(Split from "Seven Misconceptions") Cult of GNS

[GB Steve]

Citing a point Ron made by starting a sentence with "Ron said..." is not slavish & cultish devotion, but merely citation. Also, agreeing with something someone (for example, Ron) has said is not cultish devotion but merely agreement.

I'm sick of the "Cult of Ron" crap. It would almost be insulting if it weren't so infantile.

There is however a tendancy to the Cult of GNS here. It's difficult to talk about anything without immediate reference to GNS, of which Ron, with good reason given that he wrote it, is held to be the chief proponent.

After all, when people, such as I perhaps, misunderstand what Ron means by GNS, he is always there to lead them away from the Valley of Evil (that is a joke btw).

I always get the feeling that it is I who am wrong and GNS that is writ in stone. As has been explained to me by various Forgers, this is really just down to personal perception so I'll try to leave such things aside.

Still as a theory, GNS needs people to defend it and, even if I think the theory doesn't work, I'm glad to see there are people to make sure the debate doesn't go cold.

What I'm less sure about is how much GNS changes on it's side. I haven't got time to read everything said on this site and Ron's two articles don't necessarily paint the whole picture. Perhaps some other disciple (of GNS not Ron) would like to take up the torch?

If it isn't too cheeky, and to encourage a wider audience, I'd be more than happy to have it hosted on http://ptgptb.org.

While were at it, has anyone read Robin's Laws?

All the best,
GB Steve

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I have split this topic, as GB Steve's post was less about the "Seven Misconceptions" and more about the "Cult of Ron" comment made by Joshua Neff. Also, I'm going to comment below this, and it gets more off-topic, so splitting it made sense.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

There is however a tendancy to the Cult of GNS here. It's difficult to talk about anything without immediate reference to GNS, of which Ron, with good reason given that he wrote it, is held to be the chief proponent.

I don't get this. I see it all the time, so I know it's a common perception, but you're the first person that actually posts here to have said it. I think people talk about games all the time here without speaking about GNS.

I'm not arguing with you. You may well be right, and I blinded. I'd just like a little more elucidation, as I don't get it.

I always get the feeling that it is I who am wrong and GNS that is writ in stone. As has been explained to me by various Forgers, this is really just down to personal perception so I'll try to leave such things aside. ... What I'm less sure about is how much GNS changes on it's side. I haven't got time to read everything said on this site and Ron's two articles don't necessarily paint the whole picture.

Anyway - this is my big beef with GNS opponents. I've said this on other sites, and I will publicly here now. I think GNS is a moderately useful tool, that when combined with other tools, can make a better gaming experience. I don't think it's the end-all-be-all Way of RPGs, and I think people spend entirely too much time debating it instead of playing games.

Back to my big beef: Ron's article is the whole of GNS. There's not some secret lore, or anything else. GNS is birthed from his forehead, mythically speaking, so the source of information on it is him. Honestly, I think almost everyone else has it so screwed up that you'll get no decent information from anywhere but him.

While were at it, has anyone read Robin's Laws?

Read it. Loved it. Found it immensely useful, even three hours later when running a convention game. E-mail or PM me if you want to talk about it.

[Steve Dustin]

Back to my big beef: Ron's article is the whole of GNS.

Actually, I somewhat agree with his position -- for an outside observer, GNS proponents appear very cult-like.

1> Ron's essay is the GNS bible, so-to-speak. Problem is, although it's comprehensive, it's also very dense. So, you can read it once, twice, three times and still have people point out passages to you that you missed or misinterpreted. Just like any good theological text. Furthermore, to fully understand it, I needed to re-read the majority of the posts on the Forge so I could give it context.

2> It doesn't help that when people refer to the essay, that don't say, "The GNS essay says..." but instead, "Ron says..." Ron has become defacto the keeper of GNS. It's Ron's word over everyone else's. Not saying that he meant it to be that way, but that's how it comes. Cue cult of personality.

3> The level of jargon here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. For example, in the post in RPG theory started by wfreitag ("Looking Deeper into Intuitive Continuity") he re-states something he stated once already at rpg.net. But here, people assign his play style labels (even me) that he wouldn't remotely understand unless he fully comprehends Ron's essay. It took me a month to swallow, and sometimes I wonder if I still have it down pat.

4> GNS proponents can appear fanatical. Because of its "self-help" origins, many people find it so profound into changing their dysfunctional gaming, that they want to help everyone who has dysfunctional gaming. In short, they want to be enablers. I'd go so far as saying that Ron is the "uber-enabler." Some people appreciate enablers' help, other just want to go tell them to fuck themselves.

Now you could just say those ignorant of GNS theory that they "don't understand and they need to look at it deeper." But then any cult would say that, wouldn't it?

I think the GNS theory is great, but if the Forge doesn't want GNS to be seen as some kind of heretical RPG cult, something needs to happen here to change perceptions. I propose:

-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means. I suspect that's what he wants, but he's spending so much time just trying to clarify his views that no one is moving the theory forward, and thus appears to be the all pervasive Leader of the Cult

-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.

Of course, this is only matters so far as people care if they're perceived as part of a cult.

Steve

[Gordon C. Landis]

Clinton,

As my "Side Issues" post (which I would have posted here, if this thread had existed when I wrote it) indicates, I entirely understand the claim that the Forge is GNS-focused ("Cult" is, of course, absurd, but what the hell).  Even those folks who have issues with parts of GNS use the language in at least some of their discussions - that's just (IMO) the way these things work, you develop a vocabulary that includes various concepts/assumptions and then it becomes almost transparent to you  - but not to others, who either just don't understand your approach or who have an entirely different vocabulary.

Someone with NO understanding of GNS will have a hard time in many (NOT all) threads here.  That parenthetical is important - otherwise *I'd* be worried about the cult-thing, with a CONSTANT intrusion of GNS into everything - but substantially, I can't say the point from GB Steve is absurd.

Gordon

[Steve Dustin]

Back to my big beef: Ron's article is the whole of GNS.

Actually, I somewhat agree with his position -- for an outside observer, GNS proponents appear very cult-like.

1> Ron's essay is the GNS bible, so-to-speak. Problem is, although it's comprehensive, it's also very dense. So, you can read it once, twice, three times and still have people point out passages to you that you missed or misinterpreted. Just like any good theological text. Furthermore, to fully understand it, I needed to re-read the majority of the posts on the Forge so I could give it context.

2> It doesn't help that when people refer to the essay, that don't say, "The GNS essay says..." but instead, "Ron says..." Ron has become defacto the keeper of GNS. It's Ron's word over everyone else's. Not saying that he meant it to be that way, but that's how it comes. Cue cult of personality.

3> The level of jargon here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. For example, in the post in RPG theory started by wfreitag ("Looking Deeper into Intuitive Continuity") he re-states something he stated once already at rpg.net. But here, people assign his play style labels (even me) that he wouldn't remotely understand unless he fully comprehends Ron's essay. It took me a month to swallow, and sometimes I wonder if I still have it down pat.

4> GNS proponents can appear fanatical. Because of its "self-help" origins, many people find it so profound into changing their dysfunctional gaming, that they want to help everyone who has dysfunctional gaming. In short, they want to be enablers. I'd go so far as saying that Ron is the "uber-enabler." Some people appreciate enablers' help, other just want to go tell them to fuck themselves.

Now you could just say those ignorant of GNS theory that they "don't understand and they need to look at it deeper." But then any cult would say that, wouldn't it?

I think the GNS theory is great, but if the Forge doesn't want GNS to be seen as some kind of heretical RPG cult, something needs to happen here to change perceptions. I propose:

-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means. I suspect that's what he wants, but he's spending so much time just trying to clarify his views that no one is moving the theory forward, and thus appears to be the all pervasive Leader of the Cult

-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.

Of course, this is only matters so far as people care if they're perceived as part of a cult.

Steve

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Steve,

I see and understand your points. They do make sense. I have issue with just one part:

-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means.

I can't see this as either happening or productive. It's not something that's mutable. Either I've studied too much logic or my own thinking is flawed but:

- The three terms of GNS are defined. Re-defining them produces a new theory.
- Any new theories are not the same as the GNS theory as outlined in Ron's essay.
- Arguing the definition is much like arguing the definition of irony: you can "feel" that it's whatever you think it is, but you are wrong. The term is defined, and means a specific thing. (This is apt, as most people know fuck-all about what irony is. I'd have it stricken from the common English language if I could, just because the confusion irritates me so much.)

As far as other people seeing GNS proponents as a cult, I'll be blunt here, even though I've tried my hardest until now not to:

Most of the arguments I see are nothing more than unbridled anti-intellectual claptrap of the worst sort, and therefore have little to no relevance to me.
- Clinton

P.S. Steve - you're in Portland? You missed a hell of a good con this weekend.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Steve/Tquid,

I think a lot of what you cite is simply the consequences of attempting to think rigorously about a topic.  You can try and mitigate the "bible" effect by making the text as accessible as possible, you can fight the cult of personality by threatening to send out baseball-bat wielding deprogrammers (smile), you can attempt to establish clear rather than obfuscatory jargon . . . but ultimately, if folks want to see a cult, they'll see one.  At some level, I *don't* care if people think there's a Cult of GNS/Ron - 'cause I know I'm not a member.  On the other hand, I'm in favor of good communication/relations, so I've got nothing against working against that perception - but I am under no illusions that "the Forge" can force folks to stop thinking the way they want to think.

One point on GNS "ownership" - sure, Ron *could* "let his theory go free".    Some might think that's a good thing, others see it as the end of any coherency to the theory.  For now, the way it works (by my understanding) is this: Ron owns GNS.  He listens to folks - if they say things that make sense, he takes them into account.  If someone wants to take bits of GNS and build their own theory . . . well, it'd be nice to acknowledge GNS, but that's about it.

