About the Forge </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> |

Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/>

	*

* <#>

Home <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>

Help <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help>

Search <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search>

Login <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login>

Register <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>

Welcome, *Guest*. Please login

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login> or register

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>.

Did you miss your activation email?

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=activate>

March 15, 2006, 02:29:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length

*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

*Search: *    Advanced search

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search;advanced>

*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * -

kuljek

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6115>* 	Most

online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006,

03:03:12 PM)

+  *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*

|-+  *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*

| |-+  *GNS Model Discussion

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0>*

| | |-+  *GNS and "Congruency"

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.0>* 	« previous

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.0;prev_next=prev>

next »

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733;prev_next=next>

*Pages:* [*1*] 2

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.15> 	Print

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1733.0>

Author 	Topic: GNS and "Congruency"  (Read 2443 times)

*Walt Freitag

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=370>*

Member

Posts: 1024

View Profile

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=370>

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg16477#msg16477>

*GNS and "Congruency"

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg16477#msg16477>*

« * on:* March 30, 2002, 08:42:29 AM »

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

GNS and "Congruency"

This idea was inspired by all the recent GNS discussion using examples

of individual game decisions that are ambiguous in terms of revealing

the GNS decision-making preferences of the participants who made them.

Instead of regarding this common situation as merely an inconvenience

for GNS analysis, I believe it could be a phenomenon useful to focus

some attention on in its own right.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Just as a point of clarification (which may, ironically, confuse the

issue some), quite often the same decision can be made for different

reasons. I know I point this out all the time, but it is important here.

It is one of the reasons that it is hard to determine the nature of a

decision by observation. Quite often through coincidence the same

decision could have been motivated by more than one of the three

motives. Not always, sometimes it's very obvious. But quite often.

Such observations in recent threads have been particularly helpful in

developing this concept, which I?ve chosen to term *congruency.*

Definition and Usage:

A *congruent* decision is a decision made by a participant (GM or

player) during play that cannot, on the basis of the visible behavior

resulting from the decision, be categorized as belonging to a specific

mode of decision-making enumerated by the underlying model. In the

context of the GNS model there are exactly four possible congruencies,

representing the four combinations of two or more modes for which a

decision may be ambiguous.

This definition refers only to visible behavior, not underlying motive

or any other unknowable quality. Thus, such questions as whether or not

every individual decision "really is" purely G, N, or S in nature, or

whether it can be "43% this, 57% that," are irrelevant for purposes of

discussing congruency.

To specify a particular congruency, we could say that a decision is

"congruent with respect to" or simply "congruent with" any two (or all

three) modes. For shorthand we might use (and I will use) e.g. "S-N

congruent" for "congruent with respect to Simulationism and

Narrativism." Congruency is reflexive; there is no distinction between

e.g. "G-S congruency" and "S-G congruency." However, for a further

shorthand, when speaking in the context of discussion of one of the

three modes, it should be OK to say that a decision is e.g. "S

congruent" meaning congruent between the mode specified (in this case,

S) and the mode under discussion.

Keep in mind, however, that even when speaking of congruency between two

specific modes, the third mode cannot be completely disregarded. For

example, a decision that is unambiguously Gamist is *not* S-N congruent.

To be S-N congruent, the decision has to be either unambiguously /not/

Gamist, or ambiguous with respect to Gamism (in which case it could be

G-S-N congruent, which also counts as S-N congruent).

A congruent decision, by definition, does not influence the long-term

judgment of whether the participant?s overall pattern of decision-making

falls into one or the other of the modes with which the decision is

congruent.

By analogy with the GNS modes themselves, we could also describe a

system or practice as congruent (or more specifically, as e.g. G-S

congruent) as a verbal shorthand meaning that that system or practice

promotes or rewards decision-making by participants that is congruent in

the way specified. This purely definitional and is not meant to assume

that such systems or practices exist.

Incongruency

The opposite of congruency can only be termed incongruency, which sounds

like a bad thing but, in and of itself, isn?t. An incongruent decision

is nothing more or less than a decision whose visible expression

provides evidence that the decision-maker?s pattern of decisions

conforms to a specific one of the three GNS modes. (It doesn?t have to

be conclusive evidence. If a player were to make a series of incongruent

decisions, some clearly simulationist and others clearly narrativist, we

might be unable to characterize his overall pattern of decision-making,

but each individual decision would provide some evidence in favor of one

or the other possibility.)

