Formal vs. Operation Definitions of G,N,S

[Lee Short]

Split off "Myths About Virtualism" -- responding to Mark Woodhouse

I don't think we've actually got any real differences here in how we'd classify the example.  But I'll clarify my position and bring up another point which I think is pretty important.  

Another degenerate case would be an attempt to run a game in a world based on Russian Fairy Tales [as best I understand that genre].  If internal cause is followed strictly, this game must be both Sim and Nar -- the very nature of the world being simulated will continually push the game back onto Premise.  

Premise must be important to the players. Do the players have a stake in the Premise built in to the setting and situation? Or are they Exploring "What if the world were such that moral laws had objective embodiments?" If the players are not motivated to make a statement that answers the Premise, they are not playing with a Narrativist agenda. One could even play Gamist in that sort of world - how can I manipulate the moral laws of the universe to my benefit?

I agree with you 100% that according to the operational definitions of Nar and Gam, this is easily distinguishable.  What I meant above, and it obviously wasn't clear, is that according to what I view as the formal definitions of Nar and Gam, we have a degenerate case.

Could some of you Forge veterans please give me an indication of exactly what text (from "GNS and other matters" and the 3 G/N/S essays, presumably) you consider to be the formal definitions of G,N,S?  I'm curious to see if it matches with my impression.

[Caldis]

Could some of you Forge veterans please give me an indication of exactly what text (from "GNS and other matters" and the 3 G/N/S essays, presumably) you consider to be the formal definitions of G,N,S?  I'm curious to see if it matches with my impression.

I'd check out the three essays, but be prepared for a lot of reading.  THey are all quite long unfortunately but I think they are complicated ideas and require lengthy descriptions.

[Lee Short]

Could some of you Forge veterans please give me an indication of exactly what text (from "GNS and other matters" and the 3 G/N/S essays, presumably) you consider to be the formal definitions of G,N,S?  I'm curious to see if it matches with my impression.

I'd check out the three essays, but be prepared for a lot of reading.  THey are all quite long unfortunately but I think they are complicated ideas and require lengthy descriptions.

Are you saying that there is no formal definition of the terms?  Are you saying that Sim is defined by the whole Sim essay plus the "GNS and . . . " essay?  That's unclear.  

What I'm trying to find out here is what parts of these essays are the definition of the terms, and what parts of these essays are the exposition of the terms.

[contracycle]

Is this what you are looking for:

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

GNS and Other Matters Chap 2.

[Lee Short]

Is this what you are looking for:

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

GNS and Other Matters Chap 2.

Maybe.  What I meant to ask was 'is that piece of text considered to be the formal definition of G,N,S?'  You appear to be answering yes.  

I didn't phrase the question that way, because I didn't want to bias the answer.  

thanks for answering,
Lee

[Alan]

I don't think there are definitive definitions, only the most developed ones.  Chronologically, GNS and other Matters is several years old and the theory has developed since then.  The most recent interpretations can be found in the Provisional glossary.

[contracycle]

I must say I was hesitant to answer; it does smack rather of leading question.  I'm not sure to what extent any of these can be considered formal; what we have is pretty much the Articles section.  It's not as if this is late in the developement in a discipline in which all the textbooks adhere to a standard.  We don't even have any textbooks.

[Lee Short]

I must say I was hesitant to answer; it does smack rather of leading question.  I'm not sure to what extent any of these can be considered formal; what we have is pretty much the Articles section.  It's not as if this is late in the developement in a discipline in which all the textbooks adhere to a standard.  We don't even have any textbooks.

A simple "there is nothing that really counts as the formal definition" would have been a perfectly acceptable answer.  

I asked because the operational definition that I see in use here doesn't at all match Mark's claims about GDS vs GNS; nor does the section of the essay that you quoted.  I am working up a post about this, and I wanted to make sure that the definitions I was using in the post were on target.  

I don't view this as a leading question, but it's OK if you do.  I'll make no secret of the fact that my post will be challenging the prevailing wisdom which is expressed in Mark's post.