--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/congruency.txt	Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,1190 @@
+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
+practice?
+
+
+
+The way I see it from Walt's description is that they operate at
+different scales.
+
+Congruence, as he's defined it, is strictly an atomic level phenomenon.
+ It allows us to identify Incongruent decisions that can be identified
+as occupying a GNS decision from the congruent decisions that could be
+more than one position and which can't be determined.  This is what
+Mytholder was calling "significant" and we were representing as blanks
+in the decision maps we were drawing (the blanks being congruent and the
+non blanks being incongruent...of course, in Walts model we'd need to
+use something other than blanks to represent the 4 different types of
+congruency).
+
+Coherency on the other hand looks at the pattern of incongruent
+decisions over the period of the game.  If the pattern of Incongruent
+decisions is dominantly one position, N----N----N--N, for instance, then
+the game is N Coherent.  If the pattern of Incongruent decisions is a
+mix of GNS positions, N---G----N----S---S---S---G, for instance, then
+the game is Incoherent.
+
+Whether an Incoherent game is dysfunctional or a functional hybrid would
+need to be determined using other tools.
+
+Needless to say, I'm a BIG fan of this method of analysing GNS.  Walt
+managed to summarize alot of concepts I was batting around with
+Mytholder very succinctly.
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ralph Mazza
+Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Stories
+<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>
+
+*lumpley <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 2091
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119> WWW
+<http://www.lumpley.com/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17523#msg17523>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17523#msg17523>*
+« *Reply #4 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:10:50 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hey, wait.
+
+Isn't coherency at the game-text level, I mean at the V:tM or Sorcerer
+or Smurfs: the Smurfing level, and doesn't it mean that all the game's
+rules plus its hype work together well to drive the game?
+
+Like an N-coherent game is one where you can make consistently N
+decisions without having to compromise with the rules, right?  The game
+supports you in your consistently N decision-making.
+
+If so, congruency and coherency aren't that closely related at all.  I
+think congruency is more related to (but opposite to) 'perviness,' as in
+"I'm a pervy Narrativist."  
+
+A highly congruent N-S game is one that supports decisions that might be
+N, might be S.  Sorcerer, I'd say as an example, and having never played
+it, is more congruent than The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, because
+it's damn hard to make a (game-rule significant) decision in the WF&D
+that /isn't/ Narrativist.  Sorcerer on the other hand has all kinds of
+support for Sim decisions, like stats with numbers and things.  Yes you
+can/must/will use them to drive a story, but any given Lore roll (again
+just talking out my butt) might be Sim instead, hard to say.  I fail my
+Lore roll -- is what happens because it makes for a good story, or
+because it's consistent with the world-sim?  Who knows?  Hence: congruent.
+
+('Pervy' is kind of the opposite of 'vanilla,' right?  Which would make
+'highly congruent' and 'vanilla' into cousins, which sounds right to me.)
+
+-Vincent
+	Logged
+
+*lumpley <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 2091
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119> WWW
+<http://www.lumpley.com/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17528#msg17528>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17528#msg17528>*
+« *Reply #5 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:40:43 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Sorry about this, but here's what I mean.
+
+A coherent, incongruent ('pervy') game like the WF&D looks like this:
+
+N--N-NNNN-N--N-NN-N-
+
+A coherent, congruent ('vanilla'?) game like Sorcerer (I speculate)
+looks like this:
+
+N----N--N---N---N----N
+
+An incoherent, congruent game looks like this:
+
+------N--S-GG---N----
+
+And an incoherent, incongruent game looks like this:
+
+G-NNS--GGS-SN--G-NNS
+
+Where - is a decision that an observer can't tell by looking at it alone
+whether it's S, G, or N.
+
+Oh and which, rereading it, is almost exactly what you said, Valamir.
+
+-Vincent
+	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.msg17540#msg17540>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17540#msg17540>*
+« *Reply #6 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:01:15 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hi Vincent,
+
+Coherence, like nearly all the terms in the essay except for
+system-tools, refers to play. Just like "Gamist RPG" refers to "game
+whose rules facilitate Gamist play," "coherent RPG design" refers to
+"game whose rules facilitate coherent play."
+
+From the essay: /By "coherence," I mean the degree to which a group of
+people can hit upon and sustain a shared Premise ... - and by
+definition, continue to enjoy the social role-playing activity
+consistently./
+
+It so happens that I claim, in practice, that GNS-focused game designs
+are more reliably coherent, but that's not a definition.
+
+So if I'm not mistaken, coherence exists as an end-product - the point
+is whether Congruency exists as a means to it that can be identified in
+some useful way or level, or whether it's a grab-bag,
+possibly-unnecessary synonym for "play which facilitates Coherence."
