The RGFA Threefold does a good job of expressing the Diversity Rule, of indicating that there are many different ways to approach playing RPGs, and the same can be said of the offspring of the Threefold. For that reason, the Threefold stands as a classic statement of game theory.
The Threefold shows many weaknesses, however, and the utility of the theory is lacking. Indeed, many gamers report an inability to apply the Threefold to their personal experience and ignore it, even in discussions on RGFA, because of the problems with the theory. The Threefold can be criticized on several different counts.
This article touches on five different areas in which the Threefold is lacking. The Threefold has problems with definition, reduction, equation, and incompletion, and also suffers in application. It is due to these problems that the Threefold is limited in utility.
It is important to note at the outset that the Threefold is a difficult target. The FAQ does not fully reflect the usage, and the usage by those involved in the formulation of the theory is likely the most important thing to consider. Thatıs more difficult to track, as different folks use it in slightly different fashions. The FAQ, however, is how those not involved with the discussions from which the theory grew learn the Threefold and determine how it gets used by others. Criticism of the FAQ thus is criticism of how the Threefold is used by some folks, besides it being the only written definition of the theory. Most of this criticism touches on the FAQ material because of that.
Each of the individual Threefold terms offers problems, and the fashion in which the terms are expected to interact also creates problems. The entire theory is weakened a great deal because of the problems with these essential definitions.
A problem shared by all three folds of the theory is that the names of the folds all involve non-standard definition of the term. Once cannot look at the terms involved and have a good idea of what is involved when discussion them. Jargon is acceptable, of course, when involved in technical discussion, although terms that pick up non-standard use as jargon do usually provide a strong hint as to what is meant. The Threefold terms offer very little guidance as to what is meant, although a stronger case exists for "gamist" than for the other two.
It can also be argued that the definitions given are unique to the FAQ alone and not indicative of the theory. The problem that raises is that a theory is suspect and lacks utility if the terms for the basic ideas canıt be explicitly defined. If the FAQ canıt provide a distinct definition, then the whole is lost as it canıt be used without such a shared understanding.
Dramatist:
The first problem with the term is that it involves a non-standard usage of the word. One cannot read a dictionary definition of "dramatist" and even begin to guess at its usage in the Threefold. Even definitions of "drama" are hard-pressed to convey the meaning for the Threefold.
The Threefold then defines it as "the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying storyline," thus relying heavily on the term "story." The definition of story encompasses both a tale that is told and situations that could lead to having a tale told about them. This leads to some folks claiming that all RPG play involves stories, as they all involve situations that could give rise to a tale being told; this gives rise to strident conflict with those folks who play without regard to stories and never act to create stories at any time.
Indeed, one could argue, based on the definition of the word "story," that all RPGs involve creating storylines and thus all RPGs are dramatist in nature. This is contrary to the purpose of the Threefold, which is to illustrate the diversity rule. If all styles are dramatist, then the Threefold fails to illustrate differences.
The term also cants the matter of intent as relating to the story lines, whether or not the players intend to create story lines. For those players who do not intend to create stories but want to see if stories will grow out of a beginning situation, the question is very important, and for a theory that purports to explain differences in play styles, a definition that can be argued to disregard those styles is a major weakness.
The question of whether a story line is satisfying is also a problem. Some folks like working to get story lines and are as happy with bad story lines as with good ones. What, then, constitutes a satisfying story line?
"Dramatist" also suggests, in usage, a propensity for stagecraft as a necessary part of play for those wanting stories. Although the term arose in response to an RGFA poster whose style did involve such, the association of desiring a story with stagecraft of some sort is unwarranted.
In use, the dramatist field is claimed in most part by the simulationists. The simulationists have claimed most of the traits of good stories--characterization, setting, etc.--and leave only plotting available for practical use under the rubric of dramatism. The term that can be argued to theoretically involve all RPG play is then stripped of actual practical scope.
Without a strong definition of the term, it becomes difficult to use when analyzing and discussing a game. When most of the concerns of creating stories are claimed under the auspices of another fold, the fold in question loses a great deal of utility.
Simulationist:
"Simulationist" is also a weak term, derived entirely from "simulation." The definition of the word also fails to reflect the use to which it is placed for purposes of the Threefold. Simulation, in Threefold terms, is not just an attempt to simulate a specific thing, be it reality or a story form or something else (and thatıs the very fashion in which the GNS, an offshoot of the Threefold, understands the term). The term fails to actually reflect what approach to play it represents involves.
The term as used is actually defined in a negative fashion, that is, instead of being defined as what is desired, the definition rests on what is excluded. This is also a major weakness. To be useful, definitions must show what is included. They can be expanded to also show what is definitely excluded, but a description of inclusion is what makes them useful.
