Is G/N/S now a census of angels moshing on pins?

[Doctor Xero]

I've participated in The Forge for awhile.

I enjoy Indie Gaming and RPG Theory especially, but I found myself shifted over to GNS Model Discussion when addressing the G/N/S model in terms of gamer community issues.

What I've noticed is that, after my perusing an ungodly number of posts, threads, and articles, I've found that people are still arguing over what is involved in Simulationist play in comparison with and contrast with Narrativist play.  (Gamist play seems comparatively well understood.)

I've noticed a large number of heated arguments, anti-sim stereotypes, pro-nar defensiveness, and even uncharacteristically harsh (for The Forge -- mild for other Internet forums) comments from posters.

I think you fall into one of the two problem-audiences I identify in the essay (dunno which), and therefore are very, very likely to get all tangled up whenever you try to participate in my dialogue with someone else.

I really don't think it's valuable to try to disentangle you. Past experience shows me that you seem to like staying tangled.

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

Ron, I'm glad you don't want us to be afraid to question you, which is why I have taken the liberty of including two quotes from you.  If even the author of the root articles on G/N/S can seemingly become angry . . .

I am not posting a rant or venting annoyance.

I am posting a new topic : with all this confusion and vexation involved in discussing G/N/S, and with the seeming inability to arrive at an accepted definition, is this model still worth discussing?

If it is still worth discussing, I think it might be useful in this thread to post why -- writing in particulars and not in abstract generalizations -- so that we remember and can use this recollection to guide our future posts.

If no one can remember why it is worth discussing, perhaps we ought take a break from discussing it for awhile until we remember why we had used this model in the first place.

As for myself, in reading and responding to the various posts in this specific forum, I have gleaned insight into my own work as a game designer, as a game master, as a player, and even as a short story writer and scientist-scholar, and whether my insights conform to whatever official definition of G/N/S eventually arises or not has little to no impact on those insights.

respectfully yours,

Doctor Xero

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya Doc,

One of those decisions you'll have to make for yourself, I think. I'll discuss the contexts of both of those quotes with you privately, if you're interested.

Best,
Ron

[Doctor Xero]

Hiya Doc,

One of those decisions you'll have to make for yourself, I think. I'll discuss the contexts of both of those quotes with you privately, if you're interested.

Best,
Ron

Actually, I think it would be very useful for us to discuss this as a community.

I apologize if I've offended with the quotes.  I understand the context of both, but I felt that if I were to use an example of vexation, an example from a "founding father" of the forums would be the most appropriate.  The second quote was an acknowledgement that you would prefer to avoid all efforts to incarcerate you on a pedestal.

I think that, as a community, we might all benefit from discussing this matter, however.

Doctor Xero

[Balbinus]

It strikes me there are three primary reasons why the model is still under such constant development.

1.  It's not that old yet, it's not that surprising that fundamental work is still being done.

2.  Enabling clear communication between gamers with strong preferences for particular creative agendas (the type most likely to post here) just plain isn't easy.  I regularly struggle to follow some of the nar issues being discussed (because they're hung up on things I don't much care about) and in my view many who prefer a nar focussed game experience struggle to understand the sim perspective.  Still, we all try and hopefully in time it will get easier.  Certainly in my opinion the communication between gamers preferring a nar CA and those preferring a gam CA is much better here than I think it once was, because the attempt was made to understand the different perspectives and find a common language.  Sim is just behind the curve, but it needn't stay that way.

3.  New guys or old guys who left the site pop up all the time, often with an incomplete or out of date understanding of the theory.  That leads to confusion and to people retreading old ground.  For example, Contracycle pointed out to me in the introducing nar gamers to sim thread that I had missed that we were discussing High Concept Sim, I hadn't but I think my understanding of that idea was out of date which led me into getting needlessly confused.  Not sure that's the forum's fault.

I've often criticised the Forge for marginalising sim orientated gamers, but if we stop posting because it doesn't cater to us it never will.  If there's a problem, it's as much ours as it is the Forum's.  The only way the Forge can better address sim priorities is if those who prefer sim CAs post here and seek to explain how those priorities are addressed in actual play and what is rewarding about those experiences.

