More on jargon and models [long]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, you asked,

I'm going to ask for a call from Ron on this one. Ron, what do you think? Would pointing to and remarking on a couple of other threads be a useful clarification or is it likely just to drag up old fights and probably start some new ones?

I have no idea what will happen, but it's right & proper to use threads as examples. If someone gets all bent out of shape because you're "judging" them by referring to the thread, then here's the message for them: do not post.

Best,
Ron[/quote]

[greyorm]

Sociology has largely rejected such an approach because, if taken to its logical conclusion you're wasting your time.

Cool, we agree then, at least as far as the point I was making is concerned. As to the rest you bring up, as to whether it meets/doesn't meet the criteria of a science, and whether it has failed to live up to the rigor required of it, I have no comment, mostly because I don't really feel qualified to judge what you're saying as true or not true.

It doesn't remove the utility of GNS for me, nor that of the shared vocabulary it creates to describe observed phenomena, but I don't know that means a great deal in relation to your points.

[John Kim]

First, in the situation you posed, in which someone's thoughts are dismissed because GNS has "been there, done that." I actually think that's a pretty fair criticism of their theory. If we have something that works, we don't really need something new that works equally well. We need something better or different. So, I think theories that do cover the same ground on the Big Model will fail on the Forge. They are, of course, free to flourish anywhere, and I think they will if there's merit and dedication there.

Obviously, if the Forger who says "Been there, done that" is wrong, then there's something new or different in what the new theory says. Great! And, also obviously, any new theorist must have the gumption to stick with it when the Forgers are wrong or missing something.

I think that to be accepted at this community, the burden falls on the new theorist to show how they are different or better in approach. The burden falls on the new theorist to show those points you're raising (What is this new model supposed to do? Etc.), not necessarily on the Forge to ask them. That's my take on it, anyway.  

I am a bit stunned at this -- maybe I'm misunderstanding?  You seem to be saying that the entire Forge as a community will reject a model which covers the same ground as GNS.  I'm not even sure what this means.  Even if you feel "been there done that" regarding someone's new theory, I would hope that you would at most simply not participate in its discussion.  Discussion of the new theory could then flourish among the Forgers who are not satisfied with GNS -- even if they are a small minority.  The Forge can and does permit contradictory theories and preferences among its members.  

There are times when GNS seems to shut out other discussion, but I would say that those are a mistake and not right or representative of the Forge.

[Matt Snyder]

John, it's merely my take. (shrug) We're just seeing the verb "fails" in different light. You consider a minority view to be "flourishing" among a few Forge members. I do not consider such thought to be flourishing on the Forge as a community (for example, RGFA stuff, or GDS -- they fail, in my view, to gain any credibility or support on the Forge. Such is life.). Simple as that, and not terribly stunning either way, but that's just me.

[clehrich]

Lots of things to respond to here.

First off, a follow-up to the question of using Big Model vocabulary in new theorizing.  I think that after all, maybe this really isn't nearly so hard as I'd been thinking, but my reasons are something that hasn't been brought up yet.  If I may briefly and simplistically borrow the structural-linguistic concept of "motivation" of a sign, the idea there is that signs (words, etc.) can be more or less tightly embedded in a set of structures of other signs.  The more motivated the sign, the more "baggage" it carries from the structures around it whenever it is used, in whatever context.  You can probably think of other ways of describing this process, but this is the obvious one to me.  What I'm thinking is that different categories within the Big Model are more and less motivated, partly because of the amount of discussion and/or emotional investment they have generated, but also partly because of the structuring of the Big Model itself.  For example, Stance doesn't appear terribly strongly motivated, and if it were used in a totally different theory, I think it would be relatively simple to avoid confusion, i.e. to treat it as "merely" a term.  On the other hand, Creative Agenda and its three component parts (GNS) is exceedingly motivated, to the degree that I think it would be nearly impossible to use those terms in a different model and still keep it clear that you were neither challenging nor restructuring the Big Model itself.  It would be interesting, I think, to examine how GNS retains this heavy motivation since the development of the Big Model, and also to think about whether the Big Model has moved to motivate and thus dominate a larger range of terms, and so forth.