+
+I agree that techniques for that kind of play, which successfully
+resolve potential incompatibilities among (a) within-mode differences (N
+vs. N'), or (b) among-mode differences (G vs. N vs. S), deserve a lot of
+attention. But do they deserve any name but Coherence-preserving or
+Coherence-creating techniques? Considering that that's what they
+actually do?
+
+Just to be clear, I'm not trying to scrub out Walt's suggestion
+regarding the term Congruence. I want to dissect out the topic with
+great care, because it's important.
+
+The most important thing, of course, is what it seems we all agree on:
+that the level of GNS application between one person's decision and
+successful group play does need to be brought more into the light, both
+in the essay and during discussions.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+	Logged
+
+*Mike Holmes
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=42>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 9963
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=42>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17542#msg17542>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17542#msg17542>*
+« *Reply #7 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:21:54 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Um, I'm having problems with the terms selected. Congruent means
+something like "Similar to" or parallel. Having some qualities in
+common. While Incongruent means the opposite. Having dissimilarities.
+
+So did I misread the definitions above, or are these terms being used in
+a really odd fashion? This seems totally counterintuitive to me.
+
+Wouldn't it be congruent = behavior that adheres to one GNS style, and
+Incongruent = behavior that does not adhere to a single style?
+
+If this is the case then I can see using congruency to say something
+like "the players' deisions being congruent with Gamism led to a
+coherently Gamist experience." In this case indicating the atomic level
+discussion of behavior as it relates to an entire game experience (a
+"molecular" level event). As Ralph and others have intimated it might be
+used.
+
+Or am I just confused?
+
+Mike
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Member of Indie Netgaming <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming/>
+-Get your indie game fix online.
+
+*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.msg17543#msg17543>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17543#msg17543>*
+« *Reply #8 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:22:15 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+At this point I'm seeing them as 2 completely seperate ideas trying to
+define 2 seperate (but related) concepts.
+
+Whether an individual decision is Congruent or Incongruent does not tell
+you whether the resulting game with be Coherent or Incoherent, therefor
+I don't think we can see Congruency as being "Coherent Preserving" or not.
+
+That said, I think the very definition of Coherency needs to be
+tightened up.  For instance in the part of your essay you quote above
+you say "By 'coherence,' I mean the degree to which a group of people
+can hit upon and sustain a shared Premise ... - and by definition,
+continue to enjoy the social role-playing activity consistently"
+
+There are two weakness with this definition I see.
+
+First, the last part very strongly implies that a game needs to be
+coherent in order for players to enjoy the activity consistently.  This
+is at odds with the comments you made in another thread of mine
+regarding Coherency, where you acknowledge the potential for Functional
+Hybrids.  
+
+Second, I have difficulty with tieing the concept of Coherency back to
+Premise.  One reason is that there are several different types of
+Premise discussed in the essay (a seperate pet peeve of mine), but there
+is no indication of which form of premise leads to Coherency.  Another
+is that in practice, Coherency has been used to refer to a game which
+targets a specific GNS position consistently.  Thus, I fail to see the
+purpose of tieing Coherency back to Premise at all, when what it appears
+to be is an aspect of GNS positions.
+
+Note:  I'm not saying the definition of Coherency needs to be scrapped
+or changed.  Just that it could use a good bit of clarifying.  It is
+difficult to evaluate whether "Congruence" is really the same thing as
+"Coherent" when I can't fully understand what is meant by "Coherent".
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ralph Mazza
+Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Stories
+<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>
+
+*lumpley <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 2091
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119> WWW
+<http://www.lumpley.com/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17544#msg17544>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17544#msg17544>*
+« *Reply #9 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:27:17 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ron,  
+
+Huh.
+
+So I've been thinking too narrowly about coherence, then.  You're saying
+that this:
+
+NSS--NNN-S--NSSN---S
+
+Might well be a coherent NS game, not necessarily an incoherent game
+with N and S in conflict.
+
+Yes?
+
+-Vincent
+	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.msg17547#msg17547>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17547#msg17547>*
+« *Reply #10 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:38:08 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Mike,
+
+Walt is using the term in the technically correct manner which seems odd
+on first blush.  
+
+If a decision can be used to support both a G position and an S position
+than the decision is Congruent between G and S.  Thus a decision which
+only supports a single position in not congruent with any other decision
+and is therefor considered incongruent.
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ralph Mazza
+Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Stories
+<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17550#msg17550>
+*It's an O-blood Kinda Thing.