In practice, incongruent decisions appear usually to be ones where an

observer can tell that there were other options open to the player

which, if chosen, would have advanced different GNS goals than the

choice the player actually made. Thus, what makes a decision incongruent

(or congruent) is not just the decision itself, but also the

circumstances (especially, other choices that were available) under

which the decision is made. For that reason, it?s acceptable and

understandable to describe a decision situation in which the decision

has not yet been made as congruent or incongruent, as long as it?s

understood that this is a loose usage that really means "likely to

result in a congruent/incongruent decision."

Congruency versus Coherency

Congruency and coherency are not the same thing, though they are

related. Definitionally they exist on different levels: coherency is an

emergent quality that applies to an entire system, group, or large unit

of actual game play, while congruency applies to individual decisions.

Nonetheless, in the application of theory, the concept of

coherency/incoherency "reaches down" into the realm of individual game

mechanisms or practices, while the concept of congruency/incongruency

"reaches up" into patterns of decision-making and the in-game situations

in which they occur. It?s likely they?re going to meet and coexist

somewhere in the middle.

Examples of poor play resulting from an incoherent system, and examples

of excellent play in a coherent system, all seem to begin with a player

making an incongruent decision. In the former case, the decision

conflicts with the goals of other participants, representing

dysfunction. In the latter case, all the participants have compatible

goals so there is no dysfunction. In fact, the others generally take

pleasure in the fact that the decision-maker made a choice that advances

everyone?s goals even though other choices were available.

A useful concept?

If congruency is outside the control of system designers or game

participants, then it is a useless concept.

If congruency cannot be altered independently of coherency, then it is

functionally equivalent to coherency and therefore useless as a separate

concept.

I believe that neither of these is the case. I believe that certain

techniques and design considerations bear directly upon congruency, and

that they are useful in two ways:

1. To attenuate the dysfunction caused by an incoherent system or a

group of participants with incoherent goals, by reducing the occurrence

of incongruency during play.

2. To adjust the level of metagame or other forms of self-conscious

decision-making in coherent play, in either direction, by controlling

the occurrence of incongruency during play.

I further hypothesize that various forms (and especially, the most

successfully functional forms) of vanilla play, abashed play, and drift

will prove to be characterized by rules and practices promoting congruency.

The interesting questions, I believe, are whether there are other

techniques to be discovered, or if the known techniques can be applied

in new ways such as embodying them in system designs.

Example 1: OOC knowledge and G-S congruency

A GM running a fantasy game plays out an encounter with vampires. A

player-character recognizes the obvious vampiric demeanor of the

vampires, and immediately acts upon the strategy of fleeing until

sunrise, then finding the vampires? coffins and staking them. The GM is

displeased because he believes that the player-characters, being from

outside the European-style portion of the world in which the vampires

exist, should not be able to recognize the vampires for what they are,

let alone already know the best way to destroy them.

Clearly there are GNS coherency problems at work here. Why does the GM

not want the player-character to act on OOC knowledge? Because he

believes that the goal of play is to create verisimilitude, and besides,

the vampires were supposed to be difficult opponents that would hook the

players into exploration of a really cool storyline. Why does the player

want to act on OOC knowledge? Because the game system rewards him for

dispatching enemies in the most effective possible way with the least risk.

But even though the specific problem stems from lack of coherency, it

could be solved on the level of congruency. If the vampires in the

encounter have to be straight out of Hollywood, then the GM can easily

make sure the player-characters are aware of the same vampire legends

the players know. (He would also allow for that knowledge when designing

the difficulty of the encounter.) Then, the player?s decision to try to

stake the vampires would be a completely G-S congruent one. Or, if the

GM doesn?t want the characters to know anything about the enemy, then he

should invent a new creature with different habits and weaknesses than a

standard vampire. The players will try their best to figure out how to

survive and destroy the enemy, just as their characters would do in that

situation, so again, their decisions will be G-S congruent.

Note that neither of these solutions, for better or worse, affects the

underlying GNS issue. The GM still has Simulationist expectations, and

the player is still chasing those Gamist rewards. But the specific

instance of dysfunction that was making the participants unhappy has

been averted.

This is only one example of dozens if not hundreds of known practices

and system rules that appear to bear directly on G-S congruency. Many of

these, as in the example, take the form of "don?t-do" constraints,

suggesting that congruency does come at a cost in design freedom. A GM

who wants G-S congruency, and wants Hollywood vampires, and wants the

player-characters to not already know how to kill said vampires, is just

SOL.

S-N congruency

As Mike Holmes pointed out in the same post the quote above was taken

from, a player acting entirely on narrativist motivations would still

make decisions compatible with "what the character would do" much of the

time, because a good story has to be plausible. In other words many

non-Gamist decisions are S-N congruent.

What we should be interested in are the exceptions. When does S-N

incongruency arise?

- When a participant makes a decision that is consistent with

verisimilitude but detracts from the story (deprotagonization).