On to other things:

[T]o my mind [the vocabulary of the Big Model] is, at present, a collateral benefit, which has arisen as much out of the moderation and debating style of the Forge as the big model itself. Which isn't to say that it isn't valuable, or indeed that any common vocabulary doesn't also express the assumptions of the arena in which the vocabulary arose, but the creation of the vocabulary would have happened pretty much regardless of the form of the big model. ... In my opinion, far too much effort has been spent (I'm tending to think wasted) on "classify my game" threads.

At base, I agree, but I want to re-emphasize that such threads have considerable value when, as is often the case, the real point is, "Please use an example I know well, because it's my game, to help me understand the model."

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dysfunctional play, not worry about functional play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

That's a very interesting point which had certainly not occurred to me.  Do you feel that a diagnostic (in the sense of finding dysfunction) model is intrinsically not worthwhile?  I can see two possibilities: either the Big Model is founded upon diagnosis of dysfunction, in which case it actually needs some restructuring, or else the value of the Big Model lies elsewhere and the rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac.  Do you have an opinion on which is true?

First, you may well be right that the next theory will not classify. In fact, that sounds plausible .... But it is not, I think, necessary. The Big Model slices things one way; in something as complex as RPGs there have to be other ways to slice (think of slicing bread vertically or horizontally; are you eating "normal" sandwiches or a sub sandwich?).

I think we're in agreement, but I'm not sure.  To my mind, the Big Model already does basic classification quite well, which is what has produced all this vocabulary.  I don't see the need for another classification theory.  What I think is dangerous is the notion that classification is somehow important in and of itself, because that leads to thinking that when we classify something, we achieve something, and blinds us from the fact that classifying is a usual preliminary to actual analysis.

But, prior to all that, there's got to be purpose to the exercise. To tell people to go forth and theorize is as pointless as ordering them to be funny. You come up with a new theory because you have this burr up your ass, not because there's this neat forum where you could post it. So, switching metaphors in mid-paragraph, what we're doing here is clearing the leaves, dirt and maybe the occasional fallen tree from the path. Cool. Worthwhile to do. But it doesn't really get me on the edge of my seat. Not until I see somebody actually walking down that path. Which makes this into a really long-winded way of asking whether you started this thread in general or to facilitate a specific new theory?

Actually, no, though I realize that might seem the obvious follow-up.  For me, this arose from my realization that my various batterings against the Big Model's hierarchical structure were so many demands for that model to be something it cannot be.  If a non-hierarchical, cultural-textual model such as I think would be most productive for my purposes is to be developed, it can only happen on its own grounds; revising the Big Model to be what I want will produce a half-breed that doesn't achieve either set of goals well.  This led me to think, based on reading a lot of threads, that I'm not the only one who's been beating his head against the Big Model in order to make it do something it can't do, and I thought it might be productive to explain why I think that's not a useful direction.  As you say, I'm trying to clear out some brush; later, perhaps, I will want to plant an interesting new theory in the clearing.

Basically it strikes me that all you're really saying is that GNS dominates these boards far too much and that space should be allowed for alternative theories that compete with GNS either directly (by sharing its assumptions) or indirectly (by wanting to be the way people think about RPGs). So you're advocating stepping back from GNS and allowing other GNS-Independent theories to spawn without people trying to refute them from a GNS position, explain them away in GNS terms or reject them out of hand as failed attempts at understanding GNS.

Yes, that's a big part of it.  But the important point is that it's not GNS (or Big Model) that dominates, but rather that there is a culture here on the Forge which takes it for granted that the Big Model is the baseline of all discussion.  Thus the Big Model dominates without having to.  And I think this is one reason why some people who don't buy in to Forge culture think the Forge is full of jargon-crazy Ron-worshipers.

And for the record, I don't think whether or not it's science is irrelevant at all.

