The relationship between the Exploration of an Entity and the Exploration of a Concept
Some people have commented that the model is too heavy to be directly applicable or usable.
We think this is a consequence of the necessarily dense exposition of the current definitive article (see also the relevant critique). To disprove this claim, we list here the various ways in which the article has already been applied:
Oh how I now wish we had provided a 'Testing and Validation' section. There are two main reasons why we didn't:
Firstly, the article was finished and submitted in early autumn, when we didn't yet in our opinion have enough testing data to really count. While we can say that the groundwork for the model was six months of weekly games, each week trying out a new game system and new playing styles, we can't really draw on any additional conclusions from that, the model itself is that conclusion, and there is no linear connection from it to spesific events in that actual play period.
Secondly, even now, after a further 9 months of actively using our model, we don't have anything we would qualify as thorough and trustworthy testing. Yes, we've used it successfully (see the relevant critique), but we really haven't done any formal tests yet. The larp "The Process" is, among other things, an effort to do just such a thing, testing the design, play preference and analysis aspects of the model. It's just too bad we didn't get to run the larp at Knutepunkt as was planned, because now we have only the limited data from our playtest. Still, you can be sure we'll be writing a followup article on how the model worked in relation to that work.
And as a final note, we must also recognize that any tests we ourselves do are surely tainted data. Therefore, we will be very glad if you yourselves try out our model, and share your experiences with us.
While the descriptive framework of the model is just that, a descriptive framework, the model has been built as a base for further analysis of the interactions between the various components and consequently for making predictions based on that analysis. One can also reasonably make the claim that even just the vocabulary and the underlying structure are strong enough constraints on thought to produce almost effortlessly some individual predictions that would not be easily attainable without the framework.
It is however true, that the initial article contains very little hard predictions derived using the model, just the horribly primitive beginnings in chapter 5. All in all, as stated in the Future Work chapter, we believe that the time for seeing predictions based on the model is just now on the horizon, with us and others starting to actually make use of the framework to produce real-world applicable results. There are at least two forthcoming works on this matter in the pipeline, one based on the results we got from analysing the larp "The Process", and another one focusing on just a single Method choice - divulging or not divulging off-game the reasons for a characters actions - and its surprisingly multifaceted interaction with the various Processes.
In the end, it should be noted that the design-goals of this model are not firstly to facilitate simple, strong predictions. Quite to the contrast, the model was created to be mainly versatile and descriptive in order to be able to analyze and describe also those aspects of play that the more compact models have problems with, because they lump together so many aspects of play.
This seems to be a common concern, and a fitting alternative would be very much appreciated. However, there are advantages to the current term. When spelled out and thought about, the term "Shared Space of Imagining" really accurately describes both the significant differences and touching points of the concept with regards to the Shared Imagined Space. Any replacement term should be able to keep these immediate connotations.
While the categorization of benefits is not unique (as we note by citing another categorization by Jonathan Walton, and there's a short stub for one at the Forge), we do think these categorizations have something more in them than the more traditional Threefold/Three-Way/Robin Law's Player Types/GNS -type classifications.
The difference is that most of the other classifications concern themselves with "what brings enjoyment". Our classification of Benefits and those cited, on the other hand, concern themselves only with "what form does the enjoyment take". We think that such a question is useful in itself, and brings added clarity to the whole equation, which, in our model, then involves the Processes, which are actually the components that bring a response to the first question of what creates the enjoyment. Our formulation of the model allows us to look at the important relationships between these two parts of the "why gamers play" equation.
With respect to Jonathan Walton's The Five Values Model classification, we do not believe ours to be inherently superior, it just fits better with the rest of our model.
The strict definition of Immersion is very much intented. We do not subscribe to the notion that Immersion, particularly in the strong sense of the word that is used in the Nordic theory community, is just a step in a ladder up from empathy and engrossment.
