Potential hypocrite is now GNS elitism bustin

[Eric J.]

The title was misleading, but I'm not shure what to make of this.  I have viewed others trying to look on gamism and simulationism as detrimental and even one person comparing gamism with sociopathicy.  People seem to think that gamism is the worst of all RPG playing styles.  Others view simulationism as anti-narativism and bad, because they don't understand it.  Many people conclude that they're narrativists because they want an RPG to tell a story, and because they don't like killing things.  Here is my view on the three styles:

Gamists: People who look for a more direct and logical challenges in RPGs because they enjoy the limitless choices that an RPG has for the player.

Simulationists: People who want to make a very precise dimentioning of reality so that players have the most controll over their actions and the consequences.

Narrativists: People who want to use RPGs to tell a story so that the players and their characters can learn something.

Now, Ron please tell me how I'm wrong.  
I believe that the boards are too critical of others' playing styles and want other's opinions on my opinions of their opinions.  It seems that people are very critical of things that they don't understand.  I want to also point out that there are no stages of RPGing enlightenment.  I mean that gamist RPGs are no less advanced than Narrativist ones.  They are simply different challanges.

Gamist: Conflicts having to do with statistics.

Sim.:Conflicts having to do with Characters' objectives.

Nar.:Conflicts having to do with events.

I want to also point out that Narrativist campaigns are most often, more linear. I'm simly trying to argue agaist the elitism that many people hold with their gaming style. I am not pointing fingers, but I am trying to create an argument over GNS attitudes that can come to resolve.

[Tim Denee]

Actually, I compared Simulationism to sociopathy. Soon after a similar thought appeared on RPG.net

Anyway, I don't think anybody (recently, at least) has slandered a particular GNS mode in someone's else's thread. That is to say, people may have started threads discussing the merits of G, N, or S, but no-one has waltzed into a thread and flamed away.

[Valamir]

The title was misleading, but I'm not shure what to make of this.  I have viewed others trying to look on gamism and simulationism as detrimental and even one person comparing gamism with sociopathicy.  People seem to think that gamism is the worst of all RPG playing styles.  Others view simulationism as anti-narativism and bad, because they don't understand it.  Many people conclude that they're narrativists because they want an RPG to tell a story, and because they don't like killing things.  Here is my view on the three styles:

Pyron.  Please do not use this kind of arguement on the Forge.  It is impossible to discuss, impossible to counter, impossible to do anything constructive with at all.  "viewed others", and "People seem to think", and "Many people conclude" are totally meaningless.

Who says these things?  Where do they say it?  When did they say it?  Many peoples opinions have changed over time, and many ideas that may seem inflammatory were merely thrown out as discussion points.

In short I can not comment on anything you've said here, because you haven't said anything.  

Gamists: People who look for a more direct and logical challenges in RPGs because they enjoy the limitless choices that an RPG has for the player.

Simulationists: People who want to make a very precise dimentioning of reality so that players have the most controll over their actions and the consequences.

Narrativists: People who want to use RPGs to tell a story so that the players and their characters can learn something.

You need to read the articles and the past threads on these topics a little more closely.  Specifically dredge up "Submitted for Discussion" a GNS Primer thread I posted a couple months back (scroll down you'll find it).  

GNS is not about "People who want" at all.  This way of thinking will lead you around in futile circles (as it did many of us for some time).  GNS is about decisions.  A player is not "gamist" an "instance of play" is gamist.

I believe that the boards are too critical of others' playing styles and want other's opinions on my opinions of their opinions.  It seems that people are very critical of things that they don't understand.  I want to also point out that there are no stages of RPGing enlightenment.  I mean that gamist RPGs are no less advanced than Narrativist ones.  They are simply different challanges.

Again, what people.  You certainly cannot be referring to people here on the Forge, one of the few sites on the internet where ongoing enlightening dialog can proceed without degenerating into a flame war.  Do not confuse questions with criticism.  There are opinions, and there are opinions which can be supported.  Questioning someones opinions is the means to determine if they have any underlying support that might lead to greater understanding, or if they are just random conclusions based on nothing more substantial than "I feel that X is true".  