I didn't say it was irrelevant, or at least I didn't mean to.  I just said it's something I am not at all sure I want to get into debating, at least in this thread.  I'd love to see a thread on the subject, though.  Your points about Kuhn and perceptions of the dominant theory would make a great basis for this!

Erick,

Okay, give me a little time and I'll try to find an example thread or two.  I hope when I do so that people have read Ron's post carefully.

John and Matt,

I think a good example of success or failure of an alternative theory and its reception would be John's regular references to RGFA Threefold, and more recently the renaming of RGFA Sim as Virtuality.  From a classification standpoint, the RGFA Threefold model does indeed cover much the same ground as the Big Model, although of course not exactly so; I don't mean that the categories are a little different, but rather that the structure of the RGFA Threefold is somewhat different and premised upon slightly different axioms.

One interpretation here would hold that this model has not been received within dominant Forge discourse, and really only gets talked about at all as a direct result of John's persistent efforts.  By this reading, the relabeling of RGFA Sim as Virtuality would constitute an attempt to incorporate some of RGFA into the Big Model, thus eliminating the conflict by subscribing to the "there can be only one" notion.

Another interpretation would be that the RGFA Threefold model now has an established minority presence, and that the relabeling constitutes acceptance by the dominant discourse that the category in question is not only different but valuable in itself and on its own grounds.

I wonder what you two think about which is true, or rather where on the spectrum between them you think matters stand now, or whether there is some third position quite different from these.

[timfire]

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dyfunctional play, not worry about funcitonal play...

Is the Big Model really about diagnosing dysfunction? I don't think so.

True, that was it's original purpose, but I think that purpose has changed, at least here at the Forge. Among the people that do most of the theorizing, I think the Model & the rest of Forge-developed theory has solved most of the problems the theory was meant to solve. As a result, I don't see how most of the new theory that gets discussed here has anything to do with dysfunction. I think the focus of discussion here has shifted to attempting to understand how play works.

So to use Chris' words, I think that the "[dysfunction] rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac."

[clehrich]

Okay, this is in reply to Erick's request for an example thread.

Water-Uphill World: Virtuality Examined

If I understand the sequence of events correctly, this thread started as an earnest attempt to work out whether "character integrity" could be violated in order to address Premise in Nar play.

Over the course of the first two pages or so, the thread sought a lot of data about the specific game, leading eventually to the conclusion that since the game was "actually" not Nar, the whole question was moot.  Having gotten that far, many posters apparently lost interest.

Next, the focus shifted to GNS and its value, with one argument being proposed that whether GNS can or cannot classify everything correctly does not determine the classification-system's value.  This moved rapidly to a defense of GNS on the grounds that since the game in question was not apparently dysfunctional, GNS cannot be tested against it (back to Pete's concern about diagnosis of sickness only).  One poster noted that this shift of grounds to discussing GNS meant that Virtuality as a topic had vanished.

Finally, the argument was made that GNS ought to allow better communication and improve games.  The stakes became binary: either GNS classification of the game did or did not achieve these things, and on that basis GNS should either be eliminated or trumpeted.  The thread ended.

An interesting point here is to track "Virtuality" through the thread.  Never a dominant issue despite the title, it seems to have been taken for granted throughout that Virtuality must be part of GNS, integrated seamlessly into the whole.  Thus the debate eventually concluded with a discussion of how examination of Virtuality should or should not effect change within GNS.  But as one poster noted, there never really was any analysis or discussion of Virtuality per se, only a series of attempts to classify a Virtuality-based game in GNS terms.  Ultimately, once the game had been pegged as not Narrativist, it was felt that a satisfactory conclusion had been reached.

As I read it, what happened here was an example of pinning butterflies instead of analyzing.  What was taken for granted throughout was that classifying Virtuality with respect to GNS categories would accomplish something.  But what?  What we learned was that Virtuality does not readily accord with Narrativism, because of the nature of Premise-addressing in its resolution structure.  One poster even threw up his hands and said that trying to work out these things with reference to actual play often doesn't achieve anything anyway.  So what did we actually learn here?

