I thought this might be another angle to take at reducing the furor/missunderstandings around GNS - explicitly acknowledging where issues exist and where rational individuals may disagree. I've only got one so far, on the GNS/GDS issue:
"GNS sounds an awful lot like GDS." - There's no way around it - yes, it does. But as pointed out in the "Top misconceptions about GNS", the way GNS has chosen to deal with this is to do everything possible to stress that it is NOT GDS. A certain amount of confusion is understandable (especially if you've got prior exposure to GDS), if unfortunate - but at some point, ya just gotta ask folks to believe you when you say "these are not the same thing." GDS was valuable in the development of GNS, and is acknowledged as a "source", but in the end, GNS is an entirely separate theory. If you don't like the apparent overlap, you'll find folks who agree with you. If you don't like that GNS has chosen to deal with this apparent overlap by simply saying "no, we mean something different here" . . . that's a valid concern. Try not to let that interfere with your ability to accept that, in general, GNS folks *are* clear that GNS is not GDS.
Gordon
Gordon,
Good points.
I just thought of something that might help: the term "GDS" itself is something of an abomination, probably my fault in part. If I'm not mistaken, the proper name for the idea proposed by Kim et al. is "the Threefold Model," and "GDS" got constructed somewhere along the line during discussions elsewhere.
Now, if I'm wrong, and "GDS" is a plain old normal term that's been around for ten years, then so be it. But I wouldn't be surprised if sometime at GO, we got into the habit of saying "GDS" and sort of created that name without realizing it, when we should have stuck with "Threefold."
So maybe that might help, eh? "GNS" is the packet of jargon and hoo-ha represented by my current essay plus the assembled debates and discussions and refinements, starting about three years ago; "the Threefold Model" is the packet of jargon and hoo-ha represented by the archived discussions of the r.g.f.a. folks starting about or almost ten years ago. Historically, it should be understood that The Threefold inspired me (under the impression that I was merely adopting it) to write up GNS, in stages.
What do you think? A bit more attention to this terminological purity?
Best,
Ron
Come on. There are more important issues with GNS. How about citing some of Gareth and Fang's concerns, for example. I don't believe that they are all resolved, and some pose real sticky dilemmas. If this thread is meant to point out the points at which people rationally disagree, I think you need to include quite a bit more. The Forge is a more contentious place than that. Heck, even the GEN model should probably be mentioned.
Mike
QuoteIf this thread is meant to point out the points at which people rationally disagree, I think you need to include quite a bit more. The Forge is a more contentious place than that.
:-).
Narrativism shouldn't be one of the top three divisions. It's just a subset of Dramatism with added player power, and putting it on the top level just confuses things. The basic division should be world/story/game.
(For added contentiousness - it's only top-level 'cos it's Ron's style).
EDIT: "With 70% added contentiousness, raves Cult Patriarch Ron Edwards"
Hi Gareth,
I especially like the word "just" in your sentences. If I take it out, a good 70% of the contentiousness disappears, and what fun is that?
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Gareth,
I especially like the word "just" in your sentences. If I take it out, a good 70% of the contentiousness disappears, and what fun is that?
What's the base contentiousness for that argument anyhow (too which the 70% gets "added")? And is that 70% reduction caused by the drop of the word "just" before or after the "added contentiousness"? Makes a big difference in the end contentiousness figure.
Anyway, what I meant to say was, that's the spirit Mythie! Lay into the theory deadEarth style!
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesCome on. There are more important issues with GNS. How about citing some of Gareth and Fang's concerns, for example. I don't believe that they are all resolved, and some pose real sticky dilemmas.
100% agreement. I'm hoping others jump in here - I'm in a bit of a "GNS discussion overload" at the moment.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIf this thread is meant to point out the points at which people rationally disagree, I think you need to include quite a bit more.
Again, you nailed the purpose I'd envisioned for the thread - I *want* to see much, nuch more.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe Forge is a more contentious place than that. Heck, even the GEN model should probably be mentioned.
Since the Jester now disavows GEN, I think it lives now only in the influence it had on GNS.
If no one else adds more valid concerns, I'll try and list a few myself . . . as soon as I can.
Gordon
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis
Since the Jester now disavows GEN, I think it lives now only in the influence it had on GNS.
What? I think I read something like that, but he disavows GEN in spite of, or partially due to, its affiliation with GNS, not because he feels that GNS is correct. Right? So, his body of theory still poses a particular objection (or three) to GNS. Or do I have this totally wrong?
I'll post one of my own.
Similar to the whole GNS/GDS relationship issue is the "Simulationism is not sexy" issue, a favorite of my partner Ralph. It states that the terminology in GNS is so stuffed with baggage (especially Simulationism) that people cannot get an intuitive grasp on the concepts. The argument goes as far to state that Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism would have been better served being labeled as anything else, even style 1, style 2, and style 3. The current labels cause more confusion than they could ever hope to correct.
