The Big Model: Unchallenged?

[Walt Freitag]

Are we just telling where we disagree here, or are we actually trying to make specific attacks on the model? Walt, do you just want us to discuss your problems with the model, or is this an enumeration of the arguments made against the model?

Mostly the latter, is what I had in mind. The intended topic of the thread is the relation between the community and the GNS/Big Model. Some correspondents appear to have gotten the impression that when it comes to the Big Model, to quote Bored of the Rings: "We are the chorus, and we agree. We agree, we agree, we agree." I'm trying to gauge, and give others more up-to-date data to gauge, the extent to which that's true or false.

It might help to think of this as a Site Discussion topic. I would have posted it as such, but it seemed odd to do so when the topic is also about the Big Model/GNS and there's this whole forum here for that.

I don't want to discuss the rationale or validity of my points of disagreement (note the wording shift because I don't think of such disagreement as a "problem") with the model in this thread, or get into detailed discussions of anyone else's either; I'd like to get a general idea of what those areas of disagreement (or reservation, or alleged incompleteness) are, to the extent that that's possible.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks for the clarification. The thread does seem to be a balancing act in that it doesn't want to get too mucch into any one argument, yet it also doesn't want to devlove into 'See, see! There is debate!"

As an overview of potential problems with GNS, I think it's a good idea, and I think the posters so far have done very well stating the nature of their problems with the model without devolving into actual debate about the points.

By way of making it a reference, here is a link to my points as they relate to "Beeg Horseshoe": http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6663

and the original Beeg Horseshoe ala Jared: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=617

Mike

[M. J. Young]

John Kim said that my analogy to physics theories was invalid because the model is an artistic, not scientific, theory. I'll certainly defer to his concept of how theories in physics work; but I think that the model is not an artistic theory as much as a "soft science" theory, something in the realm of sociology or social psychology. It is quite specifically about the behavior patterns of people engaged in social interaction in a narrowly defined context.

I'll agree that such theories are less easily displaced than scientific ones; on the other hand, I do think the analogy holds rather well. For many of us, we had encountered various "theories of roleplaying" in other contexts, and embraced or rejected them in whole or in part, and to a large degree this model has incorporated many of their strengths and exposed their weaknesses.

I would expect that a better model would explain as much as well. I have not yet seen one. Certainly there have been starts, and perhaps starts get quashed too easily (this model didn't spring to life overnight). I try not to reject such beginnings too quickly, but I don't have time to pursue all of them to see where they might lead.

Oh, and I've been meaning to apologize to both Walt Frietag and Jonathan Walton for confusing them in my previous post. Mea culpa.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

John Kim said that my analogy to physics theories was invalid because the model is an artistic, not scientific, theory. I'll certainly defer to his concept of how theories in physics work; but I think that the model is not an artistic theory as much as a "soft science" theory, something in the realm of sociology or social psychology. It is quite specifically about the behavior patterns of people engaged in social interaction in a narrowly defined context.

Well, it is possible for the theory to move in that direction -- but for that to happen there needs to be some sort of objectively observable behavior.  I think your own http://www.mjyoung.net/rpg/gametype.html">Gamer Preference Quiz would be an excellent tool for moving it in that direction.  We could have many people take a quiz and observe trends in the answers.  Indeed, the http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html">Breakdown of RPG Players was apparently based on extensive survey data.  However, the quiz has been  dropped from discussion and no effort has been made at a replacement.  

On the other hand, artistic models aren't empirical in this way.  Indeed, I think of the Threefold as being more of an artistic taxonomy than a predictive model.  I think that GNS moved away from whatever moves it made towards empirical data modelling, and instead it is more of a conceptual taxonomy like the Threefold.  

I would expect that a better model would explain as much as well. I have not yet seen one. Certainly there have been starts, and perhaps starts get quashed too easily (this model didn't spring to life overnight). I try not to reject such beginnings too quickly, but I don't have time to pursue all of them to see where they might lead.

Well, this is a matter of opinion.  As artistic models, I don't think there is any objective way to say that one is better than another.  To me personally, I find that the Threefold has been very useful in dissecting gaming issues -- while GNS has had very little use.  But as I currently view it, they both are narrowly focused on what happens inside the imaginary space, while the more interesting stuff is the relation to the outside -- stuff touched on by articles like Chris Lehrich's ritual article, Liz Henry's group narration, and the exploration of self thread.

[Henri]

I haven't been a Forge meber for all that long, but from what I've seen, there appears to be a lot of problems with Simulationism.  When I read the essays, I felt like I had a good handle on what Narativism and Gamism were about.  I think that they are well-defined modes of play, and are hence relatively easy to identify.  But Sim is the big trouble maker.  Almost all the discussion I have seen that is specific to CA has focused on Sim.  Newcomers to the model (like me) consistently seem to struggle with understanding what Sim is.  Some people even have claimed that it doesn't exist (although I disagree with this).  

I think the problem is that the model is most fuzzy when it comes to Sim.  Of the three GNS essays, the Sim essay is the least clear (at least to me).  Perhaps this is because Sim is defined in the negative, as that which LACKS metagame.  Since GNS theory allows for high-exploration gamism and narativism, the lack of metagame is really the major diagnostic feature of Sim, and I feel uncomfortable with something that is defined by an absence.  I think this causes Sim to be treated as a catch-all bin for everything that isn't Narativist or Gamist.  

