Part One: Setting out, with terminology.
Part Two: Some sample approaches
Part Three: The healthy consensus
Part Four: Organizing a method
Part Five: Summing Up

--------------------

PART ONE: Setting out, with terminology.

There are as many tabletop playstyles as there are groups, which means that any attempt to categorize them that tries to be definitive will, simply, fail.  It’s impossible to be definitive, to get the last word, to get it right.  So, any attempt to categorize playstyles is best measured by how useful it is.  This is an attempt at categorizing things in a useful way.  I’ll be borrowing ideas from other theories as I go along and bastardizing the hell out of them; so many credits are due I can’t count them, and some would even be to people that actively seem to hate each other.

There are five (and hopefully only five) words that I’ll be using in what might seem like a slightly funny way; in reality, these are fuzzy things, but I’ll be talking about them as if they weren’t.  I’ll tell you how I’m going to use them in advance, to hopefully save on confusion later. These are:

Approach: An approach is something that a player has, and which they might share with other members of the group, maybe even the whole group.  If I dig getting deep into character in this game, and consider that the best part of play, measuring how cool everything else in the game is by how much it helps or hinders that goal, then I have an approach.  Most approaches aren’t actually quite that simple or well-defined, but I expect you get the idea.

Consensus: A game group that functions has a consensus, an agreement on the totality of ‘how things work’ at the table, in the game, everything.  You can call it a ‘social contract’ - many do - but to me that term implies overt agreement where often the agreement is implied, picked up by experience, and so on.  So I don’t use it, myself.

Engine: The engine is the sum total of the dice-and-pencils rules.  The ‘what you roll and how it measures up’ stuff is the engine.  Engine doesn’t generally dictate approach, but many people find that different engines help or hinder their specific approaches.

Method: The method is the other stuff that is used to make things happen; everything from how the GM does prep work to who gets to describe which things.  Most written games imply their methods rather than stating them completely outright, until you get to the GM advice section (if there is one).

Techniques: A technique is a specific “thing the group does”, which can be part of the engine, the method, or both.  We roll 1d20 plus bonuses to resolve hitting?  That’s a technique.  We put little flags on our sheets next to traits we want the GM to give some attention to next game?  Also a technique.  

--------------------

Now, before I move on to the next part, comments, insults, questions?

I'm ... not getting your terminology.

Or, rather, I totally get that there's something out there, and you'd like to use a certain term to point to it, and therefore you will describe the attributes of that thing.  But, y'know, a description is not a definition.

For instance:  "An approach is something that a player has, and which they might share with other members of the group, maybe even the whole group."

That can describe my cupcakes.  Does that mean my cupcakes are an approach?  Or does it mean that approaches are not just anything that a player has and might share, but only a specific type of such things?

"The method is the other stuff that is used to make things happen":  So ... like ... breathing?  The process of kinetic energy being transferred as sound waves?  My spleen?  'cuz I'm pretty sure my spleen isn't an Approach.  I'm not sharing.

Now these are ridiculous example.  I don't mean the actual examples to be taken seriously.  I do know, intuitively, what you're saying much better than this.  But I don't have a whole lot of purely rational grip on the terms, and what that means is that I'm going to make a rough and ready definition of the term in my head.  And so will you, and anyone else who reads this.  We'll all have ideas of what the terms mean, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that they won't turn out the same.

Is walking out of the game in disgust a method?  From the terminology as written, it's quite hard to say.

And, honestly?  I don't know the answer to that problem.  Would defining it with more mathematical exactitude help?  Maybe a little.  Maybe not even that.  Maybe it would make things worse.

I'd just hate to see your reward for doing this mental work to be that a year from now people are talking about how Levites constantly use terms like "Approach" to mean something completely counter-intuitive.  I wish I had better advice for how to avoid such a thing.

Quote from: TonyLBI'd just hate to see your reward for doing this mental work to be that a year from now people are talking about how Levites constantly use terms like "Approach" to mean something completely counter-intuitive.  I wish I had better advice for how to avoid such a thing.

*Shrug*

I went for loose definitions partly so that the terms don't get jargonised in a lasting way.  I need them for the duration of explaining my theory, and that's it.

I'm not sure if I understand/agree with your definitions, but I'm really interested in seeing what you do with them in parts 2-4.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI went for loose definitions partly so that the terms don't get jargonised in a lasting way.  I need them for the duration of explaining my theory, and that's it.

