Replacing

[Mike Holmes]

Oops, sorry, Logan, I wasn't being clear. I was not suggesting Illusionism as a term for what we're describing, but something that (as Ron pointed out) was indicative of a subset of Simulationism, just as Illusionism is.

Apollogies for any confusion,
Mike

[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.

Exactly. I think that Ron's terminology *covers* this play style perfectly well, but I don't think that a terminology in which a single word is used to describe multiple, extremely diverse play styles is that useful. I mean, sure we can say "simulational exploration of situation," but that seems like overkill. :)

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.

This isn't quite what I was proposing. It's close, but not quite. What I mean is, in a terminology that has the possibility of being widely accepted, it's nice if the words used intuitively indicate the concepts they're representing. This doesn't mean that you never have to explicitly tie the word to the concepts via a definition, but it means that your meaning when using the word is more obvious, and that once it gets out there it will be easy for the terminology to be understood and learned. It also means that the initial revelataion of definition will be more likely to stick. If, for example, "Simulationism" meant "playing with a goal of simulating something" much confusion would be avoided. :)

[Laurel]

From Ron and his articles, I have learned the GNS model which has marvelous applications and is very thought-provoking.  I love being at the Forge and this particular forum and learning.  

From Larry Hols, who was around when Threefold was formed and has his own discussion group RPG-Create, I learn about "classical" Threefold and what the original intent was.  I love being around Larry and learning.  

I don't ask Ron to teach me classical Threefold;  I don't ask Larry to define concepts or situations along the GNS model.   I find both Threefold and GNS ~useful~ for RPG theory and game design.  Neither "cancells" the other any more than an apple is invalid because an orange exists.

I don't ask either one to make their work the end-all, be-all of RPG Theory.  That's like asking one scientist to discuss every possible application a particular piece of data could have in both the fields of chemistry and the fields of biology and telling him he's wrong because he doesn't do it to my satisfaction when I want him to.    

Factionalizing into camps and flag-waving disrupts the learning and explorative processes of discussion.   Its no longer about discovery and application; it becomes about being right and having that acknowledged.

Can this thread be reframed or else tabled into the "agree to disagree" category por favor?

Laurel

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm with Laurel, mostly.  I mean, I do think the "what GNS/Ron should/could do, and how" discussion is valuable, and I commend everyone for their general maturity in tackling it here, but . . . it's a seperate thing from the theory itself.  I understand Ron, and I understand Logan, and if we could get everyone communicating the way they communicate, I think there's plenty of room for "I'm not a great fit for Ron's theory, but don't exclude me" to work.

But I'd rather focus on some of the interesting issues here.  Player-derived Illusionism.  That fuzzy Sim-Nar area where Dramatism (under whatever name) lives.  Tackling those things WITHOUT bringing in the rest of it unless absolutely needed - I guess I'll take those to another thread.

Here . . . let's see, I think all I want to say can be said in response in this bit from Logan:

The problem with continuing to use RGFA terms is that the RGFA doesn't acknowledge the new definitions. In essence, GNS and RGFA become exclusive camps. The same thing happened with Jester's GEN model. Now, we have at least 3 different versions of Gamism, 2 versions of Simulationism, and 2 versions of Narrativism. We have contested use of Exploration (Jester doesn't agree with Ron's use of the term), and we have a sort of adversarial situation where RGFA ignores Narrativism and GNS ignores Dramatism. Looking at all of it as a whole, it gives me a headache.

This is especially true when you consider that all 3 models are just swizzling a lot of the same shit around in the bowl and stacking the pieces just a little bit differently. I haven't reached a definitive conclusion about this, but I'm definitely beginning to see Jared's point at the beginning of this discussion.

As far as Jester is concerned, best as I can tell from over at GO he now rejects 'em all - rejects GEN, rejects GDS, rejects GNS, rejects, essentially, that "System Matters".  IMO, this results from a confusion of "System Matters" with "System Determines", but that's just me, and I have no real particular personal communication with him.

On the headache issue - I sympathize, and share a desire (as expressed above) that folks could "just get along".  But I'm not ready to look at it all like stacking pieces of shit in trivially different ways - I've gotten too much value out of Jester's thoughts, Ron's thoughts and the RGFA stuff for that.

But apparently, sometimes you just can't get folks to get along, and all you can do is plug away at the details.   Time for me to get back to that.

Gordon

[Logan]

..

[Logan]

..

[Paul Czege]

Hey Logan,

Why not do up a GNS/GDS "rosetta stone"...something intended to enable RGFA folks to communicate over here and people familiar with the GDS model to understand Forge discussions, as well as the reverse, something that enables Forge folks to explore GDS discussions? You could present it on the Forge as an article, or independent of the Forge, perhaps as some kind of graphic with annotations, and link to it through the Forge library (which probably needs a "theory" category anyway).

Paul

[Logan]

..

[Mytholder]

It's good PR, Ron. You catch more flies with honey than with salt. Why is it, do you think, that we hardly ever see Supplanter or Mytholder around here any more? You defended your concept, won the battle. But you lost the war.

I'm still around (and am glad to be missed). Ron actually sent me a copy of the revised GNS doc before it was posted, and I meant to send my responses. Then I got buried in work, and by the time I'd dug myself out, about a zillion posts had been made and I couldn't be bothered working through all of 'em.

