My break with GNS

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Storn,

Am I correct in thinking that you understand that the term "Exploration" includes creation/imagination, but that you don't like the term? That you consider it to be unclear or non-intuitive for what it's referring to? And that this dislike is pretty much the real point of the thread, at this time?

Best,
Ron

[Alan]

Hi Storn,

Exploration is indeed a term like "roleplaying" for which the dictionary definition doesn't match the way it's used by in Creative Agenda theory .

However, in support of the CA/GNS useage of exploration, let me point to two other specialty uses of the term.  First, in psychotherapy, "exploration" is used to refer to developing a connected series of thoughts and emotions.  Second, in creative circles, such as fiction and screen writers, "exploration" is used as a metaphore to indicate the process of cumulative creation a writer goes through to produce a story.

Also, to address your concern about Creative Agenda theory labelling players as this type or that type.  If you look closely, you'll see that G, N, and S are specified as priorities during play.  Individuals may or may not have habitual preferences, but the Creative Agenda theory does not require that they do.  It only observes that each instant of actual play demonstrates a favored preference for one of the three.  

By extension, an rpg design is most consistently successful if it takes one of the three Creative Agenda's as an explicit goal.   This is another way to say that a game works best if its purposes are clearly defined.

[Matt Snyder]

Storn, I'm eager to hear your responses to Raven's (Greyorm's) and Ron's most recent posts to this thread.

From what I can discern, Ron has made a very important query. It seems to be the case that you have very much invested not only in the term "create" but also in the act of creation. You pride yourself on creating art, for which you should be commended. You also seem to define a large portion of your role-playing hobby, or at least put most stock into and derive most pleasure from the act of creation. Creativity is your lifeblood.

You're not alone. In fact, you're among thick company here. Again, that's great.

However, it seems to be the case that you're letting that passion, that thing that you love most about role-playing impede you from appreciating, learning, and examining other aspects of your own hobby.

The so-called "GNS" model (I personally prefer the term "Creative Agenda model") does indeed consider creation as a crucial and substantive part of the act of role-playing. However, GNS examines many other crucial aspects.

So far, I'm making observations and guesses based on info. in this thread, but not offering much service in return. So, I'll get to that.

First, don't get offended. Ron and Ralph, especially have been at this with literally dozens, if not hundreds of people. That they may have come off abrasively does not mean that they do not care about you, your passion, or your take on the role-playing hobby. That's why you got an apology from Ron. He's a very, very nice guy; I've had beers with the man. We talk on the phone. He's not out to "AHA!" anyone, nor out to insult anyone's intelligence.

Second, take some time. If you are indeed interested in examining your hobby (if for no other reason than your fellow gamers -- like RDUNeil, correct? --  are participating here, too), then don't expect to "get it" over night. And, if you are interested in learning more about your hobby, don't get frustrated and dismissive if it's not clear overnight or in three paragraphs. What helps most people is reading, then discussion, followed by their own real-life gaming with pals, followed by more discussion (and reading), repeat, rinse until ... "Eureka! I get it!"

Third, really take a hard look at the Exploration level of the model and the next "box" or "arrow" inside exploration, Creative Agenda. The recent Narrativism essay went a long way toward explaining the model in full. I consider it the best available resource for understanding these "boxes" and the model in general.

Finally, I have to assume that you do indeed have some interest in this stuff. Whatever your reason for interest, I encourage you to stick with it. Too often, people come to the Forge, get frustrated, and walk away and tell all their friends that those Forge jerks are full of crap.

Actually, I think the people most full of themselves are those who don't have the patience and understanding to realize that this kind of discussion is indeed worthwhile for a great many people, and that it has gone a very long way toward both salvaging individuals' favorite hobby and toward the survivability of the hobby itself.

The theory may not be for you. You may not agree with every aspect of it (few do). I can only assure you there's something worth looking into. In a way, you have to take my assurances on faith. That's up to you. I hope it works out for you.