I would classify this thread as another example of the "Classify my game in GNS terms" type.  What is unfortunate is that I do not think that was the initial point of it.  Rather, the question about integrity and Premise got progressively transmuted into a purely classificatory issue, and when partial classification had been achieved it seemed as though something had been accomplished, when in actuality all that was achieved was a defense of GNS from a challenge never posed.

Does that help at all?

[John Kim]

One interpretation here would hold that this model has not been received within dominant Forge discourse, and really only gets talked about at all as a direct result of John's persistent efforts.  By this reading, the relabeling of RGFA Sim as Virtuality would constitute an attempt to incorporate some of RGFA into the Big Model, thus eliminating the conflict by subscribing to the "there can be only one" notion.

Another interpretation would be that the RGFA Threefold model now has an established minority presence, and that the relabeling constitutes acceptance by the dominant discourse that the category in question is not only different but valuable in itself and on its own grounds.

I wonder what you two think about which is true, or rather where on the spectrum between them you think matters stand now, or whether there is some third position quite different from these.  

Well, we're abstracting out "dominant discourse" and "minority discourse" from only a handful of people here who participated in the Virtuality discussions.  To me, Mike Holmes and Vincent Baker (representing "dominant discourse") seemed more like the latter view -- accepting Virtuality (i.e. me as "minority discourse") as a valuable minority presence for itself, and not as a part of the Big Model.  However, that's just my perception of them.  

While GNS is undoubtably discussed more often, I do question how we define "dominant" and "minority".  Casual perception from browsing is affected strongly by how enormously prolific a few posters are (myself among them in the 1000+ post range).  The Forge doesn't have polls with the exception of game-play profiling (which hasn't happened for nearly a year).  And when we do, the results don't seem to match the impression which one gets from browsing posts.  For example, the "Most Enjoyed" games aren't the ones that get the most vocal praise here.  Now, arguably it isn't important what some guy who only rarely posts the Forge thinks -- i.e. one should weight by number of posts.  But if we're going to talk about "dominant", "minority", and "failure" I think it's important to understand our terms.  

I would classify this thread as another example of the "Classify my game in GNS terms" type.  What is unfortunate is that I do not think that was the initial point of it.  Rather, the question about integrity and Premise got progressively transmuted into a purely classificatory issue, and when partial classification had been achieved it seemed as though something had been accomplished, when in actuality all that was achieved was a defense of GNS from a challenge never posed.  

I agree with your analysis of that thread to a large degree, but I have to point out about the origin of the thread.  I started that thread at Vincent's (aka lumpley's) request, during discussion in the GNS Model Discussion thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11822">"Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant.  So it really did start out as roughly "classify my game" and GNS focussed.  On the other hand, the point of it was never "what is my game's category" because that's not something I am interested in per se.  The point was to examine what GNS (and specifically the N/S split) is about.  That thread is still ongoing, by the way.

[komradebob]

Just a thought-

Perhaps some of the problem with GNS is related to the fact that it describes roleplaying games and related behavior, whether creative agendas, design aspects, or actual play.

However, the term "roleplaying game" itself is rather amorphous.

There are rather a broad spectrum of rpgs ( and here even my use of the term "spectrum" is suspect), not to mention a bunch of activities/games that share some characteristics of certain rpgs.

As for the perception of GNS Theory itself, well, it does have its own forum. That alone does tend to focus interest on it, for good or ill.

Robert

[clehrich]

Perhaps some of the problem with GNS is related to the fact that it describes roleplaying games and related behavior, whether creative agendas, design aspects, or actual play. ... However, the term "roleplaying game" itself is rather amorphous.

I don't see this as a problem with GNS, actually, because in a sense the whole point of GNS is to make this not the case.

