Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[Logan]

Okay. It's enough. Everybody put the shovels down. Brian, thanks for showing restraint. It's good that people like John and Brian are here. They add historical insight and new perspectives to the debate. People may not always agree with everything they post, but that does nothing to reduce the value of their presence. Let's not waste time antagonizing each other.

Logan

[Blake Hutchins]

Gad, yes. I think letting one's capillaries relax is a necessary thing. It's all too easy to let tempers flare when discussing a subject about which you're passionate. Then it becomes less about the topic of debate and more about sharing your aneurysm with all your Forge buddies.

On another note, seems like we have several distinct building blocks to the model: stance, goal, motivation, GM-player dynamic, goal-optimizing mechanics, metagame, mode. Perhaps it's possible to assemble the model from these building blocks and reconcile the various styles of play.

Thoughts?

Best,

Blake

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-29 01:08, greyorm wrote:
I'm saying, "Hey, look, these other RGFA guys disagree with you about this 'a simulation must be realistic' bit, since one can simulate genre."  

There are two problems there.  First, I've been pretty careful to say that r.g.f.a Simulationist is about an absence of metagame and verisimilitude and not realism.  It is therefore possible to simulate those aspects of genre that do not rely on any metagame.  Second, r.g.f.a Simulationism is not the really same as "simulation" which is why the term is so terrible in retrospect (I was one of the people who argued in favor of the term, by the way).

Adjusting the physics so that everyone can jump a bit higher to "simulate" anime is acceptable Simulationism.  Saying that the PCs never run out of bullets because people don't in the Hong Kong action movies being "simulated" is not.  In one case, the adjustment would make some sort of sense to someone in the world because it changes the way that world works for everyone and the characters in the setting can recognize and talk about it.  In the other, the adjustment would make no sense to someone in the world.  How can you visualize carrying a neverending supply of bullets?  You can't inside the setting.  It is a metagame thing.

I'm also not dropping names because discussion with one of the individuals revealed a serious, serious dislike of of Brian (FYI, this conversation took place last month, before I'd really interacted with Brian).  Actually, it was more like undying hatred and disgust.

I think Brian is aware that several people don't like him because a few have said so, clearly and distinctly, in public.  That said, how would we have known that the person in question didn't like Brian unless you mentioned it?  And if Brian already did know it, perhaps it is relevant, don't you think?

Knowing this, and naming him, will likely bring nothing more than heated flamage or insult from Brian as he attacks the individual rather than the idea.

The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution guarantees, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]"  Why do you think that is?

If the person in question has a body of writing on r.g.f.a, then Brian and I could better address that person's point of view.  And it is entirely possible that the person in question has an axe to grind about the model or has a totally off-the-wall view of it.  Since we don't know who it is, we can't really address the issue.

The individual is a regular (or former regular, not certain which) who was around when the model was first created and helped in its development, or so I was lectured.
I have no reason to distrust him on this, and we're certainly not friends, though you would have reason to distrust because it's problematic for you to have someone you can't tear down personally playing counter-point.

I don't know if I have reason to trust him or not because I don't know who the heck you are talking about or what their specific opinion is.  And I don't think that Brian's enemies are my enemies on r.g.f.a.  

I can easily turn this around, if you want to play pop-psychologist, and claim that you don't want to put the person or ideas up for debate because you know that they couldn't stand up to scrutiny.  I could also delve into some of the opinions I heard about you and the GNS since I've started posting here from regulars here but that wouldn't be very fair if I weren't willing to attribute the opinions to the person making them, now would it?

In fact, I know RGFA doesn't completely agree on what the model represents, and I know that your narrow view of Simulationism is not the end-all, be-all of the RGFA model, despite your fervent claims to the contrary.

My "narrow view" of Simulationism is exactly what the early FAQ says it was.  Simulationism is a lack of metagame in decisionmaking.  I believe I've posted ample historical information about the formation of the Threefold and I can post more if you want.  Are you even bothering to read it?  

As a matter of fact, the current John Kim FAQ defines of the r.g.f.a Simulationism as:

'"simulationist":  is the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision.  Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players.  Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.'  