It is a mistake to treat "I feel that X is true" as a conclusion.  It isn't.  Its a hypothesis.  It is through the subsequent questioning, analysis, and critiqueing that we can determine if its a hypothesis that can be pursued further, or one that should be discarded as incorrect.  Labeling a hypothesis as an "opinion" does not make it immune from this process.  Further this process is not being "too critical".  Its what discussions should be about.

I want to also point out that Narrativist campaigns are most often, more linear. I'm simly trying to argue agaist the elitism that many people hold with their gaming style. I am not pointing fingers, but I am trying to create an argument over GNS attitudes that can come to resolve.

Before trying to resolve anything, you should gain further understanding.  The statement "Narrativist campaigns are most often more linear" couldn't be farther from the truth.  Its like calling "up" "down" or "black" "white".  Its flat out wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start, except to point out that you clearly do not yet understand the definition of Narrativism.

I'm not trying to insult you by saying that.  Most people don't grasp it the first time they see it, its an unusual animal that's difficult to get ahold of.  I suspect that you are confusing "Narrativist story" with "metagame plot".  Easy to do because both throw around the word "story" pretty freely, but what is meant by "story" is radically different in each.  Something I also touch upon in the thread I directed you to above.

In fact, one of the most difficult tasks of a GM who seeks to promote Narrativist play in his game is to let go of the linear plotting...to let go of most of together, sharing authority with the other players in a way that no railroaded scenario could ever accomplish.

I humbly suggest (and I mean this in all sincerity) that you read more, think about it, come up with specific questions about things you don't understand and then by all means post those questions.  They will be addressed, its what we do here.  But don't seek to start "resolving" things that you've barely started to scratch the surface on.

Oh, BTW.  There are a number of people who have learned just enough about GNS to be dangerous.  They sling around the terms like some sort of weapon, misusing them, and misapplying them in ways quite detrimental to the theory which spawned them.  In some cases this is practiced by people who decided they disliked the theory without taking the time to actually learn anything about it except on the most superficial "jump to conclusions" kind of way.  Whatever you've heard about GNS elsewhere...disregard it.  You'll get the straight scoop here.

I hope you'll stick around, absorb the concepts of GNS and the broader gameing theories and techniques we discuss here.  New perspectives from people able to contribute  are always welcome.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

It's the general view at the Forge, and certainly my own view, that no particular mode of role-playing is better than another. That point of view is explicit in my essay.

Although I don't necessarily agree with every last detail in your re-phrasing of the GNS categories, I think that you are basically correct, and so I'm not going to tell you "how you're wrong." I agree with you very strongly about "no gaming enlightenment," in terms of one mode over another. So there's no "wrong" to discuss.

As an aside, saying "Tell me how I'm wrong" isn't going to merit any attention from adults. I'm ignoring that phrase for the moment because, as I say, I think you do understand the categories.

I have mentioned to you before that you have a hard time distinguishing between (a) criticizing an idea and (b) criticizing or insulting a person. It seems to me that you are reading too much better/worse into discussions that are mainly about the features of an idea or activity. The antagonism that you perceive toward gamism/simulationism is not what is happening - the few posts or threads you are focusing on are outweighed by literally hundreds that say otherwise.

Basically, Eric, you're going to have to make your own judgments about a couple of things.

1) Who, on these forums, are you going to get serious about talking with? If a particular person seems unreasonable or over-critical to you, you are free to consider their viewpoint less important. No one "represents" the Forge as a whole, and so if Person A bugs you, you don't have to get mad every time they post, or think that the whole Forge is out to get you.

Instead, find the people that you do like interacting with and cultivate discussions with them. Picking and choosing who you want to hang with is something you have to do on your own.

2) Do you even like being on the Forge at all? It seems to me that a number of the ideas here have appealed to you, and frankly, you've understood them a lot faster than some other folks I could name. That's impressive; a mind like yours is valuable here. However, it's still a matter of whether you enjoy the discussions and interactions at all. If you do, great - if you don't, or don't think that you can adjust your temper to deal with it, then it's OK not to be here as well.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

I believe that the boards are too critical of others' playing styles and want other's opinions on my opinions of their opinions. It seems that people are very critical of things that they don't understand. I want to also point out that there are no stages of RPGing enlightenment. I mean that gamist RPGs are no less advanced than Narrativist ones. They are simply different challanges.