Let me put it like this.  The term "roleplaying game" is, as you say, amorphous, the reason being that it is a categorical, classifying term; syntactically, it delineates a class that is a part of another class -- part of game, role-playing as a subset of -playing in general, etc., roll your own when you get the time.  Let me hasten to add that the syntactical structure of the term does not in any way indicate what it "really" means; the whole point is that it doesn't really mean anything but what a particular discursive community (e.g. the Forge) makes it mean.  And a big part of what the Big Model is about, as a classification scheme, is making the term "roleplaying game" and the imagined conceptual category and a whole group of actual real things in the world all be linked in such a way that it's sort of hard to question.  Not that the Big Model is alone in this, nor that this is a bad thing -- this is how discourse communities are formed and continue.  But because the Big Model is about classification, it is successful precisely to the degree that the community in question (the Forge, for starters) uses its terminology and its categories as given, known realities.

Now by this standard, the Big Model is VERY successful around here, as we've already noted, because everyone does indeed take the terms as referring to real things; the debates are usually about better describing the real things in question (which assumes that they do in fact exist) or arguing that there are no such real things (which assumes that this is not the case with the rest of the Big Model).

Okay, so I am NOT, repeat NOT, saying that this is a bad thing.  I am saying (among other things) that pure classifcation schemes must compete for this sort of dominance, because that's how they assert that they have validity.  If there is to be new theory, it's not going to happen by doing classification, because then you have to fight against the Big Model, and you're probably going to lose (you'll be outvoted), and you know what? I'll probably vote against you, because I think classification is a great place to start and only when people stop focusing on it can we actually get on and do more useful things.  Whew!

Actually I'm sorry your post prompted a bit of a rant, Robert, because I'm not actually ranting at you, just on the occasion.

In any case, then, if there are problems with the Big Model as a theoretical construct, they are classificatory problems, not referential ones.  That is, such problems would not be found by seeing how the Big Model does or does not accurately refer to real things -- because there aren't any such things until you put them into classifying boxes, and that's a circle.

[Rob Carriere]

Chris,
In response to my slicing remark, you wrote:

I think we're in agreement, but I'm not sure.  To my mind, the Big Model already does basic classification quite well[...].  I don't see the need for another classification theory.

We're close enough to agreement that I'm feeling a bit like I'm expounding on the whichness of what, but anyway.

I agree that the Big Model does classification quite well.

I agree that I do not see the need for another classification model.

My only caveat is that somebody might see an angle that I don't and come up with a classification scheme that is not just different from, but conceptually independent of, the Big Model. Such a model would potentially be as useful as the Big Model, but it would in no way replace the Big Model, instead being a second way to classify RPGs. Of course, at this point, this is completely hypothetical. I have no idea what such a classification scheme would look like.

What I think is dangerous is the notion that classification is somehow important in and of itself, because that leads to thinking that when we classify something, we achieve something, and blinds us from the fact that classifying is a usual preliminary to actual analysis.

Complete agreement.

SR
--

[pete_darby]

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dysfunctional play, not worry about functional play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

That's a very interesting point which had certainly not occurred to me.  Do you feel that a diagnostic (in the sense of finding dysfunction) model is intrinsically not worthwhile?  I can see two possibilities: either the Big Model is founded upon diagnosis of dysfunction, in which case it actually needs some restructuring, or else the value of the Big Model lies elsewhere and the rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac.  Do you have an opinion on which is true?

Just to pick this little bit out... I think those that, as in the referenced thread, abandoned analysis when it was decided that the game was functional, are committing the same error as Psychiatrists diagnosing schizophrenia primarily on the basis of auditory hallucination. Any model of behaviour which claims to diagnose dysfunction must have a working model of functional behaviour or just be so much empty rhetoric.

If diagnosis & cure of dysfunctional play is a goal of the Big Model, it must be based on analysis of functional play, perhaps even more so than dysfunctional at this early stage: if we don't know what good play is, how can we know what "hurting wrong" play is?

Personally, I think that the tools for analysis of functional play is well within the capabilities for the Big Model as it stands, and often yeilds the most interesting discussions about play and how the model relates to it. If the model can't work as a "well game clinic", then it's truly in trouble.

