Roleplay Theory - My take, the 4D SEALED-model

By user Diacritica on Wikimedia commons.

I have always appreciated those who put effort into researching roleplay theory. While I've been an old-school follower of the threefold/GNS/GEN models, I've always felt something was missing. I would say, it's the same feeling economists felt when they were originally presented the IS/LM model. Brilliant, explains most, though ... missing a vital part.

In terms of roleplay theory, the missing link to me was the very roleplayer. What drives a player to roleplay, how they form their characters and how they approach roleplay, without their factor merely reduces to one of three main categories in a "tier" or "level". An early precursor to this idea would be Robin D. Laws who highlighted casual players in his 2001 book on roleplay theory. I find a re-consideration of the roleplaying game theory vital with the emergence of all kinds of new roleplay mediums, with the internet and MMO games in highlight.

Another issue I found with most roleplaying-game theories that they tend to focus on creating categories for the most obscure tabletop roleplaying systems instead of taking the whole spectrum into account, from the cheesiest of linear "proclaimed RPGs" to the least regulated forum interactions.

Read on to see a four-dimensional model, built on the categories of player approach, player goals, centralization and player affinity, also followed by a wide range of other spectra in correlation to these.

The columns

The easiest table of the three is the player goal one, since it was the very original base for roleplay theory in the threefold/GNS/GEN models. In this regard, I would differentiate three:

Power
Competitive play where the reward is power and the "conquest" of the setting and main story.

Interaction
Semi-competitive play where the reward is influence on the setting and main story.

Immersion
Non-competitive play where the reward is immersion and exploration of the setting and the main story.

Obviously, these are all directly catered for by the three aspects of the GNS model. An appropriate system of gamism is required to handle power and conquest within a setting, a well-defined narrative and theme is required for good interaction and a well-defined simulation of a world is necessary for full immersion.

I will however oppose the notion of mutual exclusivity. A gamism-based system handling some narrative interactions (relations, politics, etc.) in a world can help satisfy interaction-based players, whereas a better-built world increases the "reward" factor of its conquest.

The rows

Second of the three is the setting centralization, borrowed from the GEN model. Another three sub-types:

Centralized
Any roleplay decision may be overruled by a game master or board of masters. Setting and story-lines tend to be defined.

Guided
Some roleplay decisions may be overruled by a game master or board of masters. Main bulk of the setting and the main story-line is defined, though side-plots and setting details may be shaped by players.

De-centralized
Game masters or the board of masters may only overrule breaches of general OOC rules and define no storyline, though they may play NPCs and creatures in player-defined arcs.

The depth

The depth of the model is given by the player approach. While we have the answers to the "how" you roleplay in the columns, this question is more so the "why", from a completely OOC perspective. Another three categories here as well.

Socialising
The OOC drive of roleplay is to interact with friends and strangers, to which roleplay is a medium.

Entertainment
The OOC drive is to derive entertainment, comparable to watching a movie or playing a game of chess.

Escapism
The OOC drive is to displace oneself from the real world and escape into a made-up one.

The fourth dimension

The fourth measured categories are related to player affinity, close-knit with the centralization of an environment or setting. This deals with how players prefer to interact with the world. Three categories, once again.

Actors
Players limit their interactions to being part of the scenes and settings.

Leads
Players take a leading position in scenes, though remain integral parts of settings.

Directors
Players take a leading position in both the scenes and the setting itself.

Other factors

These are axes each on which any roleplay session or campaign can shift. Though independent, I wouldn't include them in any main model because they are inherently influenced too much by the four dimensions above.

Realism:
Gritty / realistic - Fantastic / otherworldly

Mechanics:
Ruled, Safety, Trusted

Outcomes:
Statistics, Fortune, Actions, Agreements

In-depth explanation

The columns:

Power-gaming doesn't necessarily mean powergaming as it tends to be defined in roleplay, though the goal remains the same: to overpower. Players of the power archetype tend to reduce encounters and situations to "challenges" that they can "win" one way or another: through the employment of tactics or sheer power. Their main goal, defined as "conquering the world" is to be the strongest or most influential. To defeat the former champion, to protect the world from foreign invasion, etc. Because of the confrontation-oriented gameplay, power-players tend to require a system of rules regulating their capabilities. Most mainstream video RPGs are power-games, prime example being Skyrim.

Interaction-gaming has the unique reward of influence on the story or setting. To an interaction-roleplayer, the best possible reward isn't defeating the largest dragon but to overthrow a local ruler, to establish a feared gang or to turn the tide of a long-lasting conflict through interaction. Comparable to the GNS model's narrativist category, these players not necessarily favour or disfavour combat, though still enjoy supporting systems based more around the player's possible interaction with the world than sheer combat. The best example for an interaction-game is Crusader Kings II.

Immersion-gaming sidelines influence on the world and player prowess and prefers a passive approach to story-driving while the players interact and immerse themselves in the environment. Players receive no special stance in the world and may even remain limited compared to NPCs. Immersion-games create entertainment through challenge: because of the limitations and the strict setting forcing players into a mundane and average role, any slight alteration of the setting or the status-quo results in satisfaction. A good example for an interaction-game is the original Mount & Blade. While it allowed power-mongering and influence on the world, the setting was set in stone and most power the player could attain at most was still little compared to present rulers / characters.

