Replacing

[Ron Edwards]

Logan, Paganini,

The style of play you are describing is Simulationism with an emphasis on Exploring Situation.

That's it. I do not know what Logan mean when he says "true Simulationists," if we are using the terms of my essay.

If people with this style of play want to be called "Dramatists," I shan't stop them. It can be like "Illusionist," or other semi-formal specific styles of play nested deep within a GNS category.

The only sticky point is that some people might like to think that in playing this way, they are "not being Simulationist," which is not a correct claim. If they can get over this, then all is well.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I don't know how many times this has to be explained.

The GNS document is an opinion written by Ron (that several others agree with). This forum is here to discuss that opinion.

Having an opinion doesn't invalidate anyone else's. Having a classification system doesn't invalidate anyone else's.

(Since I always try to have an example, here's one:

Say I break down animals into the categories 'things that walk,' 'things that fly,' and 'things that swim.' You break down animals into 'birds,' 'reptiles,' 'mammals,' and 'fish'. You tell me "birds fly." I say, "Oh! So a bat is a bird, then? It's in my group 'things that fly.'" You say, "No, no. A bat's a mammal because (whyever things are mammals. Ask Ron. I'm no biologist.)" And I say, "But no! It flies."

Neither you or I am wrong. My categories are as valid as yours. I just can't start using your categories - a bat is not a bird, no matter how much I want it to be. It's a 'thing that flies.')

Point being - Dramatism does not fit in the GNS model. That's totally ok. It doesn't make Dramatism a bad thing, or something that people can't strive for. It does mean that you'd have to convince Ron that it does fit in the model for him to change his opinion.

Make sense?

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

We've crossed mini-threads, Logan. Typing too fast, both of us.

First of all, I think I've addressed your desire to see Dramatism find a "place" in GNS. Given yours and Paganini's description, it is Simulationism that Explores Situation. No problem; you and I were typing at the same time so you hadn't seen this yet.

Second, there is no need on my part to "catch flies." None. No one needs to be here; I am not a political activist and have no vested interest in anyone being here, beyond my stated goals for the Forge.

These goals are: to make better sense of RPGing, through discourse; and to promote creator-ownership. The uber-goal, or doctrine if you will, is to help people enjoy their hobby more if they are currently dissatisfied. So far, I think these goals are being met tremendously well. I see no special reason to change the approach taken so far.

People can leave, too, with no questions asked or grudges held. I don't see that as a problem. Incidentally, one person you mention is in fact often at the Forge, without posting much, and he and I disagree on very little, if anything.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Sigh ... still crossing mini-threads.

I am not using rfga terminology. I have co-opted and adopted that terminology using an entirely different theoretical framework.

Historically, theorists of one stage of an idea's development often resent the permutations or differences introduce by theories derived from theirs. That cannot be avoided. One does not present a new theory + new terms + new foundations + new everything.

My ideas are derived from thinking about the issues raised by the Threefold Model. As long as I acknowledge that, and as long as I explain just what I mean by each term as we go, then the essence of my effort is that the terms' meaning has shifted and changed. That shift & change is the whole point.

This is what evolving ideas are like. The names change more slowly, if at all, then the concepts and their relationships. Resenting this process is a waste of time. Given that the new framework of ideas explains things better (which is an "if"), then the only obligation is to acknowledge those who have come before, with respect to their achievement.

Thus one simply has a choice: (1) use the Threefold as the basis, and be a happy Dramatist, distinct from Simulationists; or (2) use my GNS essay as the basis, and be a happy Dramatist, as a subset of a much broader definition of Simulationism. One cannot dance back and forth, or criticize one framework for not being the other. Nor is the similarity of terms an issue at all.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

The choices can even be real choices; the requirement is that the GM has control of the eventualities.

Yep, this even has a name, "All-Roads-Lead-to-Rome". Done so that the players are unaware, this is an Illusionist ploy.


On another note, those "True Simulationists" that do not like any story "interference" are a pretty rare breed, IME. In fact, finding a player who dislikes story is more likely an indication of a Gamist player who sees the GMs meddling as "Unfair", IMO.

Mike

[jburneko]

Hello,

After reading this thread I think I can shed some light on what is happening regarding the 'Dramatism' issue.  I'm with Ron in that I think what people are refering to as Dramatism IS adequately covered by GNS.  I think Dramatism is largely, if not wholely, covered by Simulationism [sub-class Character and/or Situation Exploration].

The REASON people are so desperate to have their own category is largely an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the word base of the terminology.  Each of the three classes has a 'strereotype' associated with it and the irony is that the 'stereotypes' don't even fit in the right categories.

When you walk up to a person who is ignorant of the precise and clear definitions and try to explain it the knee-jerk emotional reaction to the word 'gamist' is, "Oh, yeah, munchkins."  I laugh at this because, personally, I don't think munchkins fall within GNS because munchkins cheat.  Power Gamers are a different story and there's nothing wrong with Power Gaming.

Similarly, when you say, 'Simulationist' the knee-jerk reaction is, "Oh, I know *those* people.  They are those anoying people who sit there and nit pick every little detail about how that wouldn't *really* happen that way.  And constantly badger the GM about the difference between short bow arrows and long bow arrows."  So, when you point to functional Character Exploration [Most WW LARPS and Online Games like Castle Marrach] or Situation Exploration [Most Call of Cthulhu games] and say, "Wow, what great Simulationist play," people freak out.

The Charater and Situation Exploration based Simulationists want BADLY to be disassociated from that stereo-type.  This was *MY* first reaction to hearing my old style of play being catagorized as Simulationist.  "But... But..  I HATE when players bicker over what would *REALLY* have happend and so on."  It was only after I calmed down and took a serious look at what was actually being said that realized I was acting on a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what leaps to mind when one says, 'Simulationist.'

