Beware the academic jabberwocky!

[BPetroff93]

Hi Mattijs, actually you don't have to read hundreds of threads to understand forge gargon, only a couple of centrally located articles.  Depending on how much you want to delve in, you can read one:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

Or two:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

Or five:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html

The last two actually have a comprehensive glossary in the back.  At least that's the offical "cult of Ron" list.  So read already!  Then you can spend many healthy hours staring at a computer screen debating the value of metatextual analysis in early 80's Zombie RPG's with a high points of contact and a Pervy Ars Magica influence!  Trust me, it will get you chicks!  ;)

[BPetroff93]

Matt-o, I just noticed you joined last October.  Are you really unaware of the articles and glossary?  If so, maybe we do need some sort of BIG F'ING POINTER on the front page.  Maybe something like  FORGE TERMINOLOGY and a link to the 5 essays, or maybe just the glossary. If you have been aware of them, but have not read them, you really don't have anything to complain about.  Read them first, then you can complain :)

[matthijs]

Hi Mattijs, actually you don't have to read hundreds of threads to understand forge gargon, only a couple of centrally located articles.

I didn't actually say hundreds of threads, but hundreds of pages. I've read the articles above (the Nar article alone takes 38 pages of printout). In addition, to understand how the terms are actually used here, it's necessary (for most people) to read a lot of extra threads. Iit's not uncommon to see posts of the type: "Interesting point, but you should check out this and this and this thread to understand what is meant by term X".

[matthijs]

Matt-o, I just noticed you joined last October.  Are you really unaware of the articles and glossary?  If so, maybe we do need some sort of BIG F'ING POINTER on the front page.  Maybe something like  FORGE TERMINOLOGY and a link to the 5 essays, or maybe just the glossary. If you have been aware of them, but have not read them, you really don't have anything to complain about.  Read them first, then you can complain :)

Well... I've read them, and seen the debates around the terms. I've seen quite a lot of posts of the type "I finally got it!", and answers of the type "I don't think you did, check out thread X". Also posts of the type "There's several interpretations of this term, check out thread Y and Z". Etc.

My point: In order to participate in a Forge debate at any level beyond the most basic, it's necessary to understand and adapt a way of thinking and speaking that's becoming more and more inaccessible.

While I see that it has to be this way - after all, that's what happens when a lot of smart people spend a huge amount of time trying to really define what they're talking about - it is, nevertheless, unfortunate.

[BPetroff93]

I see.  Well, would a link to just the glossary help?  Or would it be impossible to understand do to lack of context?

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

Funny enough, I've found that the jargon isn't terribly complex, when you read the basic GNS essay and do not read extra assumptions into anything there.

What happens is that folks mix up all kinds of things while reading it, such as assuming Stance = CA or some other weird thing, that, if you look at the actual writing itself, simply is not there.  Most of the threads are unentangling assumptions on the parts of readers rather than anything else.

Personally, it took me over a year and a half to get into it at all, and it was because as I was interested in a topic, I would learn a term at a time, digest it, then come back.  Many folks get the idea that the whole theory has to be taken in at once to "get" what is going on here and that's simply not true.

Chris

[FredGarber]

I hope I am not coming across as too harsh, only sarcastic when I point out that this thread is in the RPG THEORY forum.  
As such, I expect an awful lot of Theory in most, if not all, of the posts, and if I want to participate in the Theory discussions, then I better know enough Theory to hold my head up, or post a lot of IMHOs until then.
If somebody tells me "Interesting Theory, but what about {link}THIS{/link}?," then I'll read the link and find out about that.

My gods, the Internet is the home for gamers (edit: and p0rn) more than anything else, and if you want to see examples of someone else's game without them using the Forge-design jargon for RPG Theory, then just type "'House Rules' Games" into Google and see what comes up!

I get plenty of pleasure just reading Actual Play. Heck, many of the threads are like reading a short story, being the interesting parts of the game (few people post about the pizza break).  Better than fanfic, because it's in my favorite Genre, RPG.  That Cthulupunk plus Twenty has more interesting characters than the Tom Clancy book I just read!  And reading about Inspectres is better than reading Tom Clancy, because I can have my own adventures.

Perhaps he hasn't found the right Forum on the Forge.  Perhaps there needs to be a Forum separate from Actual Play for the Practical Application Forum that many Forge posters seem to desire (and that The Big Model is not designed for, and all that.) But THAT is a comment for the "About the Forge" forum, not this one!

[eyebeams]

Part of the terminology issue, I fear, really has to do with the relationship GNS and this community have to the wider discipline of artistic criticism and gaming at large -- not as much of one as, I think, it should. Part of it is that this is an online community composed of people with a wide variety of backgrounds, so you can't really point to much in broader academia that people will all get. Part of it is the collapse between aesthetic goals and theory; clearer distinctions between the two would, in my view, enable much more coherent communication.