[Storn]

Hi Storn,

Am I correct in thinking that you understand that the term "Exploration" includes creation/imagination, but that you don't like the term? That you consider it to be unclear or non-intuitive for what it's referring to? And that this dislike is pretty much the real point of the thread, at this time?

Best,
Ron

This is part of it.  But only part.  Words have power.  And I consider "Exploration" very powerful concept AND non-intuitive to WHAT you are trying to define it within the context of Role Playing.

"exploration" is used to refer to developing a connected series of thoughts and emotions. Second, in creative circles, such as fiction and screen writers, "exploration" is used as a metaphore to indicate the process of cumulative creation a writer goes through to produce a story.

y'know what?  That is the first time I've read an Exploration definition(s) that makes more sense to ME (I admit, I'm dense, here folks) in RPG context.  However, if I had my druthers, "cumalitive creation" gets closer to what role playing is than "Exploration".  I like that term, "cumalitive creation"... the building upon elements... and it suggests a group effort.  Exploration can be individualistic.  My vote is for "cumalitive creation".   I feel that is MORE accurate a term.  But I'm digressing... sorry.

But my problems with the GNS go further than that, but along the lines of the Exploration-Creation schism I have.  

I've been on these boards long enough to see several times a confusion about what is Narr and what is Sim play pop up.  What is a Narr or Sim game?  Sometimes in the context of Creative Agenda, sometimes just by itself.  Just when I think I've got a handle on it, the overall preponderance of disccussion swings into more confused muddle.

So, I went back to the basics, to the building blocks themselves.  And here is what I ran into:

but I pointed out how your own definitions of these three aren't quite correct. (No offense, but I feel like your definitions on G, N and S are based on the words themselves, rather than the little snippet from the essay.)

YES!  That is true.  And that is what I'm questioning here.  Why does the vocabulary have to be stretched and redefined?  I FEEL that this is the reason that Narr and Sim keep running and blending into each other.  Because the definitions are not concise and tight... because they are slippery and move away from Dictionary definitions.  

If I wanted to teach you all a (Munsell's) theory about Color involving Hue, Value and Chroma... I can do it in a paragraph each.  Each building block of color is a paragraph.  Then a working understanding of Light and Rods and Cones within the eye and how they are different for every individual gets to the point that Color is individualistic, but here is a way of talking about it that everyone can understand.  Don't even need a dictionary.  And Color is incredibly complex, like Role Playing and yes... it is a bit of a apples and oranges arguement.  

I shouldn't have to go through 40 pages to understand what Narrative is.  If I do, each page is rife with potential misunderstanding from what is actually trying to be taught to me.  And it is that wrangling and miscues that I see springing up on this forum every day.

My grandfather was a mathematician at Cornell U.  He had blackboards filled with one problem/theorem etc.  I had no chance of understanding it.  But he and his students did.  Because each building block of that huge equation made sense to them.  Because those students, at the base level started  with 0,1,2, and sallied forth from there.  Do NOT make me learn a new language in order to "get it".  Refine the terms, so it makes sense in English and constant negotiation of term definition is NOT rampant.

If a student of mine fails, and seriously tried, it is not his/her fault.  It is mine.  In this case, I don't think the curriculum is failing... I see where some real gems lie... but I do think that the teaching METHOD can and should be questioned.

Couple of add'l sidebar repostes.

GNS is about player motivation.

Agreed.  But what *I* have problem with is that GNS feels like labeling to me and inaccurate labeling at that.  Simply by the slipping all over the map when someone asks' "what kind of player am I?" and they go thru about 5 or 6 reiterations trying to shoehorn their play into a G or N or S.  Especially when N and S seem to create VAST confusion of which is which.  

By trying to point out that every player has to utilize all three modes... or is not roleplaying (granted, by my definition, not this forums)...I'm taking a more holistic view at the same time questioning the power of definition.  Treat the whole patient, Jonny Narrativist, not just a Narr side of him... so to speak.

First, don't get offended.

I am most assuredly not.  Nor am I trying to offend.  But question?  Damn straight.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Storn,

First, I checked out your web site.  Great work.

