Understanding GNS

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Please forgive me if any of this has been stated before as I am still very much a student in learning when it comes to GNS theory and the Big Model. But I was wondering if it would be possible to convey a sense of what GNS is all about by simplifying each Creative Agenda into three questions: What? Why? And How?  For instance,

The Gamist CA focuses the "What?" As in "What are you doing?" It is mainly concerned with things like strategy, luck, risk-taking, and courage.

The Narrativist CA focuses on the "Why?" As in "Why are you doing that?" or "Why did that happen?"  It is mainly concerned with motivation and consequences.

The Simulationist CA focuses on the "How?" As in "How are you doing that?"  Some examples might be "How close does it simulate actual combat?" "How close does it simulate a real world?" or "How close does it simulate a source text such as Middle Earth or Star Wars?"

Is this an okay way of thinking about GNS?  I really appreciate your feedback, let me just thank you in advance.

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

First, I think that if this precise thing has not been proposed before, that something amazingly similar has been.

Second, I think that this model is accurate, but very imprecise. That is, taken from the level that you're looking at, there's nothing wrong with your suppositions, but it's like saying that cars cost about $100,000 because you're only measuring to one significant digit. By which I mean that you'll make some seriously wrong catagorizations using this model because it doesn't really look at the nuances.

The model is as complex as it is not because we like complex models, but because any attempt to simplify it like this before has had the same problem. Like quantum mechanics, simply saying E=MC^2 doesn't quite cover it.

But if it helps you get it somehow, no reason you can't use it as a mnemonic device or something.

Mike

[Ben Lehman]

The model is as complex as it is not because we like complex models, but because any attempt to simplify it like this before has had the same problem. Like relativity, simply saying E=MC^2 doesn't quite cover it.

Fixed your physics.  Otherwise, I agree.

yrs--
--Ben

[Mike Holmes]

LOL. :-)

See, Ben, relativity is a subset of quantum mechanics, the equation being a simple manipulation of Planck...

Nevermind....

Sorry. Troy, do you see what we mean? Would an example help (actually my examples are known more for confusing the situation than helping out, but..)?

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya

Sorry. Troy, do you see what we mean? Would an example help (actually my examples are known more for confusing the situation than helping out, but..)?

Hehe, no problem :)  I've recently been reading Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawking, so I know what ya meant.

But if it helps you get it somehow, no reason you can't use it as a mnemonic device or something.

That's exactly what I wanted, but I couldn't put it into words.  Thanks so much Mike for taking my tangled post and straitening it out for me.  All I wanted was a simpler way of boiling down the 3 CAs.  A sort of GNS for dummies thing.

Peace,

-Troy

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Troy,

I suggest beginning with the Glossary. Just read the opening section, all by itself, including the diagram.

That's it.

Then ask any questions you have about that. With any luck, if you understand that material OK, then one question will be, "what does a Creative Agenda look like?"

In other words, there is no point to starting with the answers (or currently-proposed answers) when you don't know what the questions are, or their context.

Best,
Ron

[timfire]

Troy,

If I may, it seems like you're trying to a get something deeper than a simple 3 sentence summary can give you. Associating What-Why-How with the 3 CA's implies something about them that won't hold up under closer inspection. All 3 CA's are interested with What-Why-How in their own ways.

If you're looking for a summary, what I tell people is:

Gamists like playing games.
Narrativists like telling stories.
Simulationists like playing Make-Believe.

That, too, is a gross simplification, but that's why it's a 'summary'.

[Mike Holmes]

What Ron said. If you understand it, then your summary or Tim's is fine, because you'll understand why it's not really precise. If you don't understand the material, I'm not sure what good it does you to have an imprecise understanding.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

If we're doing brief summaries, this one is mine:

[*]Gamists want to do something.[*]Narrativists want to say something.[*]Simulationists want to learn something.[/list:u]All simplifications are erroneous if pressed.

--M. J. Young

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I suggest beginning with the Glossary. Just read the opening section, all by itself, including the diagram.

Heh, whenever I browse these forums, I always have two pages open-  the thread Im currently looking at and the provisional glossary :)  I think what I need to do is read over the major aritcles once again and see how much more I pick up on this go-around.

Gamists like playing games.
Narrativists like telling stories.
Simulationists like playing Make-Believe.

Gamists want to do something.
Narrativists want to say something.
Simulationists want to learn something.

Both helpful simplifications that continue in aiding me build a foundation for learning.  The way I tend to learn best is to take something I don't understand connect it to something I do, and then deepen my understanding of the new information that way.  I appreciate your input guys; it's helped out a lot. It is great to see people willing to put in their time and effort for the benefit of others.  It's not all that common now-a-days.

Peace,

-Troy