Ahhh ... that's a damn fine strategy.  I may well have to borrow it, myself.  Cool.

Screw it, let's accelerate a bit.

PART TWO: Some sample approaches

Now, as mentioned before, there are loads of playstyles.  Buckets of them.  And, in the same vein, there are more approaches to the table than can be easily named.  I'm going to discuss five example approaches; I'd like everyone to keep in mind that these are just 'purist examples', here to give us reference points.  

Real approaches often contain multiple goals, sometimes even ones that conflict in some playstyles (but don't in others), while these examples center around a single goal each.  Moreover, people aren't actually fixed to a single approach; they can come at different games differently, or change approaches suddenly in mid-play and back again.  You can be a little bit country and a little bit rock and roll, but like both in different circumstances;  that's totally common in my experience.

If you think that any of the approaches listed here are "no damn good", then you may want to rock back on your heels a bit and remember that if the whole group is getting what they want from a game, then their approach is good by definition.

The social approach
Almost everyone views the game as a social event.  However, some people actually view the content of the game as grist for the social mill.  When a player has their character doing things that are fun to the players, and is less concerned with the integrity of the game world or fiction, they're probably coming at play as a tool for socializing.  I'll say that again – from this approach, the game is a tool to be social, rather than the having the game there to scratch a specific 'itch', with the social stuff on the side.  

• The light approach: These folks are notable in that they might crack jokes at the table, compare game events to movies and books, and so on, in the midst of play.  Characters might be played as parodies for brief stints because, dammit, it's fun.  
• The approval approach: These are people playing the game for social approval from their peers.  They'll do what they think is 'good for the group', with a little 'what makes me look cool / interesting / etc' thrown in.  

The narrative approach
Some players focus on the game as a series of pieces of fiction, made together.  That is, if I make up this thing, and it goes into the game, I've created a part of an ongoing fiction.  This kind of focus leads almost inevitably to the idea that creating quality fiction is valuable.  So, the different elements of gameplay are judged by that player as good, bad, or indifferent, based on how much those elements contribute to making good fiction of the game.  Two specific variations that occasionally conflict:

• The plotted approach: These folks want the core story to come from a single source (normally the GM), while everyone else fill in the details and make the story come to life.  Because the story comes from one person, they can relax and get on with their play.  Others object, of course, seeing this as "railroading".
• The situational approach: Other folks want to see a loaded situation; the kind that, no matter how it resolves, it'll make a good story.  They often like the 'pressure' of the game to be on resolving the situation, period – but not on how.  Combined with certain techniques, this approach is tightly tied to Narrativism as defined by the Forge.  With other techniques, it becomes something else.

The elsewhere approach
Wanting to be someone else, somewhere else, is a big draw to some folks.  Some folks think of this as "simulation", but that title has all sorts of odd overtones in different discussions, so let's skip it.  Here, the goal is to get at an experience that is different and stimulating.  Consistency, characterization, and the ability to extrapolate out a living, breathing world are big tools to these folks – tools they treat respectfully, as important to getting them the experience that they want.  Here are a couple of variations; however, note that people with generally 'elsewhere' type approaches often have very specific approaches, and not all of those match up well to these variants:

• The emulative approach: Some folks want to attempt to "get the feel of" a kind of fiction, a specific world, whatever the case might be.  If I measure your each element of your Dune RPG by how much it 'feels like' Dune, in terms of the props, the activities that your engine supports, and the way that you present the whole method of play, then I'm coming at the game this way.
• The immersive approach: Other want to "get into" the game world.  If I measure your Dune RPG by how easy it is for me to get into character, and how 'real' the fantasy world feels to me, how much it comes alive as a cohesive thing while I'm playing my character right down to the hilt, I'm coming at your game immersively.