Second, please remember that G, N and S is about preferences.  You wrote, "every player has to utilize all three modes... or [it's] not roleplaying" -- Now, what I'm about to say is apparently is going to shock you -- but everyone here agrees with you.  All RPGs contain elements of G, N & S.  What's at stake is, "Of the three, which does a player prefer?"

I offer a different analogy than the one you used (teaching about light and color), because GNS isn't about understanding a concept.  It's about identifying when we gravitate toward enjoyment.

So... In Aristotle's Poetics, he writes that dramatic narrative requires Plot, Character, Diction, Thought and Spectacle.  

We know that ALL movies have these these things to one degree or another (even if we allow a movie of mutes to communicate "diction" through facial expression.)  Without all of these aspects, there is no movie -- just as without the elements that we normall tag as G, N & S there's no RPG.  (I'll get back to my awkward phrasing of "normally tag" in a moment.)

However, different people will havea preference for different things from movies.  Aristotle, for exaple, thought Spectacle was the lowest (if not cheapest) element of drama, and exhorted any dramatist for depending on it.  One need not imagine too hard to think what his opinion would be of the Tim Burton Spectacle "Batman."

He also thought Plot mattered much more than Character.  Thus, "Swingblade?"  A peculiar failure.

Now, many people enjoy both to these movies.  These are people who have very different taste than Aristostle.  For him, Plot was the priority.

And it is the same with RPGs.  Different people want a different emphasis on those things that a game gives, just as different people want different things from a movie.

(I'm going to insert GNS Boilerplate #7 here, and remind all that just as I might want to see Hellboy one night, I might want to go see Girl with a Pearl Earing a week later -- and enjoy both, as I most likely will have chosen each to fill a need that night.  In the same way, my RPG preference might be different on a given night.  GNS helps us understand there are these three broad desires for the elements of RPGs -- just as Aristotle lays out the broad elements of drama.  By knowing what we want, we can pick the rules and players that will help deliver that system.)

I thought the Jurassic Park movies were boring as hell.  But a guy on the stoop of an apartment building I lived in said the thought the dinosaurs were "beautiful."  I would have said, "Accurate."  The point is, the spectacle got to him.  I thought all else was weak, and it didn't go anywhere for *me.*

That's just GNS.  Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationsist -- three specifically, and relatively newly coined words (not all by Ron (boiler plate #32!)), that suggest the major elements of RPGs that players tend to get a jones about as a priority over the other two.

Now, you may not see these three being jockied for preference in play.  I have.  Others here have.  If you haven't.  Fine.  But just try on my movie anology for a moment.  There are great spectacle movies that leave me cold -- though I love, love, love spectacle in movies.  But I need the character and plot to ride above the spectacle.  If it's just spectacle, no matter how great, I check out.  And that's not a knock on the movies.  That's *my* preference.

Now: "normally tag as G, N &S."  Please remember that G, N & S are not "rules," "story," or "versimilutude."  All games have these.  These terms are new.  They mean specific things that in part need a bit of explaining because everyone knows what color is and in your class would only have to learn more.  What Ron has proposed is something so alien to the thinking of people who play RPGs that its often a wearing down a rock by ocean waves before people go, "Oh, I get it."

The terms refer to a specific preference or priority during play for certain pleasures that RPGs offer -- often at the expense of the other two.  This is how the horrible "Roleplaing" vs. "Rollplaying" wars got started.  Both preferences (short of pathological effort), are fine... But so contrary that a person with either preference assumes those with the other preference is a schmuck.  Why?  Simply because of preference.  Yes, both sets of games have rules, have story, have versimilitude.  But the focus of the game -- howw much time is devoted to what preference, where the group is encouraged to place their mental efforts, how rewards (social and mechanical) are distributed , and more -- make the playing of the game very different depending on the preferences of those at the table.

And because you're stuck on the "terms" should be simple thing, I'll reiterate... if people came to you class on light, they would have arrived believing light exists.  People often come to GNS saying, "As long as you've got a good GM, that's all that matters."  

