diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/congruency.txt --- /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 | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +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 + + +*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion +* +| | |-+ *GNS and "Congruency" +* Ť previous + +next ť + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + Print + + +Author Topic: GNS and "Congruency" (Read 2443 times) + +*Walt Freitag +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť * on:* March 30, 2002, 08:42:29 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #1 on:* April 01, 2002, 09:11:25 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #2 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:19:14 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #3 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:40:55 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #4 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:10:50 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #5 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:40:43 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #6 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:01:15 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 9963 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #7 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:21:54 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +-Get your indie game fix online. + +*Valamir * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #8 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:22:15 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #9 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:27:17 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #10 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:38:08 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*It's an O-blood Kinda Thing. +* +Ť *Reply #11 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:49:13 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +*Walt Freitag +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #12 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:05:22 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #13 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:26:24 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Member + +Posts: 1011 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +Ť *Reply #14 on:* April 11, 2002, 11:35:27 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + Print + + +Ť previous + +next ť + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +Š 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + +