Explore novel ideas rather than rush to dismiss question

[Vaxalon]

It may be that GNS doesn't have anything for you.  

Things that go on in there are pretty esoteric.  If you're building a museum, you don't need to understand the nature of pi as a transcendental number, you just need to have a decent approximation when you lay out the circular rotunda.

I know that for my part, I haven't seen a thread in there for weeks that had anything useful for me.  I'm just not operating on that level.

RPG theory gets me places sometimes.  Actual Play has lots of nifty stuff, but I rarely reply to threads there, and I imagine that's true for lots of people.

[Mike Holmes]

I tihnk that might be true for a lot of people, Fred. But Jay is a pretty damned prominent poster in GNS. I think that if there's nothing there for him, he's spending a lot of time looking for it.

Frankly, Jay, I avoid your posts to an extent. Because, while I think your ideas are intelligent and insightful, I find the posts that put them out there to really wander. Defintitely do mark these as brainstorming right at the top. I think that would help a lot.

Then consider taking a more essay sort of approach when you have a point that you'd really like to debate.

Mike

[Silmenume]

To everyone who took the time to make a considered response, a hearty thank you.

Hey Ron,

Perhaps I had the wrong perspective, but I was under the impression that ideas stood or fell on their own merits, not by their association to or by the heritage of the person presenting them.

There is an interesting issue that has arisen in this thread.  The thread title and the essence of my post don't exactly match up.  You've hung up on the idea that no one cares about my posts because no one knows me by my game "cred".  That is simply not the case.  Everyone who has taken the time to respond to my threads automatically indicates that my threads were "important," even when they don't know my game history.  

I was raising the issue that it can be difficult for embryonic ideas to be explored when they get buried under lots of "don't waste your time" or "that's a stoooopid idea – I can't see it ever going anywhere."  I get lots of responses, I was looking for a way to increase the number that actually engage the idea rather than trying to bury it.  The problems (and solutions) are pretty much as M. J. Young, Ralph and Mike Holmes have all pointed out.  Inertia is going to exist and that I should be very explicit about that I seeking aid in brainstorming.

That you find my reluctance to disclose information about my gaming sinister is nearly laughable.  First, I have included some information about my gaming in a few posts.  Granted I have not been overflowing, but I have not been hoarding it away either.

So far, it is as your have postulated, been a matter that I don't see the relevance – yet.  I firmly believe that ideas will stand or fall on their own their own merits.  In the GNS Theory Forum I think that should matter most.  In the RPG Theory Forum I think it would be folly not to post actual game experiences.

The reason I don't post in the Actual Games Forum is two fold. Effort and Result.

First. I personally have no interest in spending hours writing up the after action report on a 12 hour gaming session.  Some people gather great satisfaction from sharing the results of their efforts and in all seriousness, hats off to them.  I don't know how they do it, because it's not in me.  I think I have maybe perused through there a handful of times in the year I've been posting at the Forge.  Its not that the material isn't important, rather I don't relate to it effectively.  Conversely I don't see any value in me doing the same.  My heart lies in theory and trying to figure out what it is that we are doing when we are roleplaying.  Like you had indicated, second hand accounts don't contain the data set one needs to understand what the players are doing; at least with regards to CA diagnosis.  Well that is EXACTLY where my heart lies – figuring out Creative Agenda from a deconstructive point of view.

Given my view on Sim, there would be even less of a point in posting.  Simply put, the Dream cannot be shared by anyone outside the ritual itself.  It would be nearly meaningless.  The best you would get is a recap on a story, but not the event.

In the GNS forums I've had no problems understanding other posters, and I've probably never read a single account of any of their games.  I look at the ideas being discussed and respond.  I considering the idea at hand, I don't pay any attention to who is posting.  I figured most people worked that way.  In fact I find that personal accounts tend to get in the way of theory as people tend to get distracted by the story itself or as I've usually found, the story does not provide any additional insight to the ideas being discussed.

Second.  Given the state of Sim at the moment, posting any account as support material would result in quick identification within the model and just as quick locking down of perceptions.  Until Sim is illuminated properly I don't see any benefit from making the effort.  It has happened to me in the past and I simply recognize that until a new conceptual framework is up and running that posting any such accounts only makes the presentation of new ideas that much more difficult not easier.

To put it bluntly – it would be a big fucking pain in the ass with negligible return on investment.  