Well, not in my experience.  (What is the GM's preference, right?)

So it's often an uphill battle to get people to see that they've even had preferences at all, that other people have different preferences, that all the preferences are vaild, and that one can make choices about how to play.

And it really just like the movies.  When you wonder of someone, "How could he like that!?" or someone asks that of you, that's it right there.  But how many people have read Aristotle?  How many people know how to take apart a movie in terms of Plot, Character and Spectacle?  Most people would say, "I just want to enjoy the movie!"  Others say, "I just want to play my game!"  And so the work of those coming and saying, "I know all about how RPGs work, and this GNS isn't it."  I know for a fact, after talking the guy on the stoop, that he wouldn't know how a plot worked if it hit in the head.  He just likes the pictures.  Which is fine.  But I wouldn't trust him to plick a movie for *me* to see.

Christopher

[DevP]

(No offense, but I feel like your definitions on G, N and S are based on the words themselves, rather than the little snippet from the essay.)

YES! That is true. And that is what I'm questioning here. Why does the vocabulary have to be stretched and redefined?

The G/N/S terms help in part because we can intuitively recognize the three phrases as components of our own play, i.e. give this model a chance to explain what it really means out...

In any case, maybe those subtitles are revealing to what the distinction is about: Why do you play? Step On Up / living the Dream / Story Now. Of course, none of these phrases are 100% clueful, but they're a hook to describe to matter in a bit mor detail, and do somewhat evoke the big differences. (Frex, I can see lots of Sim players nodding their heads and saying "yeah, I want to live the Dream".) So if you find this a helpful alternate trichotomy, shiny.

[M. J. Young]

So may people have already responded that I am undoubtedly going to duplicate a lot of what's been said--I hope I don't do that unnecessarily, and that some of this proves helpful.

Storn, you've created a strawman. You've said that calculators must be computers because they can be used to compute, and in fact pencils may be used to compute, so they, too, must be computers. You've taken words that have very specific meanings within the discussion and ripped all the meaning out of them.

Gamism does not mean we're playing a game. Narrativism does not mean we're constructing a narrative. Simulationism does not mean we are running a simulation. Steam engines use water; early gasoline engines also used water. That doesn't mean that they are the same thing--the functional principles of a Watt Engine are entirely different from those of an internal combustion engine, even though both use fuel and both use water.

One reason there are so many pages of discussion is precisely because so many gamers think they already know how everything works. Often they don't even really understand what it is that they themselves are doing; those who do frequently assume either that everyone else is trying to do what they do, or that everyone else should be trying to do what they do. Surely you're aware that most people confronted with new ideas read into them what they already believe and understand, with the result that they don't grasp the new ideas? Again and again people appear on these forums (and on the Gaming Outpost forums before this) and explain why they don't agree with something they think is the theory, only to reveal that they have not understood the theory at all but rather have read into it either an explanation of what they already think or an attack on their own play style.

Thus the number of pages of discusson increases in large part to explain to people that they weren't really listening, or at least they did not actually hear what was being said. Some of them leave, disgruntled. Most of those who stay eventually realize that this is something really very simple, but contrary to nearly everything they had entrenched in their understanding of the hobby and thus difficult not in itself but for them.

Interestingly, people who don't play roleplaying games pick up the theory relatively easily. They don't have the baggage that tells them that this must be saying something entirely different than what it appears to say.

If Exploration happens in every mode, so does Creation.  That is pretty obvious, but hang on.  Creation happens well before the campaign does.  Creation of the rules, Creation of the game group.

Well, yes--but the game is not about creation of the rules or creation of the group. It's about creation within the shared imaginary space. Sure, the real world was created, and that's relevant to the existence of the game, but it's not part of the game itself. I was created, too, and I participate in the game, and the existence of the game depends on the fact that I exist; but my parents were not part of the game when they created me, and I was not part of the game when I was created. I wasn't part of the game when Chris called and asked if I wanted to play and I said yes. I didn't become part of the game until I began contributing to the shared imaginary space. That creation (which the theory calls exploration, which is important because it reminds us that whether one person or all persons are creating, all persons are involved in the knowledge of the creation) is play.