Having said that, finding a sim game in the wider world is I think easier than finding a nar game.  That being so, there are more nar players out there looking to understand why the game they're in doesn't fit right and the Forge is naturally of more initial help to them than it would be to either of us.

Does any of that help?

[Eero Tuovinen]

[crossposted]

I find your premise here queer. You seem to have some kind of an unspoken idea of how people should act in a forum like this, and that idea apparently doesn't jive with how we act here. Can you shed light on what you'd expect?

Let me take on particulars: If somebody starts a thread about an aspect of GNS, could it be because they find that aspect hard to understand or disagree with it? And if this is so, why should we not discuss the matter? What exactly are you thinking we should do instead? Bury the theory? Enshrine it? Do you have some goal in mind, something we're working towards, and which is now reached? Or why do you think that GNS is just now no more (implying that it once was) worthy of discussion?

I'm not going to touch your Ron-neurosis, but let me say that apparently the same applies to your relationship to him. You have some preconception about what he is and does, but that conception has not opened to me at all. Consider: what is the secret etiquette Ron breaks in those quotes, and what it tells about your post that I'm totally lost as to why you find those quotes quotable? They don't IMO seem to touch your actual query at all.

If no one can remember why it is worth discussing, perhaps we ought take a break from discussing it for awhile until we remember why we had used this model in the first place.

Could it possibly be that those of us who have no major problems with the model do not post, so only the people who have active cerebral interest in it are seen in the forum? Would the fact that I'm content with the model for what it is indicate that it should be discarded? After all, only people who are discontent with it seem to man the forum...

I find your post so strange that I cannot really answer your main query before you explain it further. For me, currently, there is nothing to discuss in GNS. Does that mean that others shouldn't? Why do we need a communal decision on something that only touches individuals? If you want to stop discussing GNS, go right ahead. And if somebody else wants to continue, well, it's no skin off from my or your nose. Do you want Ron to close the GNS forum or what? If so, why?

[C. Edwards]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Max (Balbinus). Just switch around Sim and Nar in his #2.

Basically, I think the inclination to see Sim as being marginalized is because there is a push to bring Nar up to speed with Sim. Historically, play and most gaming products past and present have been supportive of Sim priorities. The Forge is definitely a place where an attempt is made to expand upon Nar design, play techniques, etc. I don't think that it's to the detriment of Sim, it's just that much of the Sim groundwork has been covered already.

-Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Doc,

Is GNS worth discussing?

Well, the question only works if you change it to, "Is GNS worth discussing for you?"  And the reasons why can only pertain to yourself as an individual.

I don't read or post as much to the GNS threads, because, as you've mentioned, there IS a lot of rehashing.  But I don't take that as a bad thing either.  When I first got into it, I had to take time to digest it, ask questions, and mull over it.  What is different is that now there is a lot more material to draw upon, from the new essays and many referenced thread material.

In regards to arguments, its just something that happens between people all the time, anywhere you go.  Sure, here at the Forge we try to keep the dick waving to a minimum, but it still happens.  And even if you took GNS out of the picture, people will still find something to quibble over in order to make themselves feel smarter or superior to another.

Why should we discuss it?  Why use it?  Well, really, that's up to you individually.  Opinion polling is basically the same thing as either looking to defend it or win converts.  There's no real need to.  Either it works for you and helps you understand something or it doesn't.  Neither lives nor money is on the line.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Maybe seven years or so ago, the Threefold Model took a new form with new terminology, a form that was fundamentally different from what it had been at RGFA but was not immediately recognized as such.

The piece of it that got the most attention was called GNS; and the piece of GNS which got the most attention was N, narrativism, which appeared to be the most different element of the triplets. In fact, everyone pretty much knew what gamism and simulationism were; it was this narrativism thing that had people baffled. It proved to be very different from the dramatism of the Threefold on which it had been based, and it engendered a great deal of discussion, focus, and interest. It helped that the propounder of the new form of the theory had developed a game specifically to encourage narrativist play, and a lot of the excitement sprang from discovery of what this was.