No one, other than you, has ever had any issues with that in the past.  People have asked for examples to illustrate ideas, but no one has ever questioned or hassled me on any level about my gaming credibility.  What you see as sinister, I see as over bearing, unnecessarily intrusive and nearly insulting.  However, if you feel it critical to the community at large, that I have somehow shirked my obligations then I will create some sort of gaming vitae and post it to buy me credibility.  I do not say this glibly – if you say it is necessary then I will undertake this noisome task out of sheer duty to the community.

Its funny.  I have absolutely no fear of being marginalized.  The posters at the Forge, by their zeal to discuss ideas have proven to me that they are here to discuss ideas, not people.  There is an incredible meritocracy based on ideas that is amazing. I have demonstrated more faith in being treated fairly at the Forge than you have.  What's even more ironic is that my faith is based purely on the discussion of ideas, not on some poster's "game cred."  I can count literally only once or twice when I haven't been treated fairly.

I have played and I do play as I have indicated in a number of my posts.

No one is dismissing me.  No one is dismissing my ideas.  What was I was discussing was the dismissal of the idea of exploring the idea.  It has happened to other well-accounted posters here.  It's not just me.

OK – I'm done ranting.  Back to the land of civility.

[TonyLB]

Perhaps I had the wrong perspective, but I was under the impression that ideas stood or fell on their own merits, not by their association to or by the heritage of the person presenting them.

Ideas stand or fall on their own merits.  They can be discussed in a vacuum, from first principles.

Tools, physical or intellectual, stand or fall based on their function in the real world.  They cannot be discussed without reference to that world.

You seem to have mistaken that concern for a judgment upon you as a person.  I certainly didn't see any such judgment being passed.

These forums, even (perhaps especially) GNS are for the crafting of intellectual tools for use in real gaming.  Tools are defined by what you use them for, not how shiny and elegant you make them.  If you were (in a hardware forum) to say "Let's explore the possibilities of making hammers with two heads", I don't think it would come as a shock when someone said "Okay... what situation led you to think you might need such a thing?"  Same thing here.  

There is an unbounded variety of possible tools that have no real-world function.  They are of no use to me.  I'm not going to waste my time helping you design them.  So yeah, I guess you're right.  I have no tolerance for exploring ideas purely for their own sake.  I'd rather spend my time doing something that I have a reason to belief has a bearing on the real world.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

"Cred" is not the issue, nor is judgment of you as a person. I really think you do not understand the issue at hand.

For example, posting a gaming vita as you describe, especially out of a sense of performing a chore, would be counter-productive. Again, it's not your credibility as a role-player, it's the information that you would be providing. At present, your posts are best described as echoes - we have to infer the sounds. A vita would not solve this problem. A brief account of a single scene from a recent game, with information about how the players interacted and what make the experience rewarding to you, would do so admirably.

The effort to write such a post, which is neither a vita nor a blow-by-blow account of twelve hours of play, cannot possibly be any more taxing than one of your posts in the GNS forum.

My advice is born from many, many experiences here at the Forge. It is good advice. You can decide whether to take it or not, but anything you post here saying why you won't is wasted effort, because this isn't a debate. If you want to be happier here, if you'd like to see your ideas and contributions better understood, then post about actual play. Spend some time in that forum and in some of the specialty forums to see what it's like.

Since you seem pretty determined about your point, then clearly, if you like, you can stick to your guns. However, I think that if you continue as you have, then your enjoyment of the Forge will be limited in an ever-increasing downward spiral, giving you cause again and again to complain how the discussions are going. If you aren't interested in trying my advice, then over time, there won't have to be any dismissal or oppression for the Forge to become less fun or valuable for you. Apparently that process has already started, which is no more nor less than I expected, back when I provided this advice for the first time.

Best,
Ron

[ffilz]

I'm going to pop in here with a concurrence with Ron. Earlier in this thread, I was feeling similar frustration. I was about to pick up my toys and go home. But then I thought about it, and decided to just post a couple game writeups. I'm not good at them, but I could summarize events and feelings.

And guess what, I got some results. I was pointed to some terms to read up on. Now I haven't really explored them yet because of other things on my mind right now, but the stage is set. When I have time to delve into those terms, I can start a new thread in either RPG Theory or Actual Play depending on the angle I want to take, referencing the earlier thread.

Of course I also had re-inforcement of this in another venue. I had posted a writeup of the same game session as this thread: [Fudge] why I am reluctant to be a player on the Fudge mailing list (I had actually posted on the Fudge list first). That posting also got some good discussion going.

So I really suggest you give it a try.

And Ron, thanks for the response in that thread. I will get back to that sometime I hope.