I exist before play begins; the rules may also exist before play begins. In fact, there might be a setting before play begins, and in some cases there are characters before play begins. (Other than me, the creation of any of these things could mark the beginning of play, and any of them could happen after play begins.) Their existence does not mean something was created in the shared imaginary space before play begins--it means that creation within the shared imaginary space drew on pre-existing elements. Those pre-existing elements may include anything already identified. If suddenly someone decides that Sherlock Holmes or Conan the Barbarian should be part of our ongoing game, their inclusion involves creating them within the shared imaginary space, by drawing from their existence in some other context. When rules are applied to play, they are created (through their effects) within the shared imaginary space. They do not exist except as they become involved in play. Thus from the perspective of the material world in which we live, the rules are (or more accurately may be) pre-existent to the game, but from the perspective of play they don't exist until they are used to control the imagined objects.

No Game:  Well, no rules, no game.  Might as well go write stories or draw pictures.

No Narrative.  Might as well play a wargame.

No Simulation.  No context to roleplay against or with.  Again, might has well go and write stories.

This is what I was saying above. Gamism isn't about whether you're playing a game; it's about whether you're involved in an activity for the purpose of showing off your ability to succeed within it. Narrativism isn't about creating narrative; it's about addressing premise and creating theme. Simulationism isn't about emulating something; it's about prioritizing the discovery of the thing explored.

Because a player cannot ROLEplay without creating a Narrative, understanding and utilizing the Rules to some fashion (granted, there are folks who barely get the rules..but they still abide by them).  A player cannot HELP but EXPLORE the Simulation put before him.

What comes to me is this: if you aren't using it to do math, you're not using a computer, because by definition a computer must be something that computes, and word processing does not involve computation, and therefore is not a function of a computer.

You're deciding that the words mean things the theory explicitly says they do not mean, and then concluding that the theory must be wrong because if you change the meaning of the words completely it doesn't make sense.

Then GNS isolates the GM and says "its only about the players reaction for the sake of this definition.'  Bullpucky.  The GM is a player at the table.

I'm not sure where you get this at all. It is one of the core concepts of the theory, one of the aspects that this theory was the first to bring into focus, that the referee is one of the players at the table. One of the most valuable influences the theory has had in game design has been in this aspect, recognizing that the referee is not some specific position that is different from player, but that the referee is a player given specific tools to influence the shared imaginary space which could as easily be given to other players in many configurations. This is the poster child theory for "referee is a player".

But again, you're confusing simulation, narrative, and game with simulationism, narrativism, and gamism.

O.K., let's take a step back. Why do we call them these things, if they aren't these things?

The simple answer is this: simulationism, narrativism, and gamism are entirely new ideas, concepts for which our language had no words. Why do we call self-operating machinery Robots? Because when Isaac Asimov wrote a story about them, he realized that there was no word in the English language for the sort of device he wanted to describe, and he created the word "robot" to be that thing, and everyone else accepted it. Ron Edwards started with terms from another related theory, and took them in a direction he thought was inherent in the original concepts. The concepts for which they were used in Threefold were entirely new concepts that needed names, and people created names for them based on some aspect that seemed to fit for them. As Ron moved the ideas into this new approach, those words took new meanings that the threefold didn't have (and to which some creators of that model object). Sure, arguably when these new ideas arose, we should have changed the names--but to what? There were no words for these concepts other than those that had come to it through its development from the Threefold. We could call them Discoverism, Premisism, and Gloryism, but are these words more expressive, more accurate, or clearer than the current terms? Can you match them up the concepts they define with certainty? Are they without flaw in identifying the concepts, or do we then have a new round of talks trying to explain why each of these means what it means? The concepts didn't have words before they were identified as ideas. To grasp the ideas, you have to give up whatever associations you already have for what you think the words mean--the words didn't exist before the Threefold, and you won't find them at Dictionary.com (I just checked). They mean nothing, except what the theory says they mean. Thus efforts to say that they don't mean what you think they mean get you nowhere. They are new words; they have the meaning given to them by those who coin them and use them, and not whatever meaning you ascribe to them.

