Early Threefold Model FAQs

The following is an attempt to fill in the picture regarding the history of the Threefold model. The full picture can only really be had by looking over the discussions themselves. However, here I can present several people's early attempts to distill the discussion into coherent presentations of the concepts. On a newsgroup, this is done through writing a FAQ.


Alain Lapalme made the first crack at a glossary and FAQ for rgfa discussion in a August 20, 1995 post. He included the following section:

PLOT - WORLD or
DRAMATIST - SIMULATIONIST  or
STORY - WORLD

plot based (dramatist, story)-- games where plot/drama
considerations are given prominence

world based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
setting is given prominence

The above definitions are simplistic and really do not capture the
heart of the matter.  There are many schools of thought on this issue,
based on how and when GMs make their decisions.  Namely:
 1) during world creation - whether or not dramatic/plot
considerations will prevail during the world creation process - ie, is
the world created for the characters to interact in or is the world
created and then characters are created to interact with the world;

 2) during play - if a GM has to make a decision, will the
decision be based on whether drama is enhanced or the simulation is
maintained (note that a decision could accomplish both);

 3) integrity of the setting - whether a GM decision will
enhance drama/plot at the expense of the setting or vice versa (note
that many consider this aspect a different issue altogether (see
Natural vs Directed)).


NOTE:  dramatic <> plot based  for some people
  world <> simulation for some people
 story = plot based or
 story <> plot based

The original formulation was quickly revised, and in a August 26, 1995 post, Alain presented the following -

plot -- world based
dramatist -- simulationist
plotted -- unplotted

plot based (dramatist)-- games where plot/drama considerations are
given prominence

unplotted based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
setting is given prominence

The above definitions are simplistic and really do not necessarily
capture the heart of the matter.  There are many schools of thought on
this issue, based on how and when GMs make their decisions.  Namely:
 1) during world creation - whether or not dramatic/plot
considerations will prevail during the world creation process - ie, is
the world created for the characters to interact in or is the world
created and then characters are created to interact with the world;

 2) during play - if a GM has to make a decision, will the
decision be based on whether drama is enhanced or the simulation is
maintained (note that a decision could accomplish both);

 3) integrity of the setting - whether a GM decision will
enhance drama/plot at the expense of the setting or vice versa (note
that many consider this aspect a different issue altogether (see
Natural vs Directed).


NOTE:  dramatic <> plot based  for some people
  unplotted <> simulation for some people

Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote a draft FAQ which appeared in a May 6, 1996 post. It included the following definitions -

plot-based game -- a game played so that a good story with strong plot are
                   formed by the characters' actions. The GM pays attention
                   to drama and tension, and tries to make sure the game
                   has closure. This does not require that a GM have a
                   particular plot he forces the players through, but that
                   he make sure that there is *a* plot at the end of the
                   game. Plot-based is NOT a synonym for scripted.
...
simulationist game -- a game in which the objective is to make as accurate
                      as possible a simulation of the game world. To this
                      end, the only events that happen must arise naturally
                      from the situation,  This does not necessarily require
                      mechanics or dice -- it is the intent of the players
                      and GM that determines the type of game.

My full FAQ for rgfa first appeared in July 1996. The idea of "simulationist" had been discussed for quite some time. I had proposed a new definition for it in a July 17, 1996 post, which was followed up by comments by Mary Kuhner in a July 25, 1996 post. In my first FAQ from September 23, 1996, the only threefold term was this very terse entry -

  "simulationist":  A game in which effort is made to not let meta-game
 concerns during play affect in-game resolution.  

In addition, I referred to the Drama/Simulation Axis which Rodney Payne developed as part of his "Campaign Axes" article. The following was written by Rodney Payne and appeared in the September 1996 FAQ -

-> DRAMA/SIMULATION

  The *dramatic* GM deliberately includes, within the setting, people,
  places, and events which are particularly relevant to the backgrounds
  and motivations of the player characters.  In the strongest form, she
  might fudge things so that they fit better with the PC's -- varying
  down to the weak form where she simply focusses creative efforts on
  those things she thinks will engage the PC's.

  The *simulationist* GM designs the setting independently of the PC's
  and their motivations.  The strongest form of this would be a GM who
  creates a very detailed, fleshed out setting prior to even meeting
  the players or character creation.  After this, he simply develops
  how things change...

-> DIRECTED/NATURAL

  A *directed* GM is one who makes a conscious effort during game play
  to guide the campaign development.  This doesn't mean that she has a
  fixed plot which she is sticking to, however.  There is also purely
  off-the-cuff directing: guiding the campaign towards higher drama
  on the spur of the moment, or perhaps just keeping the action moving.