The challenge approach
In games, you play to 'win', right?  Well, you can't get a total victory in most RPGs; they simply aren't built that way.  But you can face and overcome challenges.  You can indulge in some *friendly* one-upmanship with your friends, to see who gets the most orc kills in the running battle.  You arrange the gameplay mentally into objectives and obstacles to overcome, and if you do, you're somewhere near this approach when you do it.  A few variations:

• The engineering approach: This is where you see things like "character builds"; where a player already figures the kind of obstacles that they'll be facing down, and builds tactically to face them.  There's a thrill in testing out your attempts at optimizing a character inside the system, and seeing how they fly; people with this approach see much of play as a tool to getting that thrill.
• The sink-or-swim approach: A little more old-school, this; this is where a player builds a character that they enjoy playing for the sake of the character, and then expects the GM to throw them through hell.  The point of this approach is that at the end of the day, anything the player has gained for their character, they feel like they've earned.  They haven't worked the system; they went in with a real character, played that character to the ground, and lived or died by their wits.  A player with this approach often judges techniques based on how well those techniques produce good challenges for both character and player equally.

The dramatic approach
To some folks, there's no point playing a character unless that character is under stress.  Really, you don't know who they are until you hold them over the volcano.  So the point here is to get these good characters and then stress them in interesting ways, and see what happens.  And, yes, this can be linked up to other approaches, often successfully.  But it isn't always; here's a couple specific forms to show that off:

• The venting approach: I've got stress, you've got stress, let's let it off in a fictional environment.  Say, a player that looks for ways to drive the game situation to extremes, to be the equivalent of the screaming blood-covered barbarian shouting insults in the face of his foes; he might very well be measuring how good the different techniques of the game are to him based on how much they let him blow off that stress load.
• The thespian approach: Roleplaying is an acting challenge to a few folks; it's a chance to strut their stuff under the spotlight.  This isn't the same thing as being a spotlight hog – some people just want to get into it, maybe even ham it up a little, just for the joy of doing so, and will judge how good or bad different techniques are based on how much they contribute or take away from their chances of doing this.

--------------------

Comments, questions, and so on?

I think you're trying to have GNS-lite here Levi. The problem is that once you strip away Edwards' verbiage, you're left with a bunch of truisms so obvious that even the minimal level of everyday language you adopt as your unassuming jargon gets in the way. I say this because you're aiming for a level of abstract generalisation that I don't think the ideas can sustain.

What I'm trying to get at is this: of course it's a good idea to reflect on what happens during the game. Why? To try and keep having more, more fun if possible. Or to be able to transmit the general insights derived from 30 years of experience of millions of games- to help people have more fun, of course. But these insights aren't complicated. And a bunch of simple insights do not a theory make. They are just useful guidelines derived from experience. Their value lies in their capacity to generate a meeting of minds within a given gaming group, or useful advice between members of different groups, whether face-to-face, or through the written word.

And therein lies the rub: the simple modes of communication I'm talking about are:

• the ancient art of conversation, perhaps with a dash of rhetoric
• good journalism.

Edwardsian pseudo-academic discourse is therefore in entirely the wrong register to deliver the goods. We don't need professorial lectures. We need the kind of chat you'd enjoy having down the pub, or the kind of snappy writing that brings actual issues to life through vivid anecdotes and clear explanations of what's going on in the situations described. And your GNS-lite fails too because, well: because it's too vague and wooly to constitute even a pseudo-theory; and because while you do give the impression of being someone it'd be nice to share a few beers with, you're not writing good journalism, you're trying to give us Forgism without the Edwardsisms.

Nice, but I think there's more than a bit of GNS bias beneath the surface in a few places.

Under the narrative approach, you might have players who want either the plotted or situational approach as you've outlined -- but they don't really care about the overal quality of the fiction.  It could be a scene-by-scene, moment-to-moment thing.  They won't decide the game was good because they look back over the narrative that's been created over the entire evening and say it has value.  They'll reflect on how many moments of value (aka "fun") they had during the course of the evening instead.

I think if you stop thinking of things in a GNS sense, you'll be on the right track with this.

Quote from: JMcL63you're trying to give us Forgism without the Edwardsisms.

:confused:

I seriously don't get you here.  So far as I can tell, I'm disagreeing with the Big Model in almost every particular that isn't a common-sense truism.

So far this theory makes sense - not that it's a theory yet, but you haven't finished. I like it so far though. Nice work, Levi!

-clash

QuoteI seriously don't get you here. So far as I can tell, I'm disagreeing with the Big Model in almost every particular that isn't a common-sense truism.

It's a bit like GNS + Social and Dramatic.  For each one of those you've created a type A and type B.

You're still approaching this from the Forge / Ron Edwards angle -- that there's a taxonomy that needs to be applied to the world of Roleplaying games.  I think Ron's area of study is biology... so that isn't surprising that he'd see the world like that.

