Replacing

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Paganini wrote,
"... 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."

I have yet to see a post from anyone who (unlike me) has actually played The Window. I see a lot of claims from people who "just know" that it's some special form of play, or who assume that it's coherent-to-play for some unspecified reason.

Some of my comments to Gareth (contracycle), in a nearby thread, about how a play group need not be a uniform little conclave of GNS-focused robots, definitely apply to this discussion as well.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

I have yet to see a post from anyone who (unlike me) has actually played The Window. I see a lot of claims from people who "just know" that it's some special form of play, or who assume that it's coherent-to-play for some unspecified reason.

Well, I have played the Window. :) My experiences may not be as relevant as yours, however, because they took place in an online medium. One was a PBEM in which the precepts were used esclusively... we never rolled dice. The other was a very short IRC game.

[Ron Edwards]

Logan (if you're still here),

You might comb these threads and previous emails or essays all you want, and you'll never find that I refer to the GNS theory stuff as "opinion."

It's an argument. I find it convincing, as I see it and have tried to explain it. Ultimately, it will stand or fall not due to my approval but in the eyes of people in the role-playing community who care about such things. Like any reasoned argument, that's its fate.

Therefore railing about my commitment to it is irrelevant.

What you are railing about, it seems to me, is some sort of personal stake in getting Dramatism recognized.

I have recognized it, as it has been described. It can be given that name and popped into the "boxes in boxes" diagram of GNS theory.

Big box = Exploration.
Three boxes in there: G, N, and S. Bunch of little boxes in each.
In the S box, "Explore Situation" is one of the little boxes, with a few little boxes inside it. Dramatism is the name of one of them, as is Illusionism.

All done. Why is that not satisfying? Because of some people's previous emotional commitment to Dramatism being a big box. Never mind any other consideration (specifically my statement that "story-oriented" is a lousy classifier); because they care so much, it has to be a big box.

I don't recognize emotional commitment to an argument as any kind of support for it. Not for one moment, in any case.

Evidently you share that emotional commitment, and I think it's too bad, because any disagreement on my part now must be tagged by you as pigheadedness. I just must not "care," and that makes me mean and (somehow) unreasonable.

I don't think you're arguing any more, Logan. You're shouting in order to get your way. I've demonstrated many times that I can be convinced to an alternate view, but shouting (via keyboard or any other way) is not going to do it.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm glad to hear we aren't in a shouting match, and I'll work hard to keep it that way.

I'll stand behind my claim regarding the opinion issue. "What Ron thinks" is not an opinion. That would be "What Ron feels," or "What he wants people to like him for," or "What he wants to be identified with."

"What Ron thinks" is an argument, in the rhetorical not belligerent sense, presented for the purposes of the goals of the Forge (described above). The remainder of the section you quote carries this information.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Re: Dramatism

Ya know, I thought of this last night ...

I think the story-oriented mode of play that fits garden-variet Dramatism pretty well (especially under The Window) is Vanillia Narrativism. I don't have the link handy.  Just last night I was saying I felt VN was really a Simulationist mode--that would place it on the GNS/GDS split line--where it *really* falls might as well be up to Ron.

But anyway, if I recall it right, your play is in Actor Stance all the time and you're working towards story facilitation. That would be the "Actors" in The Window (or any other story-oriented play that's not specifically Narrativist by mechanics).

I'm not sure how VN addresses "whose story is getting told" but I'd guess that if the GM isn't working with the Players the same way the players are working with the GM the VN play mode won't work (i.e. it's a social contract thing). If I recall correctly, then that would fit just about perfectly--the Window (and, say Dead Lands 'Dramatist Play') would work out under that contract as well.

-Marco

[Le Joueur]

What you are railing about, it seems to me, is some sort of personal stake in getting Dramatism recognized.

I have recognized it, as it has been described. It can be given that name and popped into the "boxes in boxes" diagram of GNS theory.

Big box = Exploration.
Three boxes in there: G, N, and S. Bunch of little boxes in each.
In the S box, "Explore Situation" is one of the little boxes, with a few little boxes inside it. Dramatism is the name of one of them, as is Illusionism.

Because of some people's previous emotional commitment to Dramatism being a big box. Never mind any other consideration (specifically my statement that "story-oriented" is a lousy classifier); because they care so much, it has to be a big box.

I have taken some time mulling the 'emotional commitment' idea over for a while.  I'd like to take a moment to express something.

I think this is rapidly turning into one of those 'you said,' 'no, I did not, I said' arguments because both sides have emotional commitment to their models (or parts thereof).  It's probably true that Logan has a commitment to Dramatism (whether 'as a big box' or not, is not relevant to my point), I think that's a good thing.  I would find it hard to believe that Ron might not have a emotional commitment to to his own proposition.

These emotional commitments are good things, but I think they are obscuring the actual issue.  And after some thought, I have decided I don't know what I think.  I think I can explain the situation though.  On the one hand (I believe), Logan is saying that Dramatism is notable enough (and played by enough people) that it deserves some kind of separate mention (simply that he originally wanted a new name).  On the other Ron is saying that it fits in his three big boxes.  I haven't the time to search for it, but I believe that Ron is on record saying that the bulk of the role-playing game population plays in his proposal's Simulationist big box.  That is where I think the problem lays.