  A *natural* GM is one who simply responds to players actions in a
  manner most consistent with his conception of the world, and perhaps
  his understanding of the group contract.  He leaves dealing with
  meta-game issues like drama or pacing up to the group, rather than
  taking a leadership role.

As an interesting footnote, there was a largely-forgotten post by Barbara Robson around November 19, 1996, entitled "14 Dimensions of RPGs". For the most part this was a set of axes similar to what Leon Stauber and Rodney Payne had done. However, there was a section below the 14 separate one-dimensional axes which suggested a triangle model, as follows:

MOTIVATION:
----------
  What is the motivational focus of the game?  Creating a story,
  experiencing a world through the eyes of a PC, or using your
  wits to solve a problem or optimise a strategy?  These were the
  three main motivations that I thought of.  There could be others
  (developing acting abilities, having an excuse to hang out with
  friends and eat pizza, or whatever, but these are the three that
  really seemed to relate to roleplaying.  While these obviously
  don't fit on a single axis, it does seem that as more emphasis
  is placed on one of these factors, less can be placed on another.
  I've therefore set these on a triangle rather than an axis.

                             Interactive
                             Storytelling
                               /     \
                             /         \
                           /             \
                         /                 \
                       /                     \
                     /                         \
                   /                             \
                IC ______________________________ Problem-
            Experience                            Solving

As far as I can tell, this post generated little discussion at the time -- partly because it was not distributed well due to some problem with the local server. (The original is not cached by Google, but Sarah Kahn's repost of it is.) However, this may have been influential behind the scenes in some people's thinking on the subject. Note that the "Threefold Model" per se was coined by Mary Kuhner in a July 1997 post about 9 months later.


In May of 1997, the Drama/Simulation axis was dropped from the campaign axes model as reformulated by Leon von Stauber. The Directed/Natural distinction remained as written, however. Further, I expanded the definition of "simulationist" as it appeared in my FAQ to better reflect the further discussion. In my May 13, 1997 FAQ posting, the definition was expanded to -

 "simulationist":  A game in which effort is made to not let meta-game
 concerns during play affect in-game resolution.  That is,
 a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PC's
 or to save her plot -- and will not add forces to the game
 world just to make things more challenging for the PC's.
  The world can initially be designed with meta-game
 concerns (i.e. "I like magic: let's play in a world with it.").
 The group may also use meta-game concerns for meta-game
 effects (i.e. who is playing which character, when to break
 for dinner, whether or not to play out a long conversation
 word for word).  

In July, I added three new terms to my FAQ for "gamist", "dramatic", and "Triangle model". The concept of the Threefold Model had just just been formulated earlier that month. In the Jul 28, 1997 FAQ post, the following appeared -

  "gamist":  is the esthetic of games which try to set up a fair
 challenge for the *players* (as opposed to the PC's).  The
 challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries,
 social manipulation, etc.  At the heart of this contract
 is the expectation that the players will try to solve the
 problems they are presented with -- and in turn the GM will
 make these challenges solvable if they act intelligently
 within the contract.

   "dramatic":  is the esthetic of games which try to make the
 action into a satisfying and coherent storyline.  See
 Part II of this FAQ for more on this style.

   "simulationist":  is the esthetic of games where effort is made
 to not let meta-game concerns during play affect in-game
 resolution of events.  That is, a fully simulationist GM will
 not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot -- and
 will not add forces to the game world just to make things
 more challenging for the PC's.  Such a GM may make meta-game
 decisions like who is playing which character, when to break
 for dinner, whether or not to play out a long conversation
 word for word, etc. -- just so long as she tries to resolve
 it as what would "really" happen.

   "Triangle model":  Describing a game as a balance of Gamist,
 Dramatic, and Simulationist concerns -- i.e. someone
 might describe themselves as mostly Gamist with some
 Dramatic influence, but not very Simulationist.  

In the next revision in August, I minorly revised the entry to reflect the commonly used name of Threefold model rather than "Triangle model". From the August 21, 1997 FAQ post -

   "three-fold":  A model describing games as a balance of Dramatic,
 Simulationist, and Gamist concerns -- i.e. someone might
 describe themselves as mostly Gamist with some Dramatic
 influence, but not very Simulationist.  Also known as the
 "triangle model" (for a pictorial diagram of this).

   "four-fold":  A suggestion to add Social concerns (i.e. among
 the players as opposed to PC's) to the three-fold model
 above.  It is currently under argument whether "Social"
 actually constitutes another vertex in the model, or is
 a separate concern.  

The FAQ remained in this form until October 1998 when I rewrote treatment of the Threefold as its own FAQ section.