With the much more recent publication of the Gamism article, Ron said that much of what we thought about gamism wasn't quite true. Gamism proved to be a lot different than we thought it was. It was fundamentally social in its drivers. Who knew? We thought it was about winning the game; it proved to be about winning the social admiration of your peers. This significantly advanced the gamism concept.

I think simulationism is in the same place right now. A lot of people think they understand it; a lot of people have "understood" it right out of existence. But if you'd asked Ron seven years ago to explain gamism, you would not have gotten Step On Up from him, nor anything at all, I expect, about the social interaction between the players as they prove themselves to each other.

I think there are aspects to simulationism that we have not yet grasped. That's one of the big issues that has dominated discussions here, thanks to several people including Jay (Silmenume) putting forward one thing and another, trying to bring focus to this thing. I usually find fault with most of his ideas (he seems to be attempting to narrow the agendum in places where I think it needs to be widened), but I appreciate the efforts to clarify this.

So I think it is worth discussing further, because I think there are things that have not yet been recognized, just as discussion led to the recognition of exploration as fundamental to role playing, and to many other aspects of the theory and related issues.

Of course, we have our good days and our bad days; it's hard to know when a discussion is going to help, or which ones will be linked from the future threads as valuable contributions to whatever understanding has been attained then.

--M. J. Young

[Doctor Xero]

I find your premise here queer.

Homophobic comments are an ugly way to communicate, Eero.

You seem to have some kind of an unspoken idea of how people should act in a forum like this, and that idea apparently doesn't jive with how we act here.
---snip!--
Why do we need a communal decision on something that only touches individuals? If you want to stop discussing GNS, go right ahead. And if somebody else wants to continue, well, it's no skin off from my or your nose. Do you want Ron to close the GNS forum or what? If so, why?

And kneejerk defensiveness does little to help anyone in anything.

That you would choose to misrepresent my comments so defensively sheds far more light on you than it does on me or this topic, but either way,
it's needlessly insulting, Eero.

Doctor Xero

[C. Edwards]

Homophobic comments are an ugly way to communicate, Eero.

Come on, Doc. If you really think that Eero meant "gay" and not "strange" when he used the word "queer", then you need to check your paranoia at the door.

-Chris

[Doctor Xero]

Hi Doc,

Is GNS worth discussing?

Well, the question only works if you change it to, "Is GNS worth discussing for you?"  And the reasons why can only pertain to yourself as an individual.

Not really.

My entire motivation for this thread has been for us to remind ourselves why we post on this topic because I find far many angry posts and angry private mailings.  I love vigorous discussions, but I am uncomfortable watching people yelling at each other, even in the minority.

Should this forum continue?  That's not for me to say.

But I think that remembering why we post on it may go a little bit towards reducing some of the hostility I have noticed.

The Forge is one of the more polite online forums overall, but I've noticed that posters often become hot under the collar when discussing G/N/S.

I'm hoping this thread will help us remember our purposes and thereby help us have fewer hostile or defensive (as I've encountered from Eero and others) posts.

Thank you, Balbinus, C. Edwards, and M.J. Young, for your posts on why we discuss this.  You are providing precisely the sort of responses for which I hoped.

I always enjoy a good discussion.

Doctor Xero

[Ben O'Neal]

My entire motivation for this thread has been for us to remind ourselves why we post on this topic because I find far many angry posts and angry private mailings. I love vigorous discussions, but I am uncomfortable watching people yelling at each other, even in the minority.

We're human. We have emotions. Even the most academic of disciplines exhibit intense and heated debate, often more menacing for the intricacies of the conveyance amidst intellectual retort and riposte. The very staple of snide elitism that has existed since forever among the intellectual and aristocratic upper echelons.

No arena is safe from the human element, they merely show it in varying degrees and in various creative ways. I find the forge to be a nice balance between snide academia and the crude common discourse seen in everyday life and on other forums.

In no way do I think this human element is a bad thing. In many cases, it is the only thing that ensures a debate will reach its potential for information and analysis.

