Replacing

[Logan]

..

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I like "Chuck." It's easy to say, sounds manly and is acts as a noun, adjective and a verb...

Seriously, the point?

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Logan,

This thread pinpoints one of the serious differences between the Threefold (Gamism/Dramatism/Simulationism) and my construction of GNS (which might be best represented as an "E" for Exploration, a line under that, and "GNS" below that line).

I claim that there is no one "thing" represented by the term Dramatism. It does not need to be replaced, because it refers to nothing in particular. In my view, all of the separate and distinctive things that it refers to are accounted for as various and separate sub-sets across the range of GNS (mostly in Simulationism).

Hence, I don't see an issue. The term is not sitting there waiting to be explained; it has vaporized because its parts have all been accounted for, and they do not hold or form a unified thing.

Best,
Ron

P.S. For latecomers, I want to emphasize that when I first wrote about GNS, I was under the mistaken impression that I was discussing the Threefold, with a minor terminology change. Logan deserves the primary credit for helping me to see that I had really offered a novel theory instead. He also might be our resident expert regarding the history of the whole megillah back to around 1990.

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Logan,

I don't see the "stumbling around" part. I think that was the case back when the System Does Matter essay was the only reference, but now I think that The Window, for instance, is fully explained by GNS.

The mistake that some people might make is to think that GNS thinking demands that any game in existence must fall into one of the categories. This is emphatically not the case.

It is the case that I think The Window suffers from its design. I do not think it presents a coherent mode of play. Nor do I think it represents an egregiously incoherent mode. As we seem to agree, in application it must drift, not in order to accord with GNS as such, but in order that anyone enjoy playing it.

Ron describes The Window:
- One set of text with a degree of incoherence.
- Two modes of possible interpretation/drift in actual play.
    1) one leading to Narrativism with necessary rules tweaks,
    2) one leading to Simulationism (Explore Situation) with necessary abandonment of some text.

No big deal. No gaping hole in the theory, no "unexplained item."

Furthermore, this design, if not widespread, does show up across some well-known examples. So what? That doesn't "strengthen" the design's claim (if any) to have a spot reserved for it in GNS, beyond my classification above. Nothing about coherence or incoherence necessarily affects the distribution or commonality of given designs.

To me, Dramatism is a non-issue. Games purporting to be Dramatist exist, but I think that my GNS essay explains what they are much better than the term Dramatism does.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Logan,

I don't think I've cast out anyone. I think that the people who play The Window or similar games have performed that drifting that I've talked about. Hence, their play is coherent, and they are happy. What is so terrible about admitting that they are (probably) playing in a Simulationist fashion, of a particular sort?

ISSUE ONE
One problem is that the Threefold view of Simulationism, or at least one instance of it during the long history, places a very high emphasis on setting. My view doesn't care about setting as a defining feature of anything; it's just something that one might or might not Explore in detail.

As I've said many times, I do not care whether GNS is meaningful in Threefold terms. I think that GNS does not reject any act or design of the Threefold, just replaces its categories with a better-structured theory, accounting for more stuff. In rhetorical terms, it is more robust.

BACK TO THE WINDOW
Let us say we try to play it as written: everyone at the table accords with the Three Precepts, and we use the mainly-Drama mechanics (totally unstructured) and roll the dice occasionally. [I have tried this with great care and effort.]

I defy anyone to get those Three Precepts into existence without (1) giving total authority regarding them to one person at the table or (2) coming up with some organized way to establish, at the very least, some standards for intent + initiation + execution + completion (ie, more rules).

No one has provided me with an example of actual play of this kind, regarding The Window or any other game, ie, without making these adjustments. I do not think it is possible. The play of Theatrix that I've had contact with, for example, stumbled continually over the same issue.

Unless and until I get such an example of actual play, and it's backed up by more evidence than merely a hand in the air ("I did it!" etc), I think my case that The Window is (mildly) incoherent stands. I also think that applies to most of the games that have been tagged as "Dramatist."

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Paganini]

I defy anyone to get those Three Precepts into existence without (1) giving total authority regarding them to one person at the table or (2) coming up with some organized way to establish, at the very least, some standards for intent + initiation + execution + completion (ie, more rules).

I'm not sure, but I think the point that Logan is trying to make is that total authority regarding the precepts *is* given to one person at the table - namely, the GM - and that this is an earmark of Dramatist play. I think Logan is saying that Dramatist play is not about group story creation, it's about GM story creation that is contributed to by the players. The GM has total control over the story, in that he shapes it, and decides whether or not to allow the input of the players, but the players do *have* input. The precepts are there as a system for determining what the GM should allow the players to contribute and what he shouldn't.

I could be off, but that's what I got out of Logan's post.

[Logan]

..

[Logan]

..

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Logan,

I cannot agree with the foundation of your last post. [Whoa, must edit. This was written simultaneously with other posts. I am referring to Logan's post about including or excluding people who self-identify as Dramatists.]

Wanting to be recognized as a group or thing does not, itself, justify being recognized if the category does not make sense. This is not discourtesy but a strict fact of reasoned discourse.

One cannot have it both ways. Either one agrees to try to make sense (which does not mean agreeing with me all the time on specific issues), or one seizes upon a group or thing to "be" without reference to making sense.

In the past, some people have arrived and filled the bandwidth with furious accusations or even insults ("Ron doesn't understand [fill-in-the-blank]"), and I have not replied to them, as there is no point. I have not ignored them; I have tried to cull such useful comments of theirs as I can from the dense mass of anger in their posts. None of these individuals have had the patience to see the result (the current essay). Some of them have simply been upset that the GNS notions do not accord with Threefold ones, and I can only shrug, as my notions are not intended to do any such thing.

"Debate" presupposes the standards of reasoning and of courtesy; I have demonstrated both, not the least by altering my views when presented with a valid argument on many occasions.

I'm not responsible for anything regarding other people who are (1) unwilling to discuss the issues here (ie are not present), (2) who cannot separate their emotional reactions from the point at hand, or (3) who need immediate posts in reply rather than accepting that people can digest and consider the points over time. If such individuals are avoiding the Forge, I do not consider this to be a loss of any kind.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

-GM provides players with choices, or at least the illusion of choice.

The choices can even be real choices; the requirement is that the GM has control of the eventualities. I was thinking about this, and it strikes me that solo adventures are this sort of play, with some distance between the player and the GM (writer). The player has input in that he choose what direction the story goes, he defeats the challenges presented by the GM, and so on, but he has no power in actually constructing the story.