Dissecting the three-way model

The Three Way Model as a tool for larp-perception and -inception has had a remarkable status in larp-theory. The status is remarkable since the 'model' is by no means coherent or actually especially useful. This is implied within the original text of the model, so I actually suspect that the author felt the model's inadequacy already when he wrote it. The following is the funeral of the model as an instrument at understanding larp.

I will in the following refer to 'the model', meaning 'The Three Way Model' as it was put forward by Petter Bøckmann, and as it appears in the KP'03-book.

Initially

The three central terms of the model are misconceptions of the terms as they were used in the original model that aimed at describing table-top gaming. Neither one of the descriptions offered in the model is useful for describing larp-play, simply because any participants in a larp fluctuates wildly and unpredictably between the three definitions and sundry other possible descriptions of action. I maintain that they should be discarded as outlines for understanding larp and larping because they do not offer a working understanding of how larp is done.

I will return to the over-all view, but will first examine the three main elements of the model:

The model's definition of the term 'dramatist':

Dramatist is the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying story-line. Different kinds of stories may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes, varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character drama. It is the end result of the story that is important.

Why it does not work:

I challenge any participant in a larp to state when a larp is good without a satisfying story-line! One should always value the total outcome of a larp as important and view the 'end-result', the post-larp viewed story as a singular important value. If participants in a larp do not work with and within the totality of a larp, they actually commit murder upon the larp as a whole. Isolating a 'dramatist' approach to larping as a descriptive term suggests that it is possible to part-take in a larp without considering and appreciating the whole. The term should thus be disbanded.

The model's definition of the term 'Gamist':

Gamist is the style which values solving a plot, or setting one up if you are an organiser. The challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything else. The players will try to solve the problems they are presented with, and in turn the organisers will make these challenges fair and solvable to the players.

Why it does not work:

A widespread misconception of table top rpg (ttrpg) is that it is a competitive activity. Anyone who has played ttrpg will know how wrong this is. In order for a session of ttrpg to work and be enjoyable, players has to work together both in the in-game action and in the understanding of the game environment.

The term 'gamist' in the model is an attempt at fitting a misconception of ttrpg into larp, causing further misconception. Many larpers find challenges of various kinds valuable, many find plots and mysteries to be the best. But they can not act on this without co-operation with other players and by totally understanding and immersing themselves in the game-setting, thus creating drama and excitement that may resemble that found in the theatre and in games. The definition of 'gamist' thus can not be regarded as separate from the other two, and so the term should be disbanded.

The model's definition of the term 'Immersionist':

Immersionist is the style which values living the roles life, felling what the role would feel. Immersionists insist on resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations. Thus, a fully immersionist player will not fudge rules to save its role’s neck or the plot, or even change details of background story irrelevant in the setting to suite the play. An immersionist organiser will try to make the plots and setting such that they are believable to the players.

Why it does not work:

Again the term cancels out it self, by actually being a description of how anyone should act as larper to make larp work. Ever since I started larping, the term immersion (in it's Norwegian translation 'innlevelse') has been the main prerequisite for larping. Unless you are willing to let your (real) self become part of the setting, unless you willingly accept the setting as it is and lets every action, consideration and perception be guided by what the setting implies, you will not experience what larp is. Immersion is a must for every larper - not a particular style. By singling immersion out as a distinct 'style' new larpers may misunderstand what larp is about, that larp is in fact about immersion in every instance. Again, the term is a description of a necessity for larp to work, and should thus be disbanded as a singular category.

The example

Granted, Petter does appreciate that the categories 'overlap', but the model still attempts to present this as logically different categories or 'styles'. This is the wrong way to go, when in fact they are basic necessities that everyone has to understand and appreciate in order to be part of any larp.

Petter illustrates his perception with this example:

How the game will run is also dependent on the player’s style of play. Take for example, a player playing the wizard’s apprentice, facing a horrible monster with the local guardsmen. The dramatist player would perhaps take a stand, deciding this would be a fine time to make a dramatic scene and sacrificing him selves for the town, without regard for the roles agenda. The immersionist would most likely turn tail and run, or possibly faint. The gamist might decide to try to engage the monster in conversation, knowing the organisers have put the monster there for some reason and that the guardsmen don’t have a chance against it. These decisions will influence how the game turn out. Thus, incompatibility of style may alter and potentially ruin an otherwise well made game.

