit this - the idea that there's "Character Immersion" and "Setting Immersion", and so on, and ended up with the shitty compromise at the end of the paragraph about "other flow states".

If you're willing, take the paragraph and rewrite it (into more than one, if you want) - show me what you think it ought to say.

I've got my morning class to teach in a few minutes -- so I'll have to take a closer look later today...

I think what you're saying makes sense for "character immersion" -- people who want to get really "into character".  

When I talk about immersion, I'm usually thinking about things more closely linked to tension, suspense, or simply being really engaged in the events of the game world.  It's much closer to what you experience reading a good book or watching a good movie.  You "leave yourself" and enter into the fictional world.  It's escapism.  You're not really thinking about playing a role, which is the kind of immersion you get when you're on stage.  It's different.

Hopefully that's helpful for now, and I'll check in later.

Quote from: StuartIt's escapism.

Dat's der bunny.

Levi,

As always, interesting. I'm not sure about the last two lines of the Adversity section - are there that many games where a GM can simply ignore the rules, or is it the Rule 0 approach, or what? I'd put it more along the lines of "Though rare, the GM, in some cases, can override existing rules; whereas players are, in general, not able to do so." Or something. The way it sounds now it's got too much, IMHO, of the GM Fiat baggage attached to it. Perhaps something about how social needs tend to bound the ability of the GM to ignore rules? I don't know...

In the Goals section, most of the goals seem (at my first glance) to be somewhat compatible - your goal could be Catharsis and Character Immersion (or whatever Immersion you and Stuart come up with).  But the two type of Fun you describe, seem antithetical. You mention it in the descriptions, but I'm wondering if capital-F-Fun needs to be broken out differently?

Just my initial thoughts....

Quote from: James J SkachPerhaps something about how social needs tend to bound the ability of the GM to ignore rules? I don't know...

How's this?

In adversity, players are often expected to "play inside bounds" set by mechanics, flat out.  The GM is usually expected to make use of the rules in order to provide conflict and opposition, but the way those rules are employed is generally left to their discretion.

Quote from: James J SkachBut the two type of Fun you describe, seem antithetical.

Not...   quite antithetical.   But getting both at once is, at least in my experience, a genuine rarity.  I've seen a couple of groups playing with fairly rules-light rules systems, and who all knew the rules front to back, basically riffing off the mechanics in ways that hit both.  They aren't easily-matched goals, though.  

Other goals, yeah, mesh smoothly, sometimes just because they do (as in your example), and sometimes because the traditions of design match up with that style (Getting lots of Ludus fun and Fiero in the same experience is an easy match; there's lots of really great crunchy combat systems that do both).