Homophobic comments are an ugly way to communicate, Eero.
...
That you would choose to misrepresent my comments so defensively sheds far more light on you than it does on me or this topic, but either way

I find this sort of thing to be precisely what you seem to find uncomfortable. In fact, this sort of comment is far worse than most other things I've ever read here, for being a clearly supercilious attack on a misconception of another's motives. In addition, you are guilty of precisely that which you claim of Eero, namely revealing more of yourself than of him, as you have shown in your reactionary attack on the use of an innocent word.

Regarding GNS, as with all theories, regardless of any emotional reactions they may elicit, I feel that all ideas must be debated, discussed, and analysed until they are clearly understood and agreed upon, or a better solution is found. Unfortunately, this usually means "until the end of time", but such is the nature of humanity. Emotions are the fuel of life, and logic is the engine. Well, ideally anyway. Often emotion becomes both. But I don't feel that this has ever been the case here at the forge.

-Ben

[Eero Tuovinen]

And kneejerk defensiveness does little to help anyone in anything.

That you would choose to misrepresent my comments so defensively sheds far more light on you than it does on me or this topic, but either way, it's needlessly insulting, Eero.

Defensiveness schementiveness, whatever. Not interested in ad hominem, thank you.

I still find the topic baffling, and I still think that you could enlighten me about how you came up with it. Do you, as an example, think that there is some kind of community standard to be upheld here? If so, what is it? I'm so far from understanding that I probably cannot even ask the right questions. As far as I see it's entirely up to the individual whether he wants to post in the Forge GNS forum or in alternet knitting society.

If my above guess is right, and you really think that the GNS forum has to conform to some social ("be nice to each other or stop") or cultural ("produce this much of useful theory per annum") standards, I suggest you read the posting guidelines. The Forge is a forum on a server, owned by a couple of people, who've structured it according to their own will. As of this writing we have carte blanche to discuss things pertaining to GNS in this forum, given to us by the owners. Thus there is no need to stop as long as an outside force doesn't put up additional problems (USA defining GNS as pornographic would do it, I guess).

But really, I have no idea at all what you're looking for. I hope it's just what others have assumed: if you want to consider current developments and developing currents of GNS thinking, that's surely a valid topic. Then again, you could just say so and spare my poor self all the confusion.

Whatever. Probably you just expressed yourself vaguely, and I read implications in your quoting Ron without reason. Being that productive discussion has sparked, I'm likely in the wrong here. Sorry.



If I were American I'd probably find your comments on homosexuality offensive to both myself and gays. Being that I'm not, I'm just amused.

[Paganini]

An internet community exists as an economy of information. Our currency is the degree of civility, honesty, and freindliness in our dealings with each other. Relationship connections are formed and broken on the basis of this exchange.

There's nothing of physical value here. We don't pay each other to critique our work. We can't punch each other out of we get on our nerves.

I am entertained by the Forge. I am educated by the Forge. My game designs and my game play is informed by the Forge. Some of the most heated threads I've been in have also been some of the most productive. I will continue to post here, and discuss what I find interesting and useful. I wil ignore threads that do not interest me. I will ignore posters who's interractions do not respect the dynamics of an electronic social environment.

Doc, if the Forge makes you uncomfortable, then leave. It's that simple. Your own standards of worth, behavior, integrity, and social interractions are the only ones that can inform your decisions.

I will also add that, in spite of my very serious reply to the original topic, this thread really smacks of being an elaborate troll. I may be wrong, but I am suspicious.

[Doctor Xero]

If my above guess is right, and you really think that the GNS forum has to conform to some social ("be nice to each other or stop") or cultural ("produce this much of useful theory per annum") standards, I suggest you read the posting guidelines.

What exactly are you thinking we should do instead? Bury the theory? Enshrine it?

I'm not going to touch your Ron-neurosis,

Come on, Doc. If you really think that Eero meant "gay" and not "strange" when he used the word "queer", then you need to check your paranoia at the door.

Chris, no offense, but in the case of Eero's obvious snarkiness about a straightforward thread, such an assumption is legitimate almost requisite.  This is particularly true when one keeps in mind some of what has been written in some of the gender roles threads.  No offense, but really, it seems to me that a perusal of what he'd written should make this obvious.

Doctor Xero