Frank

[ErrathofKosh]

I got some very good reinforcement of the validity of Ron's advice.  Read my Star Wars thread and even though I only got two replies, you can see that at least one pesorn here was interested in my experience, and provided some valuable insight.  Next time I have a conversation with Bill, we'll understand each other better...  And it was about 6 hours worth of game play, crammed into an average size post.

May the Force be with you,
Jonathan

[clehrich]

Tools, physical or intellectual, stand or fall based on their function in the real world.  They cannot be discussed without reference to that world. ... These forums, even (perhaps especially) GNS are for the crafting of intellectual tools for use in real gaming.  Tools are defined by what you use them for, not how shiny and elegant you make them.  If you were (in a hardware forum) to say "Let's explore the possibilities of making hammers with two heads", I don't think it would come as a shock when someone said "Okay... what situation led you to think you might need such a thing?"  Same thing here.

Given the state of Sim at the moment, posting any account as support material would result in quick identification within the model and just as quick locking down of perceptions. Until Sim is illuminated properly I don't see any benefit from making the effort. It has happened to me in the past and I simply recognize that until a new conceptual framework is up and running that posting any such accounts only makes the presentation of new ideas that much more difficult not easier.

I do think that Jay has a strong point here, and that it's getting passed over for a lot of reasons.

If I understand you correctly, Jay, you're saying that the way the model is currently evaluated is on the basis of its success in classifying actual play examples.  You're suggesting that the model may be successful at this, but that it doesn't produce the further results you want, particularly when it comes to Sim.  But since the model is evaluated this way, the more we pile on Actual Play examples, the more likely we are to say, "Yup, it works, end of debate."

By this logic, you are demanding that the model do something more than it currently does.  I would tend to demand this myself, but I don't know that we necessarily want the same things.  So let me ask directly: what is it that you want the model to do, especially with respect to Sim?

I think this whole thing about Actual Play is a red herring, and I think the constant fixation on it is a problem.  Jay is raising a legitimate point, but to a significant degree people are refusing to examine that point because it isn't rooted immediately in Actual Play.  But since his point is that the current application of the model to Actual Play does not produce desirable results, it is probably a good deal more efficient to deal with it in abstraction.

The comparison to tools is valid, but I think has been formulated poorly.  If you go to a hardware store to buy a hammer, the implication is indeed that there is some task you think you need a hammer for.  And if you want a different kind of hammer, this implies that you think the task requires a different tool than you currently possess.  But the task in question is not equivalent to Actual Play: it's a matter of what you want the model to do.  You might say it's not a question of which nail you want to hit, but what kind of nail-hitting you want to be able to do, in general, for all future cases of there being nails you want to hit.

Jay is saying that he wants a tool that does something different than the current version of Sim -- considered as a tool -- already does.  Without our being clear on what he wants it to do, we can't evaluate whether the new tool is desirable.  But unless we are willing to consider the possibility that our current tools don't do what we'd like, we cannot even consider the possibility that we're trying to hit a nail with a rock.  

In essence, the "everything must be Actual Play" demand says, "Hey, the rock does bang in nails, so that's all we need."  Jay is, I think, saying, "Hey, yes, the rock does do that, but not terribly efficiently, and it dings up the wood.  I want a hammer."  The Actual Play Now response says, "Give me an example of a nail!"  But the nail isn't at issue; it's what we want the tool to do and not do.

At the risk of overextending the metaphor, we could put it differently, like this:  Jay says, "This hammer doesn't work for what it needs to do."  The response is, "Yes it does, it hammers in nails, in Actual Play."  Jay says, "Yes, I know, but it's a ball-peen hammer, and I want it to pull up nails as well as bang them in."  The current response is, "No, silly, it hammers in nails, let's stop arguing."  Jay needs to say more clearly, "I want it also to pull up nails," and he needs to indicate why it's desirable for the tool to do both things, but we need to be willing not to say, "Since it hammers in nails there is nothing to discuss."

Currently, the onus is on Jay to explain what he wants the tool to do.  But I think what he's asking in this thread is whether others are willing to help him clarify this through relatively abstract discussion.  The point being that he's pretty sure there's a problem, but he's having some trouble working out exactly what it is, and he wants our assistance in thinking it through.  That seems a reasonable request; why should he have to do all the work himself?  If the answer is "No, we're not willing, don't do this," then what we're saying is, "No, the model cannot be evaluated, and is a known fact."  I think this is a very dangerous move, and one we ought to avoid.  Alternatively, we're saying that the model is pretty much known, and anyone who wants to challenge it must lay down the whole new thing, part and parcel, forgetting conveniently that Ron didn't pull that off his own self, and that the Big Model took a long time and a lot of discussion with lots of people to put together effectively.