- When a participant makes a decision that is consistent with the

creation of Story or exploration of Premise, but detracts from

verisimilitude in some way. It might do so by being inconsistent with

the character, or by invoking an explicitly metagame mechanism.

Note that opting not to make use of an available Narrativist-oriented

metagame mechanism is not proof that a simulationist decision was made,

as long as the option chosen instead was also consistent with the goal

of creating story, so such a decision is not usually S-N incongruent.

However, use of a metagame mechanism is almost always S-N incongruent.

This immediately suggests that a dichotomy of taste could arise, between

those who prefer the self-conscious decision making of Narrativist

metagame mechanisms and those who prefer to create story within the

constraints of S-N congruency. I believe this dichotomy is already known

in practice as the distinction between vanilla and explicit Narrativism.

While there is a continuum between them, the distribution of preferences

along that continuum appears to be bimodal, and taking the concept of

congruency into account explains why. This also explains why so many

examples of vanilla Narrativism are difficult to distinguish from

Simulationism. Quite simply, the practitioners want it that way.

Besides metagame mechanics, other elements that could increase or

decrease the prevalence of S-N congruity in a game include character

design (traditional heroes will face fewer potentially S-N incongruent

decisions than anti-heroes or more complex characters), choice of

Premise, and the degree of realism in a setting. Attempts to portray

settings that "simulate the world of movies instead of the real world"

can be characterized as attempts to foster S-N congruency (though how

successfully they accomplish it is unclear).

Example 2: S-N congruency and Illusionism

A now-wiser but still self-confident neonate Vampire leads her

companions into the betrayer?s lair for the inevitable confrontation

that both sides hope will be final. Oops, the enemy just make a

spectacular success roll with the Possession discipline. Looks like our

vengeful vampess is going to be working for the opposition for the rest

of the scene. How deprotagonizing, especially since the major Premise

happens to be about the nature of loyalty.

The GM faces a decision that clearly has potential to be S-N

incongruent: apply the effects of the roll, or fudge the roll to reduce

the enemy?s success to an intermediate result that will play into the

Premise rather than override it. If he chooses to let the roll stand,

it?s clearly an S-N incongruent Simulationist decision. If he lies about

the results of the roll, it?s clearly an S-N incongruent Narrativist

decision. Or is it? Let?s look again at the definition of congruency:

"?the /visible/ behavior resulting from..." An omniscient observer can

clearly see the decision?s incongruency, as can the GM himself. But the

GM isn?t telling, and there are no omniscient observers on the scene. As

far as the players are concerned, no incongruency has occurred. Since

congruency is based on visible behavior, there is no difference between

the effective illusion of congruency and congruency itself.

Thus, I believe, the concept of congruency gives us a framework for

understanding illusionism in a straightforward way that is free of

speculation about motivation. Other forms of illusionism appear to be

similarly associated with other applications of congruency.

G-N congruency?

I think this occurs, but perhaps only in limited circumstances, such as,

for example, when the Premise is about risk or fortune or fate. It?s

certainly possible to create excellent Story with deep Premise about a

group of people who go out and hunt a big powerful monster to take its

treasure (ask the hundreds of Herman Melville buffs who live in my

town), and under such circumstances, at least, the possibility of

promoting G-N congruency appears promising. The actual techniques would

probably be similar to those of S-G congruency (including illusionism)

in many cases, with more severe constraints.

It also appears that competitive storytelling games can be G-N

congruent, through an entirely different approach.

As for G-N-S congruency, it would have to incorporate G-N congruency as

a start. It is certainly possible for an individual decision to be G-N-S

congruent. But as for attempting to maintain such congruency

consistently in a real game, my suspicion is that it?s theoretically

possible, but the necessary constraints would be so severe that it would

rarely be worth it.

----------

That?s as far as I?ve got. I believe congruency could be a useful

concept, not because it says very much that?s new, but because it gives

us new language to use in applying the GNS model to real-world issues of

coherency, drift, and taste. This could also help in the understanding

and acceptance of the GNS model, because it addresses in a

GNS-consistent way many of those in-between cases and tricky examples

that people keep offering up as challenges to the validity of GNS.

One more note: even as I?ve been writing this, others have been adding

posts that are getting at the same idea. Just a few minutes ago

Mytholder posted:

Quote

I'm well aware decisions are key here. I know a dramatist can make Sim

decisions. I just don't think the majority of a players' decisions are

"significant" in terms of GNS. It really doesn't matter if I chose to

eat in that inn to ensure I don't suffer from fatigue-related

penalities, or because it's a logical thing to do in terms of the

simulation, or because I'm deliberately providing a plot opening for the

GM. All three play styles are fully compatible with the action. It's

only when the play styles are IN CONFLICT that GNS comes into it.