For a contrast, look at some of the documents created by the Nordic/Finnish LARP/Indrama movement. They give you theory, but there's a strong commitment to the praxis of creating the games they want to fulfill their own visions. If someone's playing by Dogme '99 ideals, for example, they won't have much use for what the Forge calls Illusionism. You'll know why and that, in turn, explains what it is more clearly

[greyorm]

I've read over the "Dogme '99" rules and I fail to see the connection with what you're proposing as "the problem with GNS."

GNS is a terminological reference used to get everyone with different styles together on the same page in understanding of their preferred modes of play, to diagnose problems when modes conflict, and understand how those modes lie in reference to one another and to the social act of play itself. It is not a set of aesthetic principles created for game design, as the D'99 rules are.

Those following D'99 rules of course don't need to know what "Illusionism" is in order to play according to D'99 rules, but someone understanding GNS would be able to look D'99 as a system and in play, and be able to determine what sort of play was being focused upon in relation to other systems and other groups.

In addition, having read the document, I'd hesitate to classify D'99 as a theory, seeming far more to be an application of mode and support for the reasons that mode was chosen; and even if I were to consider it to be a theory, its express purpose is so clearly different from that of the theory of which GNS is a part, that they are incomparable in basic function and thus in design.

One is "Here How You Should and Why You Should" and the other is "Here's What's Going On and Why It's Going On."

[eyebeams]

My issues with GNS are a whole other kettle of fish. What I'm saying is that of it is to be relevant, GNS has to form relationships with ideas like Dogme '99.

Otherwise, I see the perpetuation of the following vicious cycle:

1) GNS is used to identify different kinds of play and the problems that can come up.

2) But game X (which is usually a popular game) is, by its definition, "incoherent," but people enjoy it.

3) But GNS is not (as I've heard a couple of times) meant for the average gamer. It's meant for people who want to explore certain ideas in game design.

4) So what is GNS' preferred set of "certain ideas?"

5) Oh, GNS is used to identify different kinds of play and the problems that can come up, not any particular mode.

Variations of this circular train of argument will inevitably come up (and in my opinion, have come up), no matter the validity of any model, unless that model pursues points of interesection with other models or modes. Other fields of critical theory see this process of confroontation and negotiation as vital elements. The community here would benefut from doing the same in a structured fashion (as opposed to the ad hoc fashion that currently seems to be what's happening).

[BPetroff93]

Okay, here I go again asking the same question that I ask everybody who makes these statements so if anyone is sick of hearing it, sorry, but I feel I must ask.

eyebeams, have you read the appropriate articles which detail Ron's theory which includes GNS? The reason I ask is that your talking points lead me to beleive the answer is no.  If I am wrong, that's okay, I just want to know in what manner to communicate.

[greyorm]

But GNS is not (as I've heard a couple of times) meant for the average gamer. It's meant for people who want to explore certain ideas in game design.

Heya Malcolm,

I believe this same issue has been clarified for you before: that anyone telling you such is full of crap. Period. #1 and #5 are it. If I'm mistaken, and no one's said that yet, well then, there you are. Don't accept #3. If they persist, point them my way and I'll back you up, even if I don't agree with whatever else you might be saying.

That some people use GNS for #3 or believe that's what it can be used for does not mean that is what GNS is for, intended to do, or anything similar. It is not a theory of design, but of play, and it doesn't matter if Jack Theorylover or anyone else says differently in an argument -- they're wrong, via a simple check of the theory's text.

Now, don't confuse the fact that GNS ideas can lead to theories about how games should (or could) be written, given the dynamics of gameplay illuminated by GNS theory. However, no one has yet put together a "Coherency in Game Design, Damnit" theory paper around here, that I'm aware of. Perhaps Thomas HVM has, but if so, he's done it wholly without influence from GNS (referencing the recent thread on player "freedom").

And yes, we talk about how games could be written better, as well, and reference terminology developed here in those discussions. But GNS is theoretical support for those ideas only, not supporting them itself. A subtle but very important difference.

Now, the theory is and isn't meant for the "average gamer." The former because it is meant to be used as a tool of diagnosis for individuals playing together. The latter because, let's face it, it's theory, a fairly complex/multi-layered one, and it takes a while to grasp the intricacies of while shedding one's own preconceived notions about what the terms mean. Most folks aren't willing to put in the time.

I mean, if we could grasp physics in a day, then we'd all be physicists and engineers. Similarly, though not on the same level of complexity, GNS theory isn't going to be grasped in a day.