Might it help for Jay to explain what he wants the model to do in terms of concrete examples?  Of course.  And it is certainly true that Jay does not, as a rule, use such examples as much as he should.  Do those examples need to be 100% genuine in-play examples?  No, so long as they're not implausible thought-experiments (what if we were all space aliens and the game had to switch languages every three words?).  Furthermore, we must be very clear that concrete examples are demonstrative or illustrative, not themselves the bones of contention; if the response to any concrete example is, "Nope, this fits into Sim, end of story," then Jay is right that there is no point in bringing up Actual Play at all.

I think everyone's in a sense right, but I also think that everyone's in a sense wrong.  Jay is over-emphatic about not using the concrete.  Some others are over-emphatic about not wanting to deal with abstraction.  Some others are over-emphatic about the model being a known, unassailable fact.  Those of us who like relatively pure theory, and there's no reason that should include everyone as it's a matter of preference, really ought to be helping Jay to work out whether in fact the current model does or does not do what needs to be done.

[Mike Holmes]

Nope, swing and a miss, Chris. Actually, as a response to Tony, you're correct, he is assailing the abstract. But the rest of us are not doing this. It's not the same old issue with regards to wanting to see some actual play.

We'd like to see actual play, as Ron has pointed out twice now, not because we can only apply theory to concrete examples, but because we're not getting Jay's dialect. He's speaking, largely, a different theoretical language. The Rosetta Stone of RPGs is Actual Play. Once we have a handle on Jay, the guy speaking the things he speaks, we'll be able to understand his abstractions and respond to them.

Think of it as ritual, Chris, if that helps. Once he's been through the fires of Actual Play, then he's a known quantity, and we can communicate as brothers of play. OK, that's just goofy, but does it help?

I think that Jay has said tons about what he wants the model to do in GNS. We're just not getting it. Well, I for one am not. And I'm not sure that an actual play post will help, truth be told. But I don't see how it can hurt.

Jay, if you do an actual play post, fergodsake don't do a blow by blow. That's actually considered bad form in that forum (it's on the sticky). What we want is some basic analysis of the play. Not even neccessarily in GNS or theoretical terms, but, like, did you have fun, and why?

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

There is an unbounded variety of possible tools that have no real-world function.  They are of no use to me.  I'm not going to waste my time helping you design them.

Whoa, where did that come from?  What about the purely theoretical branches of all disciplines?  Like theoretical physics, which many people thought was useless until they started building atomic weapons?  Okay, an overexaggeration, but cognative tools for thinking about things in different ways can be just as useful as practical ways of doing things, mostly because each leads to the other.  New methods lead to new thinking and, often enough, new thinking leads to new methods.  Going down the "everything has to be practical, NOW!" road seems an easy choice to make, but ends up being pretty exclusive.

Also, responding to Mike's comments, aren't there concrete benefits to be gained from pluralism and non-monolithic understandings of roleplaying?  If we always demand that people learn the Forge language and speak it all the time that they're here, we never get to learn from outsider perspectives.  Certainly, it takes time and effort to learn how someone else views things, but I usually find that time and effort is not wasted, as long as the other person is truly interested in making communication happen, as Jay seems to be.

[clehrich]

Mike and Tony,

Jonathan just said more or less what I would say, and more simply.  I wanted to pry at the small bits and pieces, and Mike rightly seized on these.  Jonathan has asserted the more fundamental point.

Yes, it's a "me too" post, but I think it's a valid one.

[TonyLB]

I wrote with far too much certainty about what the forums "are about".  I don't know what the forums are about, and even if I did it wouldn't be my place to say.

So let me retract my earlier, mistaken, point.  In its place, let me offer the humbler (and hopefully less controversial) personal opinion:  I don't want to bother with abstractions.  So if you don't see me (personally) posting on such threads, now you know why.

I'll also offer that Ron's excellent advice, right after my post, is much better reading than my post.  I regret having accidentally written something that caused the thread to be hijacked from that far superior (but less provocative) post.