Congruency gives us a more rigorous definition of "significant in terms

of GNS," and also finds a way to apply GNS to the remaining "ground" (in

the figure-vs.-ground sense) of decision, by specifying which modes

those decisions are congruent with.

- Walt

	Logged

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

Wandering in the diasporosphere

*Laurel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216>*

Member

Posts: 243

View Profile

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216> WWW

<http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/white_wolf_games>

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg16529#msg16529>

*GNS and "Congruency"

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg16529#msg16529>*

« *Reply #1 on:* April 01, 2002, 09:11:25 AM »

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

While the idea of adding more jargon to an already jargon-heavy body of

communication personally fills me with dismay, I can't argue with your

logic Walt and I agree that this would be useful to do in this instance.

  What you are posting makes sense to me.  

Laurel

	Logged

*Ron Edwards

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*

Global Moderator

Member

*

Posts: 12610

View Profile

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW

<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17506#msg17506>

*GNS and "Congruency"

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17506#msg17506>*

« *Reply #2 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:19:14 AM »

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

Hi Walt,

I finally, finally managed to get to this thread. I think you've posted

something well worth attention. I'll begin by saying that in all

practical, observational points, I agree in full.

The real question, as you know, is as you stated: /If congruency cannot

be altered independently of coherency, then it is functionally

equivalent to coherency and therefore useless as a separate concept./

My own take on the matter is that I have been, all along, thinking of

Coherence in such a way that it includes your concept of Congruency.

It's still pretty hard for me to separate them, for a couple of reasons.

1) I have tried to stress that compatibility of goals, in practice, is

the defining feature of Coherence. The fact that goals are most

compatible when they are similar-to-identical, as well as the fact that

I tend to prefer such play situations personally, are not relevant; any

compatible mix of different goals ("convergence?") is Coherent too.

2) I tend to include the entire spectrum from "atomic" GNS decision, to

"molecular" GNS activity (observable), to "substance" GNS profile (very

observable), all the way to "group" or "object" GNS profile when I

discuss these things. Or more accurately, I tend to encourage discussion

at the upper end and let the lower/finer end take care of itself. (I'm

working on some material to clarify this issue, to myself as well as to

anyone who's interested. I'll be posting that when it's done.)

Now the real question is whether my own ease of combining techniques

with outcomes in #1, as well as my inclination to discuss mainly the

upper-end (observable, functional) of the spectrum in #2, have been

causing problems in discussion. If so, then Congruency as a concept

would be the perfect solution.

What I need to nail down is, if we use Congruency as you've defined it,

what need is there for Coherence, as a term? I'm kind of chewing it

over, personally, not goin' one way or another. Can you clarify that for

me, or provide more examples of how the two terms might interrelate in

practice?

Best,

Ron

	Logged

*Valamir <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36>*

Member

Posts: 4859

View Profile

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36> WWW

<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17510#msg17510>

*GNS and "Congruency"

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17510#msg17510>*

« *Reply #3 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:40:55 AM »

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

Quote from: Ron Edwards

2) I tend to include the entire spectrum from "atomic" GNS decision, to

"molecular" GNS activity (observable), to "substance" GNS profile (very

observable), all the way to "group" or "object" GNS profile when I

discuss these things. Or more accurately, I tend to encourage discussion

at the upper end and let the lower/finer end take care of itself. (I'm

working on some material to clarify this issue, to myself as well as to

anyone who's interested. I'll be posting that when it's done.)

Now the real question is whether my own ease of combining techniques

with outcomes in #1, as well as my inclination to discuss mainly the

upper-end (observable, functional) of the spectrum in #2, have been

causing problems in discussion. If so, then Congruency as a concept

would be the perfect solution.

Speaking for myself I think, you've hit on the source of the problem I

had for a long time.  You understood that GNS was formulated on the

atomic level, and could freely translate the concepts up to the

"molecular" and "subtance level".  But for me (and I suspect based on my

own observations, many of us) I didn't see the translation going on and

thought that GNS was formulated at the "substance" level...which in turn

led me skim over and pay less attention to those times when you brought

up "decisions".

Mytholder and I had a very extended thread which basically boiled down

what Walt skillfully summarized as Congruency.  If we'd had the

vocabulary of Congruency at the time of the thread as it relates to GNS,

we probably could have spent less time circling each other, and more

time moveing the thread forward.

Quote

What I need to nail down is, if we use Congruency as you've defined it,

what need is there for Coherence, as a term? I'm kind of chewing it

over, personally, not goin' one way or another. Can you clarify that for

me, or provide more examples of how the two terms might interrelate in