However, Immersion does happen to be the one component of our model that we've extensively furthered our own thinking of. At the moment, our definition of immersion would be something like:
Thus, we think there is an orthogonal difference between empathy and immersion, with empathy and engrossment being an emotional attachment felt from the outside, and immersion being a wholely different phenomena. However, as the term immersion is already in various different uses both in the roleplaying theory community and the ludology community, it might be beneficial to rename the phenomena we define as something else. Player-Character Fusion or Transference come close, but in our opinion may focus a little too much on the hypothetical end state instead of the process.
While not actually put forth as critique, we ourselves want to note that it can be seen that the Exploration of a Concept and the Exploration of an Entity seem to share a common point. When thinking of an asbtract entity like The Middle-Age Village, there is very little difference between seeing it as an Entity and as a Concept. While the model states as a heuristic that entities are often explored as whole, with interaction on that level "What does your village do?" while concepts are seen mirrored in interactions between multiple distinct entities, in the end this is only a heuristic.
While the two concepts in our point of view share a single point in the conceptual space, their vast mass is usually very easily separable, and the conclusions we draw come those more clearly apart centers of gravity. Based on the results we obtain, we believe that differentiating the concepts as generalized categories is profitable in analysis.
Actually, we think that the relationship between the two concepts is a feature, designating an interesting space for further experimentation and study.
A valid critique, though we think that majority of experiences can easily be classified into one or the other. However, the exceptions are worth noting:
We find that especially pertaining to Nordic larp culture, Learning seems actually often to be attained through Meaning, or at least the two Results are nigh inseparable. This is not really expressable in the current flow of the model. For analysis purposes however, it usually suffices to note that both are produced.
It is also worth noting, that in tabletop games, the two results are more often separate and clearly distinct, as experiencing the SIS does not so often happen only through the eyes and being of the character.
See also the explanation of the common point between the Exploration of a Concept and the Exploration of an Entity for an overview of a quite similar relation between to other concepts of the model.
We quite like the Big Model, actually. We just think its ruined by the fact that people anally focus only on the three stated Creative Agendas, ignoring the rest (and what we consider the real meat) of the model. So, one of the reasons for not basing the work on the Big Model was truly to avoid tangling ourselves in that mess.
Another one was that the work was not actually based on the Big Model, and in our opinion there are also significant valuable differences in basic structure. For example, we think the CAs mix "how we attain enjoyment" with "what form does the enjoyment take", which are better kept separate, as in our model Processes and Benefits are (see also the relevant critique). The concept of Process is also in our opinion nicely able to contain the temporal aspect of play without breaking play into actual temporal units (which again, in our opinion, should not be the first breakpoints in analysis).
Finally, by creating the model from scratch, we were able to govern all definitions relating to it. We think this is a significant advantage in that we were able to create an internally consistent and coherent, extensive working vocabulary for discussing roleplaying. We only hope people will use it as such, and not draw in terminology from the general field without further thought.
Regarding appendix C,
In the article, we have only pertained to the single source document cited for the definitions of the various terms. This has been done in order to provide as tight and clear term translations as possible. Out on the net, there is a huge variety of different understandings of the different terms in each of the models compared, often arising also from terminology mixups between the various models. In order to avoid hand-waving, we chose to limit our readings of the model to the single original authorative source.
Thus, for example, in the article Threefold Gamism is read to include only Challenge and Tension, while GNS Gamism is read to include only Competition, while in common use Gamism is usually read to include a variable mixture of the three.
Regarding appendix B,
Again, a valid critique, though it should again be noted that the definitions were given more to just give out graspable examples of using the model than as definitive final definitions. Indeed, we are only glad that people seem to be able to quickly internalize the concepts to an extent where they can immediately suggest corrections.
As for the actual corrections, we agree that at least the Nordic Live-Action Role-Playing Community should also be noted to strive for Learning in their games, with the noted Mellan Himmel och Hav being an example of such. Omitting this was purely an oversight on our part.