Similarly, those who are not knowledgable about GNS look at Character Exploration and immediately think, "This must be Narrativist.  Look at the depth of human emotion.  Look at the purity of these characters.  Feel the drama."  or Situation Exploration and think, "This must be Narrativist.  Look at the expertly crafted twists and turns in the plot.  Look at the subtle use of foreshadowing and misdirection.  Look at this great story."

And when I point out that these are Simulationist style I get this weird look and they say, "But no one here is bickering over the difference between short bow arrows and long bow arrows."  All I can say is, "They're not that *kind* of Simulationist."

So this desire to create a new category called 'Dramatism' is more an emotionally driven attempt for Charater and Situation Simulationists to disassociate themselves from that *OTHER* kind of Simulationist.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Well, Jesse, there is a more valid reason why to create a name for the phenomena. How about because Simulationism that Explores Situation is a mouthful and hard to remember. I don't mind being called a Simulationist, and have refered to myself as such (heck, sometimes I am that guy trying to figure out the difference between the terminal velocities for arrows with different fletchings). But I would like to have a simpler term. As Ron pointed out, something like Illusionism that evokes the subset well.

I was toying with something like Story Experience, but that doesn't allow for an easy conversion to a -ism or -ist ending. Hmmm... Story Exploration is tempting, but might get it confused with Narrativism. Story Simulationism. Hmmm. That works. It's obviously a brand of Simulationism, and it obviously has to do with story. It is also like the phrase that was used for Feng Shui and Unknown Armies a lot, Simulation of Story.

Howzat?

Mike

[Paganini]

So this desire to create a new category called 'Dramatism' is more an emotionally driven attempt for Charater and Situation Simulationists to disassociate themselves from that *OTHER* kind of Simulationist.

The fact that there are two distinct styles here does indeed suggest that a different terminology is needed, though. IMO, it's a lot more useful to have a specific term to use than it is to have to explain exactly what you mean every time the word "simulationism" slips out. If "simulationism" can mean two very different things, then it doesn't have very much use in a discussion.

Also, as you say, simulationism *does* have a strong sterotype associated with it. I think that in general it's a lot easier to come up with a new term than it is to try and change the stereotype to fit your personal definitions. :) Really, I think it's a big stretch to say that the Window is simulationist. What, exactly, is being simulated?

[Paganini]

I was toying with something like Story Experience, but that doesn't allow for an easy conversion to a -ism or -ist ending. Hmmm... Story Exploration is tempting, but might get it confused with Narrativism. Story Simulationism. Hmmm. That works. It's obviously a brand of Simulationism, and it obviously has to do with story. It is also like the phrase that was used for Feng Shui and Unknown Armies a lot, Simulation of Story.

Story Exploration is what I came up with independantly to describe my play style. It shares many things with Dramatism as defined previously in this thread.

[jburneko]

Paganini,

Okay, I think I can see what's happening here.  I think we're in agreement that under the current set of definitions Dramatism is covered by Simulationism -- [Character/Situation Exploration].  What I think you're striving for NOW is a term that at best perfectly provokes this meaning or at worst provokes nothing at all and so that further interest and curiosity will be taken to obtain more information and the stereotype isn't leapt to immediately.

It is my opinion that not only is this virtually impossible but it's not really a worth while effort.  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth but it seems that your primary goal here is REALLY to develop terminology that is easly graspable by a general audience WITHOUT having to wade through tons of theory and explination.  This is a fundamental problem of ALL academic subjects and simply it can't be done.

When something becomes the attention of academic study there becomes a need for concrete precise terms that describe various phenomenon.  As Ron pointed out the problem is that usually the first set of terms ALONE do not fully or acurately describe the true phenomenon.  But rather than change the TERM, the DEFINITION simply gets more and more refined for that specific field of study.  I think this causes much headache for professors the world over.  What happens is that they've been their field of study for so long and are so comfortable with using the terminology that when they start using them in their class room, students get confused because the students immediately attach their knee-jerk emotional definition of the word and can't figure out why the professor keeps using it the way he's using it.

The Forge is an example of how quickly this phenomenon takes hold and becomes a problem.  I've read and reread the GNS essay and explained the concepts to people so many times that the adjective 'Simulationist' and the verb 'To Simulate' have little to do with each other in my mind.  A Simulationist is a person who when faced with a role-playing decision tends to side with their desire to explore a given element of the game.

Remember that GNS is about modes of decision making and priorities of play for any single event.  It's not about result and it's not about intent.  It's about asking the question, 'Given a role-playing related choice what motivates your decision?'  The fact that System Matters simply says that a given rule system can either help or hinder your method of decision making.

Finally, I'd like to say that I agree with you goal of wanting to reach a general audience that isn't Forge Term savy but you can't do it with just a term change.  People are going to have to take an interest on their own.  People are going to have to read and study and draw conclusions.  [Side Rant: I also think that a lack of this motivation is what's wrong with education today.  In an effort to make 'learning' easier there is this drive to break things down into easily memorizable and regurgitatable elements.  Sadly, memorization is not learning.  Nor can learning take place without a desire and most importantly the mindset to do so.]  Currently, my personal goal is to try and isolate the three modes and explain each one individually to a general audience, outside of the more general GNS discussion.  I've recently sent the second draft of my 'Narrativist Mindset' essay to Ron for feedback.  It is my attempt to explain Narrativism without using Forge Terminology.

Hope this was interesting.

Jesse

[Logan]

..

[Logan]

..