[daMoose_Neo]

Reading through, I'd have to say the 'language' concept is more the heart of why Jay's not getting the hand he's deserving.
I get people at work ALL THE TIME who ONLY speak spanish and want a Cell Phone or possibly have a technical question about cell phones. All I can say is "No hablo espaniol, solemente inglese", bad spelling but "I don't speak spanish, only english." Thats what we're seeing here: Jay's like "I WANT HELP! Why doesn't somone get what it is I want to do?" And the response has been "Um...no hablo Jay..."
In such a situation one of us grabs a translator (For them mebbe one of their kids, for me its a guy in Electionics), which happen to be "Actual Play" here.

As to why everyone here "needs to learn Forge-speak", no its not a neccesity. I personally have no idea alot of the jargon being tossed around, but thats why I avoid the theory intensive stuff. I'm quite content to sit in my corner and play with the Legos and letting other people play with my cool little cars when I'm done. Someday I might go "Wow! How'd you build that one?!", but for now I'm content with my four wheels and body. Someone who's sitting over with the guys with the blueprints however needs to know whats going on in a way everyone can understand. It just so happens for the Forge the AP forums let people see

1) What they know, what systems they are familiar with (just D&D, WOD or is it some other stuff?)
2) What kind of experiances they've had (cool people to play with, overbearing GM, obnoxious players, been a GM with a crew so bad it all fell on the GM?)
3) What it is they might want to accomplish (My GMs sucked in the past becase...so I want to address that with this function, what do you think?)

In all my time with "communication", I know it should be as little of a hassle as possible. Its always a two way street, never truly a one way and never "just happens". Both sides do need to make an effort to be understood however.

[clehrich]

Think of it as ritual, Chris, if that helps. Once he's been through the fires of Actual Play, then he's a known quantity, and we can communicate as brothers of play. OK, that's just goofy, but does it help?

No, but the rest did.  :)

I think that Jay has said tons about what he wants the model to do in GNS. We're just not getting it. Well, I for one am not. And I'm not sure that an actual play post will help, truth be told. But I don't see how it can hurt.

You know, it's actually quite an interesting problem.

Let's suppose Jay uses an Actual Play example to demonstrate how GNS classification -- the thing he thinks doesn't work very well -- actually works.  The problem is that debates like "Is this Sim or Nar?" tend to break down rapidly, because GNS classification is founded on the "instance" concept, and so it's exceedingly difficult to be certain that your example demonstrates to everyone what you say it does.

Here's a possibility that might work, Jay.  Go through some of the old "What GNS am I?" threads and find a really strong example that everyone agreed was really Sim.  Then start a new thread about Sim and classification, with a cross-reference, and in your own words explicate why the example is Sim.  That might provide the Rosetta Stone Mike is asking for.

What it doesn't do is explain who you are as a gamer, but Mike is I think saying that that really isn't the point; the point is to get how you talk, how you use the language and the jargon.

I don't know if that would work, but it might be worth giving it a shot.

To everyone else, I must say that I don't find Jay particularly difficult to understand, and I'm quite interested in what he's been coming up with.  So if I "swing and miss", as Mike puts it, it's largely because I'm trying to figure out why others don't see what he's doing and I do.

For those trying to figure this out from the other end, i.e. those who don't get Jay and are trying to work out what he's on about, you might consider making some sort of loose comparison to my own abstract theorizing and see whether that in any way clarifies what he's trying to do.  We don't speak exactly the same language, by any means, nor do we have the same goals, but there is a sort of kindred approach.

[Sean]

Hi Chris -

I think another meta-issue here is that you are thinking about Jay's actual play posts as theoretically informed from the get-go, whereas I think Ron and Mike entertain the 'fantasy' (scarequotes because I would agree with them) that a 'straight' description of what Jay's play is like, 'prior to its being theorized' if you like, or at least in 'natural' language, or pick your favorite long-ago-deconstructed-phrase that recapitulates the myth of natural self-expression as against theoretically-driven discourse (and I'm not trying to be an ass by putting it this way, I've struggled with this stuff for years before the mountain once again became a mountain, and of course my struggle may or may not indicate the one true final choice of the right pair of spectacles, let alone that the spectacles are off, etc.) would give them a sense for what his play is like, a data point or two if you like, which would then give something 'concrete' against which the abstractions of Jay's posts (which I don't find particularly more abstract than most other people's but that's likewise besides the point here) could become intelligible - not so much the spirit made flesh as just a pound or two of flesh that might give a clue to the spirit that flesh imagines itself to always be approaching nearer, or somesuch.

In other words, I think you're overtheorizing what is being looked for in actual play posts and overcommiting yourself at least implicitly to the necessary theory-ladenness of such posts from the get-go. Your theory of cognition and expression, or even metaphysics, may vary.

Regards,

Sean