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17550#msg17550>*
+« *Reply #11 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:49:13 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+What I am hearing so far makes it sound like 'congruent' decisions (I
+agree with Mike, the term is counter-intuitive) are decisions /at the
+atomic level/ that cannot be determined to be Particles G, N, or S and
+function as any of them.  (Perhaps a GNS uncertainty principle at work?)
+
+The reason Ron seems to be having trouble settling them in terms of
+coherence is because he's looking for a relationship (much like the many
+people who try to connect Director Stance to Narrativism).  There isn't any.
+
+What we seem to be talking about here is what O-type blood is once it's
+in the blood stream.  You infuse O-type into a person with AB blood and
+what do you get?  A living person with AB blood.  The same goes for all
+the GNS modes and hybrids.  An O-type decision (one that /is/ congruent)
+disappears when you consider the overall flow of the game.  It's the AB
+blood cells that tell you what blood-type a person has, no matter how
+much O-type blood has been infused.  (Note; the patient is dying if they
+have too many /different/ blood-types mixing in their veins - that is
+incoherency - the amount of O-type blood makes no difference.)
+
+So basically O-particles work as any of the types as needed and they are
+not considered in the search for coherency.  If a molecule has
+O-particles and G-particles, then it is a G-molecule; the same goes for
+S-particles and N-particles.  This continues to carry forward all the
+way up to the 'substance level.'  If a substance is made primarily of
+G-molecules, no matter how many O-particles it has, it's the G-element
+fully coherently.
+
+The only reason I see this as an asset is that it allows us to say, "Oh
+that's an O-type decision, we cannot determine GNS-state from that" - a
+mechanism to agree to disagree more readily and move on.  A patch if you
+will to the 'crunchiness' of the GNS.
+
+Fang Langford
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*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.msg17565#msg17565>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17565#msg17565>*
+« *Reply #12 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:05:22 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+A few quick points:
+
+1. I will hereinafter try to stick to "congruence" and "coherence"
+instead of the alternatives ending with y.
+
+2. The thread with Mytholder that Valamir refers to was what gave me the
+idea to pursue congruence as a concept. I found that discussion very
+interesting despite (and in part, because of) the communications
+difficulty it revealed.
+
+3. /This is what... we were representing as blanks in the decision maps
+we were drawing (the blanks being congruent and the non blanks being
+incongruent...of course, in Walts model we'd need to use something other
+than blanks to represent the 4 different types of congruency)./
+
+Probably not necessary in most real-world cases. Any type of congruence
+means you cannot characterize the decision specifically as G, N, or S;
+the only difference between the types is whether one of the three
+possibilities (and if so which one) is ruled out.
+
+Now, to the main issue, which Ron has not surprisingly homed in on. It's
+irrelevant that coherence is defined differently from congruence if in
+practice they amount to the same thing. So, do they?
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+
+"compatibility of goals, in practice"... but where's the emphasis? Does
+this mean compatibility of goals with each other in the context of a
+particular practice, or does it mean compatibility of the goals with the
+practice itself? I always read it as the latter. (It's almost but not
+quite the same thing... one single goal must always be compatible with
+itself, but could be incompatible with the practice.)
+
+If it's the latter, the congruence has no direct definitional
+relationship to coherence, but a logical connection can be made that
+congruence implies coherence. If it's the former, then congruence is by
+definition one form of coherence. In either case, though, congruence is
+far from synonymous with coherence itself.
+
+From what I've seen, advice stemming from GNS theory usually emphasizes
+achieving coherence in ways other than promoting congruence (e.g., pick
+a single goal and focus on it).
+
+Also, there is an "idealized" concept of coherence that may not be
+implied in the original definition but is, I believe, often read into
+it. Idealized coherence raises the bar from compatibility of goals with
+each other and/or with the practice, to active promotion of the desired
+goals by the practice. (Especially when one primary goal is identified,
+compatibility /of/ goals no longer appears the issue; compatibility of
+practices /with/ the goal becomes paramount, and that bar can easily be
+raised to "promotion of" that goal.) For that idealized form of
+coherence, coherence and congruence become completely disjoint at the
+atomic level (an individual decision either promotes the main goal
+specifically, or it is congruent, or it promotes a different goal and is
+incoherent; it cannot be any two simultaneously). At higher levels this
+translates into a linear trade-off between the prevalence of congruent
+decisions versus coherent decisions, represented by the continuum
+between vanilla and pervy.
+
+Phew, very abstract, all that. In actual practice I see the following
+differences:
+
+- A group of players can be loosely described as coherent or incoherent
+based on how similar their goals are, without taking into account their
+practices. This may not be strictly proper, but it's done. Congruence
+has no meaning in that context.
