The Threefold and other theories each purport to describe player motivation, or intent. The Threefold makes that explicit by explaining that in-game decisions involve specific intents and offers three intents to explain decision-making. Similar theories also look to motivation and intent at the heart of the theory.
Problems arise when the theories begin to conflate intent with style, when they attempt to explain style as a matter of intent. A playerıs motivation to play and aspects he or she intends to enjoy in play inform stylistic choices, yes, as players make efforts to play in such a way as to realize those. A specific motivation, however, can give rise to a great many different fashions to realize it.
Consider the common motivation of a "a love of stories." If intent and style are conflated, one can assume that anything that involves gaining a story is acceptable to all who love stories and play to engage in stories. Itıs easy to regard all styles that specifically give rise to stories as being much the same.
That is not the case, however. There are a great many different ways to give rise to stories and somebody who enjoys one may not enjoy another. Thereıs a distinct difference between the general intent of getting a story and the specifics of how to do it.
Some folks, for instance, like to see stories naturally arise out of a mix of characters, both PC and NPC, and the conflicts built into their personalities and backstories. These folks make no effort in play to ensure that a compelling story arises, trusting to the initial conditions to provide a good tale. Indeed, some of these players would immediately drop out of a game where the GM attempted to force play in support of a story, meaning a group can be full of people who play to enjoy stories but who have incompatible styles.
Another approach to getting stories involves working in play to make interactions and sequences to work towards the specific end of driving a story along. Interactions and sequences that arenıt related to driving the story are shortened in play, or narrated instead of being played out. This is done without any effort to force scenes or adjust setting material to get the heroes to all the proper places or give them the information they need.
Still another approach involves focus on developing a story line to the point where the GM will rearrange matters behind the scenes to provide PCs with the opportunity to get the information they need and give rise to the scenes that are necessary to develop the story.
And then thereıs an approach focuses on getting the PCs from one proper scene to another, in order, to match a defined story structure, whether movie structure or play structure or whatever. Some folks play just to explore a specific story structure and all choices are made to support that structure.
That, as can be seen, is in direct conflict with the first group described. The styles involved, although both based on a love of stories, are worlds apart and incompatible. To suggest that the intent to enjoy stories in play means the styles that involve such are compatible or closely similar is to ignore the experience of gamers.
All that can be gained from knowing intent is that it underlies choices. There is no way to predict choices based on intent. There is no way to look at effects of most choices and know what the intent was underlying the decision.
Consider the appearance of an ogre in play.
The PCs just fled a cavern complex inhabited by goblins and are crossing a chasm, with a rope run to the other side and one hero hanging from the rope. The GM decides an encounter with an ogre is appropriate.
Why?
Was it because the story line demanded it?
Was it because the setting material indicated an ogre lives nearby and travels this way often?
Was it because the GM thought trying to cross the chasm while fighting off an ogre would be a good challenge?
Was the GM just being perverse and acting on a whim?
Did the GM do it to keep players from feeling smug about outwitting the goblins and avoiding a lot of problems in the caverns?
Again, why?
There is no way to tell. The effects of decisions do not indicate the intentions driving them. Intent isnıt automatically apparent in outcome, and thus intent doesnıt automatically give rise to specific style. Describing intent is not the same as describing style, and describing a style doesnıt provide a full measure of intent.
A great deal of preferences form a style, and intent is simply one aspect.
How much mechanical structure? Preferences range from the barest minimum to facilitate play to a great deal of crunchy goodness.
Diced or diceless play?
How serious is play? Play can be a lighthearted affair with much out-of-game socializing. It can be a focused affair with all concentrating only on the game. Character silliness can be welcomed, tolerated, or rejected.
How much characterization? Are characters effectively cardboard archetypes? Are they simply the players themselves "in drag"? Are they distinct personas unto themselves?
What sort of setting? Sketchy and only used to support other aspects of play? A shallow construct only used to provide some variety in adventure? Constructed to support the play of the PCs as epic heroes? A fully-realized construct that will swallow incautious characters in a myriad of fashions?
What is the scope of play? Are characters going to save the world from a legendary evil? Are they going to save a kingdom? Are they going to save themselves from starvation on an ongoing basis? What effect will their actions have?
And so forth. Play styles involve so much more than intent that knowing intent offers very little information as to actual style. Knowing a style--outcomes of choices--can only hint at intent.
Copyright 2003 by Larry D. Hols. All rights reserved.