This describes how I view it pretty well.  So I'm supposed to trust an unnamed r.g.f.a "regular" instead of my own understanding, Brian's understanding, my years of listening to regulars on r.g.f.a, and John Kim's FAQ?

You might want to ask yourself that in regards to the GNS model and Ron's understanding of it before you go ahead and start tearing his model apart...but wait, you can't do that since it means your arguments are invalid by that criteria, since Ron has spent two+ years and who knows how many posts and time developing GNS.

I don't believe I ever said that Ron didn't understand his model.  I said that I have problems with the model and I'm concerned that people here don't understand the r.g.f.a Threefold.  You are not saying that you have problems with the r.g.f.a Threefold.  That would be fair game.  You are saying that you have problems with my interpretation of that model.  Are you able to understand that distinction?

I'll also point out that you've told me that I don't understand the GNS properly.  I don't believe I've questioned your authority to question my interpretation, either.  

But hey, he's wrong about his model despite that, but you're right about yours because of it.  Interesting.

Did I ever say that he was wrong about his model?  If so, please back up your assertion with the appropriate quote.

If I did, I will happily appologize.

Oh give me a break...this is BS.  This is the red herring.

In your opinion.

The Bhudda > divine/not example is called an "analogy."  Look up the term in the dictionary, please; if you don't get it, don't lecture me that "We're not talking about Bhudda" as though I'm trying to turn this into a conversation about religion or somehow make the point into something else.

I understand what an analogy is.  If you don't want to be lectured, please don't lecture me on what an "analogy" is.  You seem to have a lot of projection going on there -- you don't like being talked to in the way you talk to other people very much, do you?

Analogies have to be valid.  You point this out below.  Your analogy is not.  Just offering up an analogy does not mean that you've made a point.

The point is as above, you are trying to state that "this is the way the model works" as though it were the true way to interpret the model, and I pointed out "not everyone on RGFA agrees with that."

If I interpret the GNS model in a way that contradicts everyone else on this forum, is my view as valid as any other?  Your analogy suggests that any view is as good as any other because there is no objective truth in this issue.  Are you saying that there is no correct interpretations of these models and that all interpretations are equally valid?  If not, your point is a red herring.

As well, as far I've been made aware, Brian has publically stated that he disagrees with the RGA threefold (at least the Gamism bit, which I know for a fact), and that he thinks Ron's version and the GO version are both "whacked."

That's a different issue.

Knowing this, he may not be the best person to use to support your contention that you and he know the model intimately and can prove what it really means, since Brian's version of Gamism isn't universally supported by RGFA (and it shows there are still divisive splits in what the RGFA model represents to the members of that group, exactly as I pointed out).

We aren't arguing about the r.g.f.a's definition of Gamism.  If we were, I'd be pointing out that there are differences of opinion about that definition as, indeed, I did in this thread.  And Brian is perfectly able to talk about his defintion and the "official" r.g.f.a definition of Gamism.  I don't believe he has ever said that r.g.f.a doesn't have a single definition of Gamism, simply that he doesn't agree with it.

We are talking about the r.g.f.a definition of Simulationism which has been pretty constant for a half-decade now with little argument except by those who don't like models on principle.  I'm not aware of any substantial disagreement with it.  And since you won't name any names, I can't address the disagreement you are talking about.

And you talk about red herrings...the shape of the world is scientifically provable, and it is an object, not a concept or idea...the model is an idea and subject more to the whims of subjectivism than the shape of the world is subject to the same.

So you are claiming that none of these models can be provable and that they are all subject to the "whims of subjectivity"?  Does that mean that any definition of the GNS is as good as any other?  I'd like to know because that seems to be the claim that you are making about the r.g.f.a Threefold.

When you make an analogy, it should be similar to the thing you are comparing it to.

Yes.  And you'd be well served to keep that in mind yourself.

Since you got here, you've been nothing more than an attack dog with polite vocabulary and a talent for hiding personal jibes and insinuations in the content of your posts while attempting to pass it off as constructive criticism.

I don't know.  A lot of people have said that my comments here have been constructive.  Do you speak for everyone here?

I say if we're all so "holier-than-thou", perhaps you should just take yourself out of here instead of trolling.  No use arguing with fanatics, after all.

I didn't say you all were.  I said that you were.

