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.