Simulation, as used in the Threefold, indicates a lack of out-of-game motivation for decision-making processes. It began as a notion of world-based decision-making, meaning that all decisions in play arise strictly from what is happening in the world setting, a stronger definition because itıs postive in nature.
In practical terms, advocates of simulationism claim as part of the simulation domain many of the same things claimed by dramatism (see above) and even some of the things that advocates of gamism would claim. If those qualities can only be claimed as simulationist in nature, then most gaming styles can be said to involve simulationism in largest part, in much the same fashion that all can be said to theoretically be dramatist because of the use of "story" as mentioned above.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, if such is true.
Gamist
"Gamist" also suffers in terms of definition. The term doesnıt exist by itself and can only be derived from the root "game." A perusal of the definitions of game leads one to quickly conclude that all campaigns include playing a game, so all campaigns are thus gamist.
This presents a greater problem than the prior definitions. The dramatist-story connection meant that all styles can theoretically be argued to be dramatist. The practical claims by simulationist advocates meant that very little could be claimed outside simulationism. The definitions of game show that such quibbling is moot, as all of it is part of playing a game, so all is gamist by definition--theoretically and practically.
In practical terms, however, gamism in the Threefold is limited by the notion of "fair challenge." That is to say, the definition is horribly limited by the notion. A great deal more enjoyment of expressly game elements can be had without either a challenge being involved or a concept of fairness. The definition offered makes for a poor target when one wishes to discuss game elements in a style.
For instance, some appeal of playing a game as game involves the simple use of mechanical structure of play, whether that structure is minimal or extremely involved. There is no measure of challenge or fairness involved in that aspect of enjoying a game. The enjoyment of using player skill or enjoying the learning of the rules and ins and outs of the structure also have nothing to do with fair challenge and are within the purview of gamism.
On the other hand, challenge is not necessary for enjoyment of the game. Munchkins love to play the game without facing actual challenge of any sort. The encounters offered up to munchkins lack any semblance of fairness for the foes.
There are those who enjoy encounters that arenıt fair to the PCs, also. The enjoyment rests on something other than fairness, in these instances.
[This fold has likely been the least-described of the three because most participants involved in the original discussions had strong inclinations to simulation and because the bulk of interest involved sorting out simulation and drama. Those of us with strong gamist tendencies just didnıt offer much beyond the basics in discussion--I figured most of the folks involved werenıt interested and that most of it was obvious, anyway. Silly me. ]
The Interaction of Terms
The fashion in which the terms interact is also problematic. The Threefold arose from conflict between a position that all games should include stories and the position that stories arenıt necessary at all (the conflict mentioned above). From those roots, conflict was assumed between each of the intentions posited--if one wished to get a story, then one was necessarily working against a simulation of reality. This was compounded by the primary advocate of stories having a personal style that ignored many of the areas claimed by simulationism--even those that others find necessary for satisfactory stories.
The supposed antagonism makes measure of mixed intents difficult. The supposed conflict leaves room for only one intention to be involved with each decision, a situation that is foreign to many Game Masters and players. The supposed antagonism also assumes that deciding based on a different intention will necessarily result in a different outcome, another situation foreign to much actual experience.
The FAQ does include statements that more than one intent is likely involved when making a decision. This gets lost in use, however, and many of the folks involved in the creation of the Threefold act as if a single intent drives each decision.
[Note: I am not fully conversant with GNS. I have read the articles explaining it a few times but have not been involved in lengthy discussion of it. I offer the following comments on it only to indicate that I think all offspring of the Threefold share many of the same flaws.] {Added Note: I will be breaking out criticism of GNS into a separate article soon. I figure it is important enough to warrant separate treatment even if it shows many of the same weaknesses.]
Similar Problems with GNS
"Game" as used in GNS is weak. It leaves out issues related to enjoyment of game elements, which leaves the definition lacking. It limits all game preferences to two issues, neither of which is necessary to a strong affinity for game elements, thus making it useless as a definition. Indeed, one of the two game elements mentioned can be argued to be a social concern and not a game concern at all.
"Simulation" as used in GNS is more in line with the dictionary definition of the word, which is good. However, because it reflects the dictionary definition (and underscores a lack of understanding of the Threefold definition), the term encompasses so much as to be useless in highlighting differences. Play that simulates three-act movie plot structure is far removed from the complete lack of story concern as shown by attempts to only simulate reality. That simulation can involve simulating story structures means any differentiation between wanting story and not wanting story is useless, thus removing any need for a dramatist intent.
GNS replaces "dramatist" with "narrativist." With simulation absorbing many plotting and story structure concerns, what is left appears to be essentially a definition of one basic stylistic approach to play, reducing its utility as a measure of general concern in play style.
The next major problem with the Threefold (and its offspring) is that of reduction--the theory involves reducing many approaches to but a few categories. In terms of providing generalizations involving style, the use of general style descriptors is theoretically acceptable. The problem with the Threefold is that the general descriptors group approaches that are actually dissimilar in significant regard.