Not a big issue, but a well stated opposition to current GNS terminology.
Mike
On the Jester and GEN . . . sorry if I implied he'd abandoned GEN because he decided GNS is "better" - NO, he (last I saw over at GO) rejects 'em all. Theory is useless, categorization is counter-productive, it's all about communicating and focusing on ROLE playing - that's my paraphrase of the Jester Position.
So sure, GEN can be seen as a "challenge" to the GNS approach, but if you huff and puff, ain't no one gonna care if you blow that house down.
Gordon
Quote from: MytholderNarrativism shouldn't be one of the top three divisions. It's a subset of Dramatism with added player power, and putting it on the top level confuses things. The basic division should be world/story/game.
I am in strong agreement here. Except for slightly different reasons.
I don't believe "story" can be separated from "world/game." (Going to another discussion, let's make that 'world/competition.') You can get "story"
with "world" if you practice 'vanilla Narrativism,' can't you? You can get "story" with "game," if the point is competing for who tells the story, the prize for doing it best (I'm not sure any examples exist, maybe
Munchausen's, but using the GNS as a starting point, they might never happen).
I can't even see "world" being segregated from "game" (or 'competition'), it's too 'oranges and IBMs' to me. I believe "world" is a valid value to place on play for far too wide a variety of reasons, few of which are orthagonal to 'competition.' In some cases, I see 'competition' arising from nowhere else
but the "world." (Making points in the King's Court when there are no mechanics for it, is one example.)
The theory I presented above turns "story" into 'story-intent versus story-result' (because it can be argued that all role-playing games
result in a story). It sort of opposes "game" with, if anything, 'immersion,' with 'inward versus outward' (kind of 'guts versus efficacy'). And it opposes "world" with, in something of a surprise, 'immersion' again (this time as looking at the 'inside' of the "world" versus looking at the 'inside' of the character).
As far as I have ever been able to separate Dramatism from Narrativism (especially in light of the whole 'vanilla Narrativism' movement), it only varies in (you guessed it) the player participation. The reason I see Ron having a problem identifying 'Dramatists' is because they largely don't self-identify using the Threefold model. (I think it a poor argument to say that if no one identifies themselves as a racist, that racism doesn't exist.)
I fondly wonder whether there isn't something inherently distasteful to a person who 'would be' interested in Dramatism, with some other feature(s) of the Threefold model. Perhaps, disenfranchised, they got together, realized they could play together 'sharing the story power'
simultaneously, made up a new name for themselves, and started their own forum. We may never know. All I do know is they'd probably be a scrappy bunch who, having had to fight for their 'story power' ideas for so long, might put too much emphasis on that particular mode and thus be seen as elitists; but that's pure conjecture.
Anyway, the reason I titled this article with "Inside Out" has to do with something I read during the discussion at RPG.net. Given 'vanilla Narrativism,' Illusionism (without railroading), the recent thinking on Dramatism, Abashed Narrativism (and the lack of Abashed Gamism or Simulationism), and the recent calls to simplify down to "world/game/story," I had to 'think it through.'
Which is more intuitive? "This is a subset of BLANK with 'story power' only in the hands of one player." Or, "this is a subset of BLANK where all players are give broad 'story power' abilities." Since I am a student of 'what is traditional,' I'd say the latter because 'story power' is traditionally held by the gamemaster. This realization was magnified by the way I look at things with my above-described theory ('story power' being an independant 'axis' of comparison). Unless I am being too obscure, the former BLANK is Narrativism, the latter being either something like Dramatism or relatively close. No matter what title you give it, the latter seems more intuitive to me, making Narrativism (as fine a practice as any) subordinate to 'something else' (even if Narrativism needs to be 'redefined' to be more intuitive).
So, as far as I can tell, one side of the GNS, is turned 'inside out.'
Fang Langford
[quoteI can't even see "world" being segregated from "game" (or 'competition'), it's too 'oranges and IBMs' to me. I believe "world" is a valid value to place on play for far too wide a variety of reasons, few of which are orthagonal to 'competition.' In some cases, I see 'competition' arising from nowhere else but the "world." (Making points in the King's Court when there are no mechanics for it, is one example.) [/quote]
For an rpg to be an rpg*, you have to have all three - world, game, and story, G&N&S. You can move towards one extreme or another, but you can remove one of the three entirely.
There are, I think, analogues to Narrativism in the other "regions" of the map. If everyone at the table knows enough about "how the world should be", if there's no need for the GM to be the guardian and arbiter of consistency and world integrity, then everyone can contribute to the Sim. I've seen it happen on occasion, where a player extrapolates from existing facts about the world, and the GM is unable to gainsay him because he's correct according to the Sim.