The diagnostic element isn't a cul-de-sac, it's a vital element, but without it also being applied to functional games, well, then how do we know we're diagnosing dysfunctional behaviour, rather than just stuff that we find aesthetically distasteful?

[M. J. Young]

Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

That?s a very interesting point which had certainly not occurred to me.  Do you feel that a diagnostic (in the sense of finding dysfunction) model is intrinsically not worthwhile?  I can see two possibilities: either the Big Model is founded upon diagnosis of dysfunction, in which case it actually needs some restructuring, or else the value of the Big Model lies elsewhere and the rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac.  Do you have an opinion on which is true?

Interestingly, I was thinking about this just since I visited yesterday (before this had been posted), and I do have an opinion. I see that my opinion concurs with Pete's, but I'm going to state it for clarification.

From the beginning we've been told that the model (when it was first introduced in System Does Matter) was a tool for diagnosing dysfunction. Yet from the beginning it has been primarily something else: a model of types of functional play. In essence, the model says, if your play is working, you're doing this--and it seems to be right about that.

The corrolary is if your play is not working, it might be because you're not doing this. Yet it has always been said (albeit perhaps not clearly enough at times) that not all dysfunction is GNS dysfunction, and in fact not all dysfunction in play is in any way related to the descriptions within the model.

The model has grown in many ways to clarify areas in which it does apply, and to reach beyond the heart of what it initially addressed to connect it with many other areas (from Social Contracts to Ephemera). Thus it incorporates more of that which defines functional play now than it did six years ago. It's still essentially the same thing: a picture of functional play against which dysfunctional play can be compared to look for problems, in the same way that a diagnostician will look at the lab results of your blood work and spot that the liver enzymes are way out of line, so something must be wrong with your liver. At the same time, because we're designers here, the model becomes an aid to identifying design strategies which will encourage functional play, in the same way that looking at normal anatomy and physiology will reveal proper nutritional requirements to maintain the health of already healthy patients; and because we are players, the model is also a guide to how to improve our play by understanding what we're doing in the same way that the medical model tells us that smoking and excessive alcohol consumption over the long term are going to have detrimental effects on our bodies and we'll be healthier if we avoid these.

So having a model that defines functional play within specific major concepts works as a diagnostic tool, and for some people that is the primary use of such a model; but it works as many other things as well, because it is a model of what works.

--M. J. Young

[MR. Analytical]

So having a model that defines functional play within specific major concepts works as a diagnostic tool, and for some people that is the primary use of such a model; but it works as many other things as well, because it is a model of what works.

Is it really though?

Doesn't GNS's game design elements essentially throw D&D up as a false negative?  D&D is played by the vast majority of gamers quite happily and to the point where they don't particularly want to play any other games.  If the point of GNS is to model what works (as opposed to what is aesthetically pleasing) then I would have thought D&D in particular and SIM in general would be front and center as the most popular forms of gaming.  But instead SIM's still a really contested issue.

Now one response to this is that what makes for a good game in forge terms is different to what makes a functional gaming group.  But the problem, it strikes me, with separating out these two elements of forgite philosophy is that if you're dealing with functional PLAY then GNS itself is less important than Social Contract theory and stuff like that.  After all, does it really matter in functional terms what a group is actually playing so long as the social contract is right for them?  As I see it, GNS classification is only an issue if you're doing aesthetics or game design.

Anyway... I don't claim to have answers I'm just sceptical of MJ's last line :-)

[Ben Lehman]

Is it really though?

Doesn't GNS's game design elements essentially throw D&D up as a false negative?  D&D is played by the vast majority of gamers quite happily and to the point where they don't particularly want to play any other games.

BL>  It is my understanding the third edition D&D is widely held to be a very good Gamist design and, while I have heard people trash the system in certain regards, I've never seen accusations of incoherency.

Vampire, on the other hand, is a big false negative.  I have a theory about that, but that's for another thread.

yrs--
--Ben