My current position is that the RGFA threefold model is the best of the three, and that "Narrativism" is a subset of Dramatism. It's story-oriented with empowered players. There's a similar, unnamed state within Simulationism, where players create sections of the world (y'know, PC#1 inherits a castle, so the player maps the castle, creates some background etc.). I don't know if a similar player-empowerment structure exists for Gamism - it might, but the stricter balance required means this is iffy (the only example I can come up with is players in a board game coming up with new rules on the fly, by consensus.)

I'm still around the forge (and rpg.net, and even GO on occasion), but I'm not in a posting mood. :-) As regards GNS/GDS/GEN/whatever theory, I'm content to let it lie for a few months, and simmer. [/quote]

[contracycle]

exists for Gamism - it might, but the stricter balance required means this is iffy (the only example I can come up with is players in a board game coming up with new rules on the fly, by consensus.)

I think a better approach is the game-within-a-game approach discussed frequently.  Imagine a game based around feudal lords, where each feudal hoding had game stats and operated in a distinct socio-economic modelling game, like Civilisation or the History of th World.  Then players interacting with their holding, in a game manner, make decisions that in effect author elements of the game world.  It';s more than just drawing the map - it;s employing it in a a resource management game withing an RP game.

[Mytholder]

Then players interacting with their holding, in a game manner, make decisions that in effect author elements of the game world.  It';s more than just drawing the map - it;s employing it in a a resource management game withing an RP game.

Hmm. Yes-ish, I think. It's something along these lines, if it exists  Thanks.

[A.Neill]

Paul's Rosetta suggestion - what a cool idea!

Logan – I want to reach out to your position. What I'm getting at the moment is that Dramatism
games are broadly simulationist but may use some techniques generally associated with the Narativist part of the tool box.  

"Illusionism" seems to be rapidly becoming an emotive term,  but I don't get any sense that players have more than a toe-hold into story development in the Dramatism scheme of things.

Isn't that what Ron has been emphasising? – Games may use tools from any part of the toolbox to achieve their respective implicit or explicit GNS goals. Styles of play may have techniques loosely associated with them but it is the goals themselves that drive the style of play?

The way I see it Dramatism would need to have its own unique goal to be a GNS category in its own right.  Maybe you could persuade me on these terms or do I need a paradigm switch entirely?

Alan.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Alan is correct. Techniques are not automatically tagged as G, N, or S.

To all - people are switching issues freely between (1) classifying a mode of play, and (2) talking about The Window. This has frustrated the clarity of the discussion.

GNS does not classify games. I'll say it again. GNS does not classify games. Thus, what The Window as text is or isn't, or does or does not do, cannot and never will falsify or confirm any element of the theory.

GNS is all about modes of play, what real people do. It is not a stretch of any kind to look at RPG design to see whether their guidelines/rules/text help or hinder that process.

If we are talking about modes of play (real GNS stuff), then the mode of play Logan and others have described is Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It fits. There is no ambiguity or discomfort or looseness of any kind, and no one has refuted my statement as much earlier in the thread.

If we are talking about a particular game design (The Window), then I can say with some authority that its design facilitates the above mode of play if you adjust the text. Hence it is, in design terms, mildly incoherent relative to what it can help to achieve.

I see absolutely no evidence or argument that leads to "problems" with GNS due to the existence of The Window. I do see a lot of poor argumentation, including attributing claims to me that are not true ("The Window is horribly dysfunctional") ("GNS conflates player goals with system design").

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

GNS does not classify games. I'll say it again. GNS does not classify games. Thus, what The Window as text is or isn't, or does or does not do, cannot and never will falsify or confirm any element of the theory.

GNS is all about modes of play, what real people do. It is not a stretch of any kind to look at RPG design to see whether their guidelines/rules/text help or hinder that process.

Ron, I know you wrote the thing in the first place, but I'm going to take the huge liberty of disagreeing with you on this. :) GNS *does* apply directly to systems. The reason for this is, as you say, GNS is about "what people do." Systems are collections of rules... that is, text that tells people what to do. If GNS is about what people do, then it can be applied directly to systems, because any given system is a list of things that people do.

Let me put it this way: The designed and stated intended use of a system is not the same thing as the use to which the system is put. It's been said many times that any system can be used in any play style, and this is true. But IMO it's not true that you can't have, frex, a "gamist" system. A gamist system is one that tells people to do gamist things, and can be classified as such using the terminology.

If we are talking about modes of play (real GNS stuff), then the mode of play Logan and others have described is Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It fits. There is no ambiguity or discomfort or looseness of any kind, and no one has refuted my statement as much earlier in the thread.

If we are talking about a particular game design (The Window), then I can say with some authority that its design facilitates the above mode of play if you adjust the text. Hence it is, in design terms, mildly incoherent relative to what it can help to achieve.

If I understand it, the claim being made here is that the Window facilitiates a specific mode of play without needing to adjust the text at all. In other words, the Window is not designed to facilitate Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It's designed to facilitate a mode that is similar, but is not an exact match. Whether or not that mode fits into GNS I'm not prepared to argue, but it seems that others are. :)

[Logan]

..