+
+- A game system can be characterized as coherent or incoherent, without
+taking into account the players, based on whether it promotes a
+compatible set of goals or not. My hypothesis is that a game system can
+also be characterized as congruent or incongruent based on whether it
+promotes congruence between different goals or not. A game might be
+coherent by virtue of it clearly promoting a single GNS goal type, or it
+might be coherent by virtue of promoting multiple cross-GNS goals but
+also promoting congruency between those goals. Also, it might (in
+theory) be coherent, despite promoting multiple cross-GNS goals, through
+some other means, but I don't believe any such means are known.
+
+- A relatively small unit of game practice can be characterized as
+promoting congruence or incongruence, before the fact, at a level where
+the concept of coherence appears difficult to apply. Usually this comes
+in the form of realizing that a certain practice unnecessarily promotes
+incongruence. For example, a system might offer metagame rewards for a
+character to behave in certain protagonistic ways without regard for
+whether that behavior makes any sense for the character (unnecessary S-N
+incongruence), or a setting might introduce a puzzle that is easy for
+the players to solve but unreasonable for the characters to be able to
+do so (unnecessary G-S incongruence). A game system rule promoting G-S
+incongruence could be a definition of what a "loophole" is.
+
+- The concept of coherence appears to be most "at home" at the level of
+evaluating a game system. The concept of congruence appears to be most
+"at home" at the level of evaluating a specific rule, encounter, scene,
+or other relatively small unit of play.
+
+- Specific gamemastering practices can often easily be described as
+promoting congruence or incongruence. I haven't seen much discussion
+here of effects of gamemastering practices on coherence or incoherence.
+(That doesn't mean it's not a viable concept; it's the nature of this
+forum to look at things from a system designer's point of view.)
+
+- Again, the main point: consistent congruence throughout a system might
+imply coherence at least of a sort. Incongruence, even when pervasive,
+does not imply incoherence. A gamist game might be filled with rules
+loopholes and might despite (or because of) that be a good coherent
+gamist game. A narrativist game might reward players for changing the
+character's nature during play for purely noncausal reasons, and still
+be a good coherent narrativist game.
+
+- However, I would suggest that a system that promotes goals from
+different GNS modes, and does not promote congruence, must be incoherent.
+
+- Walt
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wandering in the diasporosphere
+
+*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.msg17570#msg17570>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17570#msg17570>*
+« *Reply #13 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:26:24 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang's blood-type analogy reminds me of a point I forgot to make: since
+congruence applies to a particle, only a pervasive pattern of congruence
+has any meaning at higher levels. So when I say something like
+"congruence is by definition one form of coherence," I mean that
+pervasive congruence throughout play, not some small number of
+individual instances, would result in coherence.
+
+An open question is, how pervasive can congruence be? To borrow Fang's
+analogy, do any "Type O" people exist, or does everyone inevitably have
+enough "A", "B" etc. particles that they must fall into some other type?
+If pervasive congruence is not a real phenomenon, then as Fang says the
+applicability of the concept is very limited.
+
+I believe pervasive congruence is real and in fact fairly common, which
+is why specific occurrences that introduce additional unnecessary
+incongruence (such as a particular scene where OOC knowledge suddenly
+becomes an issue) cause noticeable problems in play.
+
+- Walt
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wandering in the diasporosphere
+
+*Gordon C. Landis
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=35>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1011
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=35>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17691#msg17691>
+*GNS and "Congruency"
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1733.msg17691#msg17691>*
+« *Reply #14 on:* April 11, 2002, 11:35:27 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote
+- Specific gamemastering practices can often easily be described as
+promoting congruence or incongruence. I haven't seen much discussion
+here of effects of gamemastering practices on coherence or incoherence.
+(That doesn't mean it's not a viable concept; it's the nature of this
+forum to look at things from a system designer's point of view.)
+
+Based on an initial, quick reading - "Robin's Laws" is all about
+congruent GM techniques.  I'll reread carefully for anything that could
+be brought to bear on coherence . . . just like I'll have to re-read
+this thread carefully to make sure I understand the concepts.
+
+FWIW, I agree with Valamir that something about this issue is one big
+thing folks "trip" over regarding GNS.  Without an understanding of the
+subtleties around atom/molecule/substance (or decision/style/prefernce,
+etc.), it's easy to become convinced that "GNS doesn't apply to how I
+play games, so it's bunk."
+
+Gordon
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Gordon C. Landis
+
+*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> 
+
+« 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>
+
+Jump to:  
+
+
+Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
+<http://www.php.net/> 	The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
+<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
+*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> 	Valid XHTML 1.0!
+<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
+<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>
+