I sympathize with Ralph's exasperation over yet the same objections repeated; Ralph, find the relevant threads and link them--that's the quickest answer, isn't it?

I hope this helps, Storn.

--M. J. Young

[Andrew Norris]

y'know what?  That is the first time I've read an Exploration definition(s) that makes more sense to ME (I admit, I'm dense, here folks) in RPG context.  However, if I had my druthers, "cumalitive creation" gets closer to what role playing is than "Exploration".  I like that term, "cumalitive creation"... the building upon elements... and it suggests a group effort.  Exploration can be individualistic.  My vote is for "cumalitive creation".   I feel that is MORE accurate a term.  But I'm digressing...

Hi, Storn.

My thought here is that if you're comfortable with thinking of it as Creation, that's fine, except you'll have to do the Creation->Exploration conversion when you post and read our posts. :) I think we mean the same thing, so it's just easier in the long run to use the common terminology.

But my real point is that exploration *is* creation, within the bounds of a roleplaying game. None of this stuff really exists, and to the extent it's even written down, it's in a much sketchier form than it will turn out in play. Say the PCs walk down a country road past a barn. What's inside the barn? What kind of crops are growing nearby? To find out -- to explore the setting -- we create details.

[greyorm]

A simpler way of saying what MJ said (and perhaps less prone to argument by way of its simplicity, I hope) is that many words have multiple definitions.

For example, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word "space" has 11(!) different meanings, ranging from spatial to musical to temporal to psychological to mathematical.

For example, if you come into the end of a conversation where I am saying to someone, "I need space," you don't know right off whether that means I need more physical room (for an office, perhaps), or whether I need the other person to pack their bags and move back in with mom (or perhaps, even, I'm talking about blocks of time for television advertisements!).

Your current objection would be like objecting to my use of the word "space" in the statement simply because you've decided that I'm using it one way, or should be, according to your perceived definition of the word; that because you mistook the context of the word for one thing, that the term is "unclear."

Arguing that a term's meaning is "not intuitive" simply means you're not picking up the context, the definition being utilized; and that's what those pages of game theory help do: allow that context to be defined.

The other thing they help do is remove the preconceptions many individuals carry into the theory with them (again, as MJ noted), via thorough examination of the issue. Note that much of the text in the articles arises as a response to various "Yeah, buts..." heard over the years. So, rather than have to rehash the same points in conversation every time, the article has included them in its text in the hopes of heading such misconceptions off at the pass.

I hope that between MJ's post and my own, the discussion has helped you understand why the terms are the way they are, and why they aren't changing any time soon to something "more clear" (and why, invariably, the new terms will have their detractors who proclaim they, as well, are unclear). Mull it over, particularly the first sentence, and if you'd like me to expand on anything I've said, or have any questions, just ask!

[montag]

Note that much of the text in the articles arises as a response to various "Yeah, buts..." heard over the years. So, rather than have to rehash the same points in conversation every time, the article has included them in its text in the hopes of heading such misconceptions off at the pass.

Maybe, this is part of the reason why people misunderstand the text (assuming that there is a sizeable proportion of readers who do misunderstand the text or have to struggle with it).
As you said, the crucial thing is context. If a new reader is not aware of the "Yeah but.." that is the reason behind a particular passage, hasn't witnessed that discussion, the section in question may be more confusing than helpful, since it adds distinctions and fine points, which are not immediately relevant to the theory and thus seem unconnected to those unaware of the "Yeah, but ...".

[Paganini]

So, maybe this will help. Ron's Big Ol' Theory of Role-playing (which includes GNS, Creative Agenda, etc. etc.) is a very in depth scholarly piece of work. It contains concepts that are precise and technical. One of the reasons that GNS was needed in the role-playing field was that no previous vocabulary contains terms to identify and describe these concepts. That's one of the big points of GNS.