PS
I know John Kim has pretty much already said what I'm saying, and I agree with him.

[C. Edwards]

As it currently stands, I don't have any real issues with the Big Model. There are certainly areas that need deeper delving and illumination. But that's not a problem, that's possibilities.

The main problem in general seems to be the evolutionary fog that surrounds where the model is actually currently standing. Being in a constant state of flux, those just learning of the model are almost always going to be behind in their understanding when compared to those who have been around for a while and are up to date with all the current discussion on the topic. That's just the way it is unless a good deal of time and effort is put in to bringing ones self up to date.

I think there are many areas of subtlety and nuance inherent to the model that often are not readily grasped by those that haven't done a combination of three things:

1) Been present for (or well read on) much of the model's evolution and involved in that evolution to some degree.

2) Spent a good deal of geniune effort in attempting to understand the model, free of any preconceptions or emotional attachments that would hinder that understanding.

3) Mindfully applied, compared, and tested the model over many instances of actual play.

I like to think that I've done all three of those things. I have a good understanding of the model and the concepts and jargon used in discussion here. I believe, like M.J., that the model is more akin to a social science theory than an art theory. But I do think it has aspects of both.

Basically, I feel that if you've found the Forge then you've already been led to water. Whether you drink, and how deeply, is up to you. But it will directly impact your understanding of the ideas being presented here.

And please, that's not a "just spend enough time and effort and you too will believe!" statement. Whether you agree with any of the concepts presented at the Forge or not, you need to agree or disagree from a position of understanding, not misconception.

-Chris

BTW, I know what Sim is, but I'm not telling. ;)

[John Kim]

I think there are many areas of subtlety and nuance inherent to the model that often are not readily grasped by those that haven't done a combination of three things:

1) Been present for (or well read on) much of the model's evolution and involved in that evolution to some degree.

2) Spent a good deal of geniune effort in attempting to understand the model, free of any preconceptions or emotional attachments that would hinder that understanding.

3) Mindfully applied, compared, and tested the model over many instances of actual play.  

I'd certainly agree with that, though we might differ on how vital those nuances are.  Especially regarding #1.  Coming to the Forge in early 2003, I had missed the transformation that happened particularly in 2001.  From my point of view I jumped from the fairly early "System Does Matter" essay to the later Forge discussion.  

Something that was very interesting for me to see was some of the in-between discussion.  Apparently the Gaming Outpost archives are coming online.  I had posted some of Scarlet Jester's GEN model discussions on my website (in particular on my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/">Threefold Model section).  The articles are:
All You Need to Know About GEN
Character Potential - A Path to Successful Gaming
Stress-Testing GEN
GEN - Stances
GEN - Explorative

[M. J. Young]

Apparently the Gaming Outpost archives are coming online.

They are online now. They are on a temporary domain, so it's premature to create links to them; however, there is a script on the Gaming Outpost site which will forward old links to the new location, and that will be updated when the forums move to the Gaming Outpost host, so that links to the old locations will find the new threads.

I don't think it's possible for them to preserve links to the current locations, that is, if you link to a thread at its current URL you probably will have to update that link when they move.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Erm, well they are not working for me as it stands.

[talysman]

Erm, well they are not working for me as it stands.

I think John coded the URLs relatively instead of absolute. in other words, the links are pointing to imaginary articles on indie-rpgs.com instead of articles on his site. if you follow the Threefold Model link, you'll find the correct links on his site.

[John Kim]

Oops.  Mea culpa.  Here are the corrected links.  

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN01.html">All You Need to Know About GEN
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN02.html">Character Potential - A Path to Successful Gaming
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN03.html">Stress-Testing GEN
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN04.html">GEN - Stances
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN05.html">GEN - Explorative

[Hunter Logan]

I think The Model, Ron's model, really, is beyond the point of  meaningful challenge. That is, it's developed to a point where it stands on its own and expresses what it's supposed to express. I don't think that was necessarily the case in 2001, but it is the case now.

As much as other people have influenced its development, it (GNS, Ron's model, whatever you want to call it) has always been Ron's way of looking at gaming. It is not a community property like RGFA Threefold, where the content was determined out of group debate. Therefore, it is emphatically not going to change just because people want it to. It will only change when or if Ron wants it to.

With Ron's last three essays and the glossary, it seems to me that the model has achieved the desired mass and stability. I'm not saying it's perfect. Obviously, it's not. I'm not even saying I agree with it; I don't. But I do think it is reasonably complete within itself. It may still evolve somewhat as Ron chooses to evolve it, but it's really beyond the point of challenge intended to bring radical change. The discussion has been going on for years. If the radical change hasn't happened already, it's simply not going to happen. All people can really do is refer to it, agree with it, or disagree with it as desired.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I dunno, Hunter, I'm sort of taking the opportunity of this thread and the glossary thread to step back for a while and decide whether I'm making sense or not.

How far I can step back and do that is anyone's guess, including my own. But I'm not putting myself in "Mountain Witch fortress" mode and snarling at all comers.

Best,
Ron

[Hunter Logan]

Hi Ron,

I don't think you've ever been "snarling at all comers." At times, you have been very hard to convince. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Stepping back has given me a different perspective, so I would not deny you the same opportunity. I'll be interested to see what develops.

Thanks,
Hunter