It *is* good to see you mention that these are just SOME play styles, and that there is overlap between them.  That makes this MUCH superior to the GNS model.

So don't take this as discouragement!  I'm really interested in seeing where you take this.  So far no real surprises, but I'm really hoping to see some new ideas in parts 3 to 5!

Edit: Only need one Simulation in there...

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

I seriously don't get you here.  So far as I can tell, I'm disagreeing with the Big Model in almost every particular that isn't a common-sense truism.

Aaaarrgh! :banghead:

I'm not going to wade through Ron's essays in order to examine that assertion Levi. Fortunately I have Ron's diagram handy (here it is for those who haven't seen it: The Big Model- a diagram). Lemme see:

• social contract?- check; though you prefer to call it 'consensus'
• creative agendas?- check; a.k.a. 'approach'
• techniques and ephemera?- check and check; appearing here under the terms 'engine', 'methods', and 'techniques'.

So it seems to me that you've already reproduced Ron's key concepts stripped down and rearranged a bit. Hence GNS-lite. Plus 3 of your approaches are the 3 GNS agendas, with 2 non-agenda (non-creative agendas according to Ron's categorisation) approaches added for good measure. Hence GNS-lite.

The essential incoherence of Ron's collection of insights, aphorisms and neologisms is what renders it a pseudo-theory. So I would argue that simply stripping out the torturous artifice and rearranging the terms means that you haven't, in the end, escaped the orbit of the Big Model. Hence GNS-lite.

Quote from: JMcL63

• social contract?- check; though you prefer to call it 'consensus'

Check.

Quote from: JMcL63

• creative agendas?- check; a.k.a. 'approach'

Same ballpark, but no check.  I'm saying that these things are utterly, totally flexible, not reliably fixed.  They don't conform to GNS, only generally match my examples, and aren't reliable, predictable, or uniform.  They are, in fact, a giant damn mess; examples are handy for clarity and to spur youto tell me about your approach, no more - I don't get to tell you what your approach is.

And this isn't a new trick.  Robin Laws used "player types" to categorize the same stuff; his stuff assumes that players don't really shift the way that they come at games, and implies that they can't.  Which I think are  bad things to think or imply; many of us change how we come at games often.

Quote from: JMcL63techniques and ephemera?- check and check; appearing here under the terms 'engine', 'methods', and 'techniques'.

Check.

Quote from: JMcL63Plus 3 of your approaches are the 3 GNS agendas, with 2 non-agenda approaches added for good measure.

No check.  Narrative and Challenge stuff, yes.  But the 'elsewhere' approach I've described is so far from GNS Sim, they might as well live in different galaxies.

Quote from: JMcL63you haven't, in the end, escaped the orbit of the Big Model. Hence GNS-lite.

Ah...

No, I probably haven't 'escaped the orbit' completely.  Nor do I honestly care; I was posting in terms of GDS on RGFA before there was a Big Model.

Quick replies.

1. Re. approaches and agendas: my point is that your rearrangement of the terms matters little because the rigidity of Edwards' account is the 'torturous artifice' that gives a veneer of theoretical sophistication to the rag-bag of ideas in the glossary. All you are really doing is stripping away that rigidity while trying to maintain the fiction that this collection of generalisations amounts to a theory as such.

2. I know about Laws work, and it's predecessors. I'm intrigued by your comment that he prefigured Ronnie's dogmatic rigidity.

3. Sim or not Sim? See point 1.

4. Escaping the orbit? You haven't, and you don't care. That's your perogative. My argument here is that you are engaged in the quixotic quest of trying to square the circle of creating a theory at all. As I said at the get-go: the purpose of trying to draw general conclusions from the experience of playing rpg's is negated by adopting the register of theoretical discourse. I am arguing that simple conversation and/or journalism are the appropriate modes in which the insights at issue are appropriately presented.

PS. And I was grappling with the whole shebang before Laws put a word on paper and before the whole internet debate which led us up the blind alley of 3-fold theorising was even a twinkle in anyone's microprocessor. So nyah!

Quote from: JMcL63All you are really doing is stripping away that rigidity while trying to maintain the fiction that this collection of generalisations amounts to a theory as such.

Okay.  What do you think a theory would be?