For gamism, it's trickier. I suspect empowering the players on a "metagame" level detracts from the challenge, it's a form of "cheating"...but I could be wrong. Just because the gamist version of narrativism isn't very good, though, doesn't mean it can't exist. Not every technique is appropriate to every style.
I like this theory. It's got symmetry. :-)
Quote from: MytholderQuote from: Le JoueurI can't even see "world" being segregated from "game" (or 'competition'), it's too 'oranges and IBMs' to me. I believe "world" is a valid value to place on play for far too wide a variety of reasons, few of which are orthagonal to 'competition.' In some cases, I see 'competition' arising from nowhere else but the "world." (Making points in the King's Court when there are no mechanics for it, is one example.)
For gamism, it's trickier. I suspect empowering the players on a "metagame" level detracts from the challenge, it's a form of "cheating"...but I could be wrong.
Try this one (we have), "empowering players on a 'metagame' level" could be called 'refereeing.' In Scattershot, we separated what are traditionally called rules into mechanics and techniques. This way, in Scattershot's live-action venue, 'player-referees' are possible. When two players have a problem that a third party can adjudicate using the mechanics (being "on a 'metagame' level"), they can appeal to a third (provided certain guidelines regarding conflict of interest are followed) to make the decision. It really went a long way towards smoothing out play.
Does that work?
Fang Langford
Being the bland, touchy-feely chick that I am who lacks the cerebreal horse power of the Forge's heavy hitters, I'm stuck going with the most basic and simple concern I can think of. Has it really been demonstrated, to any reliable degree, that GNS fufills its stated actual purpose to enable people to enjoy their role-playing more? Or does the time-energy that is required to get everyone involved in a game/gaming community on the same page of GNS comprehension actually backfire and cause people to enjoy their role-playing less?
Quote from: LaurelBeing the bland, touchy-feely chick that I am who lacks the cerebreal horse power of the Forge's heavy hitters,
Yeah, right. Quit hiding behind the tie-dyed skirt and come out fighting!
Quote
I'm stuck going with the most basic and simple concern I can think of. Has it really been demonstrated, to any reliable degree, that GNS fufills its stated actual purpose to enable people to enjoy their role-playing more? Or does the time-energy that is required to get everyone involved in a game/gaming community on the same page of GNS comprehension actually backfire and cause people to enjoy their role-playing less?
Good question. I think that there is a lot of anecdotal edidence of positive effects, but we know how trustworthy that can be. And I'm sure those who it may have backfired on aren't trumpeting this, so such occurences could be under reported.
Personally, I think that GNS has worked, but, then again, that might just be my own bias showing. Anyone else got a better argument? I think this goes on the list of valid concerns.
Mike
I've got one, that I think is pretty hard-hitting, especially because it doesn't deal with the Narrativist side of the house:
I'd pretty much quit gaming. I re-read the GNS essay and sat down with the Gamist details and wrote a game from top to bottom to give me the maximum Gamist enjoyment. It's called Donjon.
It's also taken up at least 10% of the threads here in the last couple of weeks.
I'm gaming weekly again, enjoying the fiznuck out of it, and everyone I know that's played it is having fun.
I'd say that's a pretty good example of "GNS made my gaming life better."
I'd like to chime in on this (finally, GNS discussion that is not either very boring {to me!}, nor too abstruse for me to feel comfortable commenting on).
GNS changed my life. I had planned on having my first post here be an extended gush about what it did for me. Now I think I'll be more sober about it.
I had, like others I have heard on here, mostly quit gaming. I was running a game with non-gamers (a good first step) and once again feeling really frustrated even though my cleverness didn't seem to have diminished since my long-lamented Good Ol' Games of the 80s. I didn't understand why facing the game filled me with such dread, I didn't understand why a group of very smart players didn't "get it", I didn't understand why I could barely tolerate even hanging out with most other gamers.
I read The Essays. A few times. They helped me analyze my whole gaming history, the conflicts I'd had with players and the impotent solutions I had tried to apply to them, the rules and worlds I had tweaked and tweaked, each change either not working or greatly increasing my workload, leading to GM Burnout.
Everything became much, much clearer. I knew why I was unhappy. I knew why even the great games I had run still left me feeling so worn out. I knew why my then-current game had sand in its gears.
I unloaded about it all on my players, ditched the existing game completely, detailed world and all, and we started playing Sorcerer. It hasn't been perfect, but it's just getting better, and most important I'm having fun. More fun than I had when I was putting on performances that my old players still talk about, because I'm playing games the way I want to and I know how to advocate for what I want clearly (and I no longer use the GNS terminology to do this--it isn't necessary--but I never could have arrived at my own vocabulary without it).
I think this experience isn't too uncommon, and somewhat accounts for Ron's "cult" status.
--TQuid (J B Bell, having Clinton change the moniker)