The rows:

I imagine the centralisation of a roleplaying system as a more fluid spectrum instead of categories, though for the sake of keeping things organized there can still be three main categories to be sorted into. Centralisation is a lot like player goals: each player or group of players will have their preference to which a good game master can accommodate.

A centralized power leaves the game master capable of handling any issues better on an OOC level and they may intervene in the case of not only rule breaches but dissatisfaction for the better of the whole group. A de-centralized power leaves far more player freedom, though it leaves a group subject to chaos and a lack of direction.

In more recent times, another concern emerged especially in online communities. De-centralization tends to bring toxicity from competitive lobbying, whereas centralization leaves rules for game-master or master team bias and nepotism.

The depth:

The depth of the model is often subconscious, though all players can be put into either of the categories or between them. As with all other dimensions, different player groups are satisfied with other means and both the game master and the system has to accommodate for this. A group of social roleplayers have roleplay only half on their agenda, the other half is simple socialising. A gathering doesn't only mean playing a game for them, but the subsequent discussions, chatter and other activities. Those who roleplay mainly for entertainment tend to be more competitive than others and may remain dissatisfied if the scene moves too slow. At the same time, escapists crave immersion and a good world and tend to choose roleplay outlets with customisation options to create a better avatar.

The fourth dimension:

The fourth dimension is the most important one when deciding on a setting and the very core factor when deciding about a roleplay outlet, however it seems to have been the one ignored the most by previous models. Along with goals and motives, a player also has affinity towards different aspects of roleplay. As a rule of thumb, expecting more from a player than what they can provide leaves an empty scene whereas expecting less leaves them dissatisfied because they could have done more.

Actors are the casual roleplayers. They don't want to instigate and direct, they just want to be part of a story, whether it's for immersion, interaction or power. Some may call them "filler" roleplayers or "casuals", though neither should be understood in a derogatory way. I prefer the term "Actor" because it implies that they are in fact a vital part of the scene. Actors tend to steer towards centralized roleplay environments and tend to enjoy general RPGs and MMORPGs.

Leads step above actors in instigation and tend to try and change scenes from their original tone, theme, mood or goal to a different one. They can bring abrupt changes to scenes, though they tend to respect the setting and act within it. In a story, they may turn to betray a character the game master doesn't expect them to do, or think outside the box when it comes to solutions. Actors tend to steer towards guided roleplay environments and tend to enjoy the less-limited, custom roleplay environments.

Directors don't only change scenes but they thrive to topple or change the setting itself by its core. They may attempt to topple the rule and set credentials in a fictional world or establish their own, all within the bounds of roleplay. Directors tend to steer towards de-centralized roleplay environments and enjoy the least regulated outlets like forums or tabletop.

Other spectra

Realism
I excluded realism from the main model itself because it hinges too much on the individual variables within a model, both on the spectrum and in priority, and it's also a variable that's best displayed on a spectrum and not in individual categories (even more so than centralisation).

Realism refers to the general theme of the fictional world. The easiest way to portray it is a function of "mundane elements" and "otherworldly elements", similar to the one involved in the arguments of Leon von Stauber. Others may disagree but I believe in mutual exclusivity of fantasy and realism. Mixing the two works, however thriving to maximise both at the same time will yield confusion and a terrible mix of complicated hard fantasy (where all kinds of magic and creatures are explained through science).

Lately, and perhaps thanks to the popularity of HBO's GoT, gritty and realistic universes gained an unrivaled popularity compared to the more traditional high fantasy settings. This could be brought in relation to the attitudes of roleplay: general well-being and an ever-increasing decadence and reactionary influence repeats an intellectual similar to 19th century romanticism.

Mechanics
I prefer the terms "trust" or "rule" based mechanics over freeform or ruled roleplay. Freeform has an implication of chaos to it, an implication of unruliness whereas a "trust" based system implies what I generally perceived as preferred in roleplay communities: trust placed in players to deal with in-character conflict, skills, advancement and the like without limitations.

A safety system is a system of trust where rules exist as a last-resort option if two players can't agree on an outcome. Some de-centralised roleplay outlets use a mixed system where "victims" or "locals" may choose between trust or rules, though even in those cases there most likely is a safety set of universal rules.

Outcomes
Once again borrowed from the GEN system, my only addition is the agreements part and the changing of "karma" to "statistics" to better reflect a form I perceived to be rather common. With statistics, outcomes are determined by modifiers without rolls where a dice isn't warranted. Agreement means an OOC agreement on an outcome before it is reached in-character, to preserve cohesion, consistency or because the two players prefer to resolve a conflict that way. An example would be a duel where both sides agree on a draw and play it out in front of the others without rolls before the actual resolution: a draw.

Implications

The importance of adding two more dimensions into the main model lies in deeper understanding of the players themselves. Unexploited or over-exploited player capabilities can ruin a campaign, dungeon or game just as much as misaligned goals can. The same applies to a roleplayer's approach to roleplay itself.

Going after Glen Blacow's example in his 1980 article, the game master may have provided a dungeon through which the players themselves navigated with a lot of ease and perceived enjoyment, but they could still be left unsatisfied if they tried to change a scene as leads but encountered a lack of interactivity with the dungeon itself.

Furthermore, there's an obvious correlation between some of these variables and discovering that a players is X may hint that they are also Y and Z, along with enjoying A and B. Putting players into general categories and stereotypes may sound prejudiced and unreasonable, but it's efficient and may yield far better results in the end.