The only valid statement in this example is the first sentence. The result of the larp is dependent upon player's styles, but luckily these are so many-fold that Petter's suggestions for the three 'paths' the wizard may take is too limited and not valid. The wizard's reaction to the monster is first and foremost dependant upon the players perception of his character, based upon the description given of the character prior to the game and upon the character in interaction with the game-setting. It is what this 'contract' between the player on one hand and the other players and the organiser on the other that determines the wizard's action. And these may cause the wizard to do any of the three suggested options, any combination of these, or options not covered by the scope of any of the three examples. There is a very long list of possible human motivations for action in real life, the same applies for larp.

What is it good for?

Petter asks him self what the model is for, and answers:

The Three Way model is meant as a sort of checklist for recognising player’s motivation for attending games, and how they play out their roles as a result. Organisers too have preferences, and it is when the preferred style of play by the players collide with that of organisers, or that of other players, that things may go wrong. This model may hopefully prevent a few such mismatches.

A worthy answer, and one that should have inspired to re-thinking the entire concept of a three-way model. Both players and organisers will have certain preferences and certain inherent styles. Unfortunately there are almost as many styles as there are people, simply because we all have different skills in acting, in running, in creating drama, in solving riddles, in making costumes, in singing, in torturing and so on. It is impossible to try and fit these into as few as three groups, especially if the three paths are as intertwined as the three of the model.

Finally

To me, Petters final comment suggests that he suspects the model to be highly inadequate:

Shoehorning everything into the model may lead to some really funny results.

How true. It has been done, something the number of self-styled 'immersionist' players that exist testifies to and the great number of aspiring drama-writers we can find. Larpers has tried to shoehorn everything into this model, and the result is a dead-end. The model has not lead to further understanding of larp, nor has it increased the quality of larp regardless of what standard you measure it against.

I would be tempted to say that the model has actually done quite the contrary, it has reduced the quality of many larps. Players have been trying to 'immerse' themselves and act 'realistically' in settings that are highly unrealistic and in manners that are highly unrealistic. Attempts at 'drama' where one tries to avoid 'Hollywood-style' action on order not to appear gamist has naturally endedd up as farcical. I do not blame Petter for this, but I blame fellow larpers that has misconstrued the model as something it clearly states that it is not; The be all and end-all of larp-styles.

A traditional way of debate in Norway has been to demand different suggestions, alternatives to things if you criticise them. I will no doubt be asked to offer alternatives to the model now that I've discarded it. If I were to attempt the formulation of a differently perceived set of styles, I would be falling into my own trap - trying to put into system something that can not.

I suggest this to the larpers at large; When you are about to create a larp as organiser, or when you are about to create a character for a larp, try to imagine archetypes of human interaction, then embellish them to make them something more than archetypes. You can for instance combine the 'jester' with the 'lover' or combine 'war' with 'famine' and see what comes out. When you have the 'formula' ready, implement it as a guideline for your play or for your larp - and voilá you have your own 'way'! To aid us all in this, a collective list of sundry archetypes could be formulated and constantly added to. This list of archetypical characters, setting or plots would be a fountainhead for new larps for ever.

And finally; free yourselves from the prison of terms offered by the Three Way Model!

Arman

Post scriptum

Many will say that I'm barking up the wrong tree when attempting to bury a theory that has obtained an almost 'Biblical' status in nordic larp. Maybe so, but I have never subscribed to the 'Three Way Model', it has just taken me this long to realise how many actually does perceive it as the 'be all and end all'. Thus I decided it was time to state my mind.

Another thing that theorists sometimes are required to do is offer lists of documents that have contributed to the writing of their own in some way... I could cite each and every compendium, each and every manifest and each and every document about larp I have read/written, but in stead I trust those that read this to be familiar with the necessary documents.

I will however offer one suggestion: To find fairly detailed embellishments of a number of human archetypes, read Part I - The Leavetaking, of Julian May's book 'The Many-Coloured land'.)

Post post scriptum

Read about 'The Three Way Moose' - a humorous comment... ;)