Eventually, the theory should have enough established groundwork to have simpler materials written to be accessible to the average gamer. The glossary might be a start towards this. On the other hand, I'm not interested in "GNS Stripped Down For Dummies" because that just leads to confusion, surface understanding without depth and experience or application -- modern folks and your desire to get everything in bite-sized media chunks! BAH! (wink)

Actually, the above (bite-sized understanding of GNS) is exactly where the #3 idea you cite comes from, that the theory is about game design, rather than play, and terminology for the framework that play occurs within.

Now, Brendan, yep, Malcolm's read them. He can correct me if I'm wrong. That he has or hasn't injected personal reactions into what the theory actually says is an entirely different argument, however, and one he and I are probably opposed on.

Note, his #2, I believe, is a reference to criticims here of the Exalted RPGs mechanics -- a game he writes for and enjoys playing, but which has been labeled as "Incoherent."

Malcolm, no one has ever said that you can't enjoy or play an Incoherent game, only that certain things happen in order for that to occur. (Very Important Note: Not "must happen" but "happen" -- whether consciously or subconsciously, usually the latter, as part of the social structuring that occurs at every gaming table -- or, really, as part of any human social interaction where rules are involved).

Ok, alot of this is starting to branch out into other subjects than clarity of terminology. New threads would be appropriate -- so to drag myself back to the terminology question, would you mind highlighting some points of intersection regarding GNS and D'99 (or another theory), as you suggest how valuable such would be towards greater comprehension and clarification of the model?

[eyebeams]

Hey man,

I'll probably look at GNS and Dogme '99 tomorrow, since I don't really have it in me to do it right now.

One thing, though, is that System Does Matter and it's successors definitely have implications for game design. After all, Ron's used it as a tool in several RPG reviews and, of course, you can see the linkages on this very site. With GNS being used so often as a way to look at a game's design, how is #3 a problem?

[Tomas HVM]

I've got a print out of a GNS essay by Ron Edwards, and chapter four in that essay is named "The Basics of Role-Playing Design". Certainly the GNS essay at least look into design. The sheer volume of the essay, and the many new concepts presented in it, makes it hard to read for the average gamer, yes indeed for the average gamesmith too.

While the model of thought offered in the GNS-essay is praiseworthy in many respects, and have opened many avenues of new thinking on roleplaying games, it is still a model that will leave you blinded to the reality of roleplaying games if taken as gospel. That's my general warning.

People at the Forge, as people in other communities, react strongly to such warnings. There is no need to do that. It is a general warning, and as such it may be read with some emotional distance; if the warning don't pertain to me, I'm in the clear, no reason to react. If it goes a long way to describe my behaviour in relation to the predominant model of thought in this community, I need to sharpen my independent thinking. The point is; any and all communities of thinking or belief really needs this kind of warnings, to stay healthy. We need to distance ourselves from ourselves from time to time, and reflect upon the quality of our thinking/belief.

Even though such a discourse may end in acceptance of status quo (kind of: our way of thinking is functional and dynamic), and may seem a waste of resources, the act of having such a discourse is important.

That's my final comment in this thread. I've enjoyed reading it. I have indeed spotted intelligent life in this forum once again, and value it all the more for it. Thank you all for contributing!

:-)

[greyorm]

I'll probably look at GNS and Dogme '99 tomorrow, since I don't really have it in me to do it right now.

Cool, Malcolm, that would be awesome of you.

One thing, though, is that System Does Matter and it's successors definitely have implications for game design. After all, Ron's used it as a tool in several RPG reviews and, of course, you can see the linkages on this very site. With GNS being used so often as a way to look at a game's design, how is #3 a problem?

I realized that this morning while reading over my post in the morning light: System Does Matter makes a very clear statement about the need for more coherency in game design.

I think, however, the above has more to do with the distinction noted in my post above: while the implications for design are inherent in the theory, they aren't its point.

I'm thinking right now of any number of phyical theories which have nothing to do with engineering, per se, but when engaged in the latter endeavor, become very important to it, even though none of them reference engineering and physical design specifically.

Same with GNS, it isn't being used for design, but classification of a design, as noted above (terminology and reference of noted behaviors in play and their relations to one another).

That is, there's no "Here's How to Make A Narrativist Game" in the text. Rather, there's text on "This is What Narrativist Play Is" from which one can make guesses about how to create a game and attendant mechanics which would end up being categorized as Narrativist by supporting what is known to be classified as such. That's where the problem with #3 is -- people confusing the latter to be the purpose or utility of the theory.

So, yes, I agree that GNS is used to label games as supporting or encourging play of a specific mode based on what the mechanics encourage in play. I don't see that as the theory being used to explore certain ideas in design, however. It's still (and only) diagnosis of play -- looking at the framework and categorizing, "Ok, that puts this design about here in our relational space."