So, Storm, I kinda agree with you. Because of all the jargon, GNS is not really easily accessable to someone who hasn't spent a couple of months (or longer) figuring out what it all means.

At the same time, we're dealing with concepts that haven't been previously described. So, what *other* words will you associate with them? It comes down to preference in definition. Ron decided to call the concept of shared imagination "Exploration." You prefer a term related to creation. When I'm talking about it, I like to use terms like "meta-space" and "communal reality." But guess what? It's Ron's theory. So he gets to coin the jargon terms. The fact that you don't like his choices doesn't mean that the theory is broken or anything.

So, yeah. The jargon can cause confusion. Every couple of months a bunch of new people show up, read over the essays once, and think they're GNS experts. They assume that the terms mean what they're used to them meaning. "Hah! Exploration! I know what that means! Ah, Narrativism, I play like that!" So we get a bunch of variations of "GNS is all wrong! Here's why!"

So, like Ralph said, this seems completely ridiculous given the man-hours that have gone into developing GNS. At the same time, it seems like a stage that everyone has to go through before understanding how the model works. Like Ron said, nothing new, but personally required.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Interestingly, people who don't play roleplaying games pick up the theory relatively easily. They don't have the baggage that tells them that this must be saying something entirely different than what it appears to say.

How many people who don't play RPGs and hear about GNS have ever thought about any theory of RPGs except GNS? When you know nothing about the topic, the first theory you hear often comes across as Received Wisdom. That doesn't mean it's true, just that you heard it first.

(Not that I disagree with GNS theory, mind you. In fact, in the 14 months I've been away from the Forge community, great strides seem to have been made. Ultra cool. But this is an invalid argument, and I felt compelled to point it out.)

[greyorm]

Seth,

MJ isn't saying the folks being referred to believe the theory to be true, only that they don't confuse what it is saying with what they think it says. A rather important distinction.

[BPetroff93]

I'm a relative newbie and I hear a lot of grumbles from the other newbie's about GNS.  Frankly I'm a big GNS fan.  One of the reasons I probably post relativly infrequently is that I find I have little to add of subsequent value to the theory and explanations already posted.

GNS is NOT about classifying people.  GNS is about play priorities.  Certain people may prefer certain kinds of play but that is it.  You are right that defining people as one or the other is too limited, GNS never does that.

I like to think of it this way:  Ron's Theory, which includes GNS, consists of really two parts.  One, an analysis of the way people play RPGs and the creation of a terminology to describe such action and Two, suggestions for reinventing games to create more satisfying play.  You feel his "map" of the RPG mind is not accurate.  However, your post indicates that you do not have an acurate understanding of what his map actually is.  Essentially you are pointing to Australia and calling it China.    

I feel that reading and understanding the main GNS articles is key for intelligent Forge discussion.  This does not mean you have to agree with them, just understand them.  If you haven't read them all the way through then do so.  If you don't understand them, ask questions. Until you have done these things how can you debate the theory's worth?

I'll admit that it took multiple reading and alot of sink in time to feel like the GNS theory clicked for me,  but that is true of anything worthwhile that you want to understand.  It is not necessary that GNS be understood instantly by every newbie.  Seriously, how long did it take you before you even understood the concept behind role-playing?  GNS is theory for role-playing gamers, and is not intended to be a "how to book" for newbies.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

MJ isn't saying the folks being referred to believe the theory to be true, only that they don't confuse what it is saying with what they think it says. A rather important distinction.

Good point. Sorry, MJ.

I feel that reading and understanding the main GNS articles is key for intelligent Forge discussion. This does not mean you have to agree with them, just understand them.

I would say that a willingness not to start arguments solely about the names of things, and to withdraw from arguments once it becomes clear that they are solely about the names of things, is also key for intelligent Forge discussion. (Though I don't think that's what's going on in this thread.)