And you might want to check yourself and Brian for the same derogatory tone, because it is definitely there.

Probably.  I don't think I'm perfect.  I don't believe anyone here is.

I can stand so much, but this is it.  It is obvious that you have an attitude, a negative pre-set notion about folks here that you are unwilling to change, which colors all your interactions with people here, and one which you take any chance to present or rub in people's faces!

I don't believe I'm having a particularly hostile exchange with anyone but you.  I don't think that you take criticism or even disagreement very well.

I'm sure that you wouldn't believe me if I said that I'd love to see your model succeed.  I'm not knee-jerk anti-model but actually pretty pro-model.  And I don't think the r.g.f.a model is inherently superior.  As I've said, it has some real problems that need to be fixed.  And I think the GNS model needs some work, too.  You need to get over the idea that any criticism of the GNS model is a personal and unwarranted attack.  Please grow up and get a thicker skin.

And that's the real annoyance.

Who am I annoying?  Please.  I want them to speak up.  If I'm annoying a significant number of people here, I'll gladly leave.  I'm not leaving now at your request because I've had several people here explicitly tell me that they find my comments useful.  Frankly, I think you overestimate how many people agree with you.

You're like a raving atheist on a Christian discussion group, intent on proving how evil the Christians are because they've done so many horrible things and are so stupid and confused that they can't see the massive flaws with their own religion and with being sheep, etc. etc. etc.

Uh, no.  Please apply your comments about analogies being appropriate here.   I do, however, find it interesting that you choose an analogy that compares this group with a religious group not interested in hearing certain forms of dissent.

You're treating anyone with a different opinion as a raving, unthinking fundamentalist, and publically stating it, repeatedly.

Really?  "Anyone"?

Seriously, go away.  No group needs an individual with this kind of attitude hanging about.  I don't care if you think this just proves you right about "us" or even just me.

If you speak for this group, I'll go away.  Or if you can get a few people to agree with you, I'll happily go away.

Well, now I see why I was originally thinking to myself, "I'm not going to get involved."  Thanks, but no thanks, I don't need the aggravation of digging for diamonds in a sewer.

Well, you seem to be one of the few people getting no diamonds out of this exchange.  Maybe you shouldn't be looking in the sewers, then?

Like I said, if we're all so damn holier-than-thou, you're a fool for trying to convert us.

I'm not trying to convert anyone.  And I think that's a fundamental difference between us.  I'd like to see this group produce a good model instead of another r.g.f.a Threefold that gets misused, misunderstood, and largely ridiculed.  You aren't going to do that by locking yourself in a closed box and submitting to the group-think.

Thanks and good night.
(Sorry about this everyone else, but this is really the last straw for me in this whole continuing "brainwashed cultist" thing...I'm out of here)

Whatever.

[greyorm]

[snip]

Logan said, "Drop the shovels."
How does this not apply to you in particular?

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-07-01 22:49, greyorm wrote:
Logan said, "Drop the shovels."
How does this not apply to you in particular?

You should feel free to stop responding to me whenever you want.  I'm done if you are.

[greyorm]

You should feel free to stop responding to me whenever you want.  I'm done if you are.

You stop pulling crap like that and I will be: ie, that's not an answer to the question.
This just shifts the responsibility/focus to me, which isn't as good a response as something like, "I'm sorry, I didn't see that before I posted.  I'm willing to call it done if you will."

Thanks.

[Forum Admin]

I'm putting responsibility on all of you:

- John Morrow: I'm glad you're here and another member of the Forge. I would appreciate some respect towards everyone else, and no more name-calling or line-by-line arguments (a technique that, in my experience, only leads to flames, and is really bad form here).

- Raven: I appreciate the sentiment, and understand how a thread like this can annoy everyone, but please don't ask people to leave. This is a free place to talk, people will be asked to leave only under the most extreme circumstances, and it will be done by this anonymous account (Forum Admin) only.

- Everyone else: Well--drop the thread already. Nothing's being accomplished here. If you can think of a way to build on this, go for it. If there's another non-constructive post in here, I'll lock the thread.

--
Forum Administrator
The Forge - indie-rpgs.com

[ This Message was edited by: Forum Admin on 2001-07-02 09:51 ]