For example, when dealing with desiring a story, the Threefold groups all such approaches under a single rubric. Those groups that wish to see if a good story grows naturally out of play do not take the same approach as those who structure play as if it were a three-act play. Indeed, the former groups could strongly oppose any such attempts to actively lead play to follow a story structure. Thus, one approach to getting a story can be antagonistic to another approach. Reducing both of those approaches to a single category works at cross-purposes with providing strong differentiation.
The same can be said of approaches that involve a love of game elements. It is one thing to want to win in some fashion and quite another to simply play for the experience of meeting a challenge. The two do not have to co-exist, and often do not, and to group them together also decreases differentiation among intents and stylistic outcomes arising from intent. These are only two examples of the reductionism inherent in the Threefold.
The Threefold also appears to reduce descriptions of style to intent. The FAQ makes clear mention of other things being involved in a style, but thatıs a point that appears to get lost on many readers. It then muddies the issue somewhat by not specifying to what extent those other things contribute. The FAQ was written, however, to explain the basics of the Threefold and not to provide insight into style, so it can be forgiven on this point. Many people versed in the Threefold attempt to reduce style to intent in exactly that fashion.
The Threefold also seems to conflate style with a single intent. The FAQ points out that each campaign likely involves a mix of the three intents it measures and then proceeds to speak of each intent as if it exists completely independent of the others. It does this to clarify what is involved with the three intentions it discusses. The problem is that many readers take away a sense of complete separation from their reading and then apply the Threefold in that fashion.
This may be due to the wording of the FAQ being unclear or it may be due to readers simply failing to consider carefully what is written. The problem is real in that many participants in discussions that involve the Threefold attempt to use it to reduce variety in game styles to not only a measure of intent in decision-making, but a single intent.
The Threefold also offers problems in terms of what it indicates as causality, how it equates intents with outcomes. The Threefold (and GNS) posits that intent predicts outcome, that a given intent will give rise to a given outcome. Likewise, it posits that a given outcome indicates a particular intent. In some circumstances such an equation may be true; for most, however, such prediction is not possible, as a specific decision outcome could arise from a each of the measured intents.
This equation of intent with outcome is what likely leads to the conflation of intent with style. This is exacerbated by the statements in the FAQ along the lines of "this is the style..." when introducing each fold of the theory.
The Threefold is incomplete in two fashions and fails to help differentiate styles significantly because of that. First, it ignores any other intention that can drive decisions. Some decisions in play are made due to social concerns, for example, a matter on which the Threefold is silent. Some outcomes can arise from nothing more than whimsy, another motivation the Threefold ignores.
It also fails to describe other facets of style, a problem related to the inherent reductionism. As mentioned previously, the FAQ touches on there being other things involved in style and then drops the notion, not even attempting to explain the proportion of each concept mentioned in arriving at a style. The Threefold thus fails to provide any truly useful indication of actual style, although the FAQ is rife with references to style.
Aside from the FAQ, use of the Threefold ignores considerations of how much or how little intent adds to a description of style. The theory is entirely silent on stylistic matters aside from intent despite its express use in discussing style.
The Threefold then suffers problems when actually applied (and the GNS appears to suffer even more from this problem). It has an unspecified scope and leads to unwarranted predictions.
The scope of the Threefold is indeterminant. The theory arose with the idea that individual in-game decisions are mapped and is thus sometimes claimed to extend no further than that use (note: a position held by the author for a long time). At other times it is claimed to only apply to contested in-game decisions. At other times it is applied in a general sense. the moving target of its scope makes both the application and discussion of the Theory difficult.
Perhaps the most insidious problem with the Threefold is the use of it to make unwarranted predictions. Folks brandish the Threefold (or GNS) terms as labels to apply--trying to categorize individual mechanics or even whole games as belonging to one intent group or another.
A given mechanic can be used for most any reason, whether to provide a challenge or help with a story or simply because the setting demands it. There is no such thing as a mechanic that can only be used due to a single intent. Granted, some mechanics are unlikely to be preferred for stylistic reasons, and that style may grow out of a strong inclination for one primary intent, but that in no way equates a mechanic with an intent.
Likewise, a game may be designed with a specific style in mind--and may even be a stronger game than one not designed with a specific style in mind--but that is not to say that the game can be labelled with one intent. It is possible to play the game with a predilection for a different intent and apply the mechanics with that in mind. It is simply impossible to design a game that requires a given intent or excludes others.
The Threefold will always be of interest for what it attempted. It will also always be of interest for focusing attention on the questions of why we play, what we want out of our games, and how we go about getting that. The Threefold provided a basis for thought that helped spur others into considering the questions and answering them.
Copyright 2003 by Larry D. Hols. All rights reserved.