In essense, Logan appears to be saying that he would like to 'break down' the Simulationist box into smaller boxes because he sees to many people with too diverse of playing styles lumped under one banner.  Ron is quite naturally saying something like "That's not the GNS."  Of course it isn't, adding Dramatism would be a new theory.  There's nothing wrong with that.  GNS is set in stone (more or less), radical changes would make it into something else (leaving the original intact).  If Logan wants to create a new theory, that's all fine and good.  There's no point in trying to change the GNS proposition, it's done.  There's always room for another proposition; why not take GNS (which arguably came from GDS) and 'evolve' a new GNDS (I dunno what Logan would put in his proposition) theory?  (Heck, I am still wrestling with the details of my own permutation, the SING theory - 'I' is for immersion.)

I think I can suggest a finer grain of breakdown, but I'll take that over to the 'Theory forum (when I find the time).

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

I think that Vanilla Narrativism is the other way that play of The Window might drift, as opposed toward the Sim/Expl/Situ mode that's been described above.

To do that, some kind of way must be established, even tacitly, that players may exert story power. Story must be something that anyone involved can do, as opposed to facilitating someone else's story.

The nice thing is that I'm not talking about a set of feverishly driven young William Faulkners sweating over the profundity of their work, with Author stance being this constant and loudly-defended thing, but rather the group-accepted contract of being able to bring one's own "story-making" notion to play when you want to.

The Window as written makes no provision for such play. The Vanilla Narrativist will find himself or herself hitting a brick wall or two, because any input has to pass the GM's filter before it even enters in-game character Intent, much less Initiation.

Thus my argument about The Window regarding functional Dramatist play (as it's been described here, which is Sim/Expl/Situ) applies in full to The Window regarding Vanilla Narrativist play. The game as written cannot be seen to facilitate either without some amendment to its content, whether explicitly or "just how we play it."

Furthermore (he said, tired), that amendment toward either mode of play is rather easy with The Window, particularly toward the Simulationist mode. Thus it is not "horribly dysfunctional" but rather "mandatory-driftable."

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Marco,

I think the story-oriented mode of play that fits garden-variet Dramatism pretty well (especially under The Window) is Vanillia Narrativism....your play is in Actor Stance all the time and you're working towards story facilitation.

Players make use of Author stance in Vanilla Narrativism. The relevant post is the very first one on http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=818">this thread.

Your comments on the http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1215">Narrativism thread about Author stance as a key determiner of Narrativism are applicable as well to Vanilla Narrativism.

Paul

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Since Fang, Logan, and I seem to have arrived at similar conclusions ... holy shit. Let's think about that briefly - it says to me that something fairly robust has been established.

Logan wrote,
"Frankly, Ron, I did not expect you to come down from the mountain with intent to mercilessly squash my query. ...In fact, I think you are often too heavy-handed as a moderator ..."

What you infer does not correspond to the speaker's intent - ever. Not without confirmation. Please distinguish between what I am saying, and what I "must mean" when you attempt to read between the lines, because I only take responsibility for the former. I provided commentary on your query, and my statement, I don't see an issue, is meat for debate, not a euphemism for "Shut up," unless you insist on reading it as such.

When you really do feel threatened or marginalized, you know the solution - contact me personally, private email or otherwise, or bring up the issue in Site Discussion if you want it to be public. Simply flaming up in the replies as we attempt to continue the current discussion serves no purpose. As a general principle, there is no merit to the notion, "I wouldn't be so rude if he hadn't made me so mad."

The above statement is not appropriate for further discussion on this thread, but may be addressed at the Site Discussion forum or privately.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Le Joueur]

Therefore, I think any new theory with more than 3 poles must begin on a clean sheet of paper with new terminology.

I tried that, but it was eclipsed by I don't know what.

conscious effort in backing off of Fang’s recent “More Boxes” thread.

Really?  I thought this one would be just ignored too.

Fang Langford

(Who is again rushed, sorry if this sounded brusk.  It wasn't meant to be.)

[Gordon C. Landis]

A general comment, on a lesson reinforced for me by the more heated bits of this thread:

Always, ALWAYS remember that only the narrowest sample of what someone "means" (particularly emotionally) get's communicated in forums like these.  Everyone really has to be resposnsible for that - and for understanding when others jump to the wrong/incomplete conclusion.

And to Fang, on

Therefore, I think any new theory with more than 3 poles must begin on a clean sheet of paper with new terminology.

I tried that, but it was eclipsed by I don't know what.

conscious effort in backing off of Fang’s recent “More Boxes” thread.

Really?  I thought this one would be just ignored too.

The fact is, it's really, really hard to respond to "novel theory" posts, beacuse all (or most) of the work done on GNS goes out the window.  I don't think this is anything to do with you or confusing language on your part - it's just hard, and folks are reluctant to commit to that kind of work.

I'm sensing some cheese down the "More Boxes" tunnel, so I hope to tackle at least a bit of that one soon.  But I'm intimidated, as I really ought to absorb more of the Scattershot stuff first . . . which is ANOTHER learning curve.

Not an excuse - that kind of work is presumably what most of us on these fora are here for, but I thought it worth remembering/pointing out that SOME things really are harder than others.

Gordon