Quick note from the Gamist/Narrativist in the corner...  I don't think anyone here makes the statement that one category is necessarily better than another, but I think often identifying what a game supports can be difficult.  Of course, the true test of it is in play.  Looking at the Pool, its a strong Narrativist game, with mad Gamist underpinnings.  

As far as opinions of opinions...I think the goal at the Forge is to discuss ideas and concepts, more than opinions.  Two people can argue that they like the taste of apples or oranges better all day, and neither can "rationally" convince the other that one fruit tastes better.  That's argument by opinion.  What you can do, is discuss the differences and simularities between the two, and try to identify what you like/dislike in them based on that so you can get more of what you like and less of what you dislike.  That's what GNS is for(and most of our discussions here).

Another point is that if folks are asking you questions, that means there is something they do not know or understand and are trying to understand where you're coming from.  As far as the folks who you feel are slamming you, perhaps if you send them a private message or an email and ask them to clarify their position to you and keep it off board if it seems to be jumping off thread.

Chris

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Pyron,

I've never seen anything criticizing the playing styles of other people, but I have seen posts that describe how the members of a gaming group have very different goals and priorities in play, differences that actually caused a degree of division.  Au contraire, I've seen a lot of posts by regulars who love gamist or simulationist games.  Jared has run and come up with material for DnD games, Rune got plenty of accolades here, and Clinton's Donjon has earned a HUGE amount of buzz (though I don't know where it is right now in terms of its design and don't presume to know exactly how to describe it in GNS terms).  Presently, The Riddle of Steel is getting a ton of attention and excitement, and again without bringing GNS into it, I wouldn't describe TRoS as either rules light or "linear."

Regarding the Forge:  it seems remarkably easy for people to mistake a tight community that promotes high intellectual standards, a disciplined focus, and frank, idea-intensive debate as carrying off an "elitist" bent.  One of the labels frequently stuck on The Forge is elitist.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

You'll find no flaming here, no denigration of ideas or games or people, no nattering "me too" threads lacking content.  You will find robust, civil discussion; you're expected to back up your statements with evidence and critical thinking, to have read the relevant posts or essays, and to hew to the stated focus of the forum.  Everyone's welcome, and only rude comments, anti-social behavior, or off-point posts earn anything like a reprimand.  If you're not used to this kind of forum with its corresponding high standards, I suppose it could be somewhat intimidating.

Case in point:  you've come in with what could be construed as an aggressive, challenging set of comments, and you've been answered with cool-headed, serious, polite responses that neither beat around the bush or go on the offensive.  The points you raised have been addressed honestly and respectfully.  I think that's pretty cool.

Speaking to the "simulationism is sociopathy," and other threads for a moment, I think if you read those again, you'll see they're not meant to be denigrating.  They're intriguing ideas someone had and posted to the group for discussion purposes, sort of like talking about Freudian phases with regard to character preferences.  They can be interesting intellectual exercises, sometimes for the sake of the exercise itself, sometimes for purposes of mining for worthwhile insights, but they're not intended as put-downs of anyone.  Don't read too much into these discussions.  Any intellectual exploration will go down its share of blind alleys.  Given how many people on The Forge are self-described Simulationists, I think any real effort to denigrate them would draw down a shitload of contention in a hurry.

And yeah, I echo Ron's comments.  You've shown you have a quick grasp of the essentials of what amounts to a complex set of concepts, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.  But please let go of the "elitist" concern.  Trust me, it's not a genuine issue.

Best,

Blake

[Eric J.]

Allright.  I'd like this to be a short thread, as you have answered my question.  I, however have found several threads that border on the lines of elitism.  I guess that taking this as a servey is naieve, which is why I'll stop.  And Valimir: I don't make many conclusions.  If I did I wouldn't be posting.  I consider myself one of thoes dangerous weapons, which is one thing I'm trying to get rid of.  The concept is still very new to me, and I'll keep reading and posting untill I get it right.