This seems like an entirely coherent way to mange things to me, and it would only support the "Cult Leader" perception in those who are determine to think that way anyway.

My thoughts,

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

What I think we have here is not so much a cult as a culture (I wonder about the etymology of those two words). Just as you have corporate cultures, and the like. It has one of the defining attributes of a culture, it's own language. And, yes, to understand it thoroughly, you'd have to learn the language. Fortunately, it's a dialect that's not all that different from that of other gamers. And the culture itself is (in my extremely biased opinion) very worthwhile.

This will tend to cause all the same frictions that you see between other cultures. Say la v.

Mike

[Valamir]

-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.

Well, I don't know how short it is, by I tried to be very direct and to the point in a post I made farther down in this forum called somewhat cryptically "submitted for discussion".  It is IMO (and I'm not Ron so that fulfills the "someone else" requirement above) the core concepts of GNS that are a) absolutely essential to being able to discuss GNS with any degree of accuracy, and b) most often gotten completely wrong by people who encounter GNS for the first time.

I don't attempt to summarize Ron's entire essay (IMO the shear number of intertwined topics he covers in that essay is both an asset and a weakness to it).  But I do make every effort to cut through the theory and come out with some pretty definitive "this is what this means" "this is not what this means" stuff.

Its generated a lot of views but no responses so far, which I can only hope means I didn't make any glaring mistakes in it.

[Mike Holmes]

Its generated a lot of views but no responses so far, which I can only hope means I didn't make any glaring mistakes in it.

I think it was a good essay, but, posted as it is, it will soon be relegated to the dark recesses of the forum that are not being currently discussed. Which means that it will essentially be lost and forgotten. Articles of this nature need to be posted in a more permenant position. This is why I liked the idea of the glossary, or the idea (Gordon's?) of an article section.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

You'll see my reply to Ralph's post just popped it up to the top again, and you'll also see that I'd like to put it into the Forge articles archive. As a more general note, I'd very much like to see other people's articles there, like Jesse's. That's going to be a push of mine here at the Forge over the next couple of months.

Best,
Ron

[Steve Dustin]

I can't see this as either happening or productive. It's not something that's mutable.

Yes but, GNS theory is more than just G, N, and S. It's got it's own Stances, emphasis on Exploration, and definitions for all kinds of stuff. I think there's plenty of stuff to tinker with.

I could be wrong about this (horribly wrong, but hey, has that stopped me before?) but scientific theories over time change to better fit the facts. The theory of Evolution today is not the theory of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin. The theory of plate tectonics is not the theory of continental drift. Still, each are essentially grounded on the same idea proposed by its predecessor. I'd say, GNS theory can undergo the same kind of transformation.

And if it wasn't meant to be mutable, why a whole forum dedicated to its discussion?

Still, the point underlying the "set it free, Ron!" statement is that people would stop perceiving GNS as "the word of Ron from on high," and more a working theory of roleplaying games.

Ironically (whoops, wait, what does irony mean?), I'm not really interested in changing the roleplaying community at large, and therefore, actually perscribe more to Mike's view that the Forge isn't so much a cult as a culture, and it ceases to be my problem to convince the critics. But remember, cultures can be seen as exclusive, and the more exclusive people find them ("a bunch of intellectual snobs in love with ridiculous jargon," for instance) the worse people can react.

And hey, Gordon, I'm not Tquid, I just use his quote in my sig.

Steve

[Ron Edwards]

Back to the topic at hand ... (there I go, making a big stink about staying on topic and then veering)

Here's my deal on the Cult thing.

"Huh?"

And that's all I can say, pretty much. Leadership does not constitute cult leadership; I freely admit to, and somewhat pointedly hang onto, the former. How "cult" comes into it boggles me.

Cult leadership requires that the "followers" agree with the leader in every way. I cannot imagine how that can be applied to this forum, in which the views of Fang, Gareth (contracycle), Mike Holmes, Mike Sullivan (Epoch), and Gareth (mytholder), just to name a few in addition to myself, continually meet and chew over multiple topics. The fact that we often come to an accord (not always in the same combination of personalities) is significant - even when we disagree. This is not cult behavior.

Dogmatism is the quality that some have indicated - the inability to think beyond one's own parameters, or to change views in the face of valid counterargument. This cannot be applied to me in any way - the instances of changes in my views are legion, most especially and importantly the concept of Exploration in my thinking about role-playing. What matters is that I acknowledge these influences and changes, which I do, in writing. To ignore my acknowledgments' existence, and then to use that "absence" as evidence that I am resist being influenced by counter-argument, is an astonishing act of self-delusion.

The last issue seems to be a matter of condescension, to which I can only shrug. No one makes anyone arrive at the Forge, and no one makes anyone stay. Mutual respect is a staple of our behavior toward one another, especially mutual respect for ideas. If anyone sees an instance or has experienced treatment that they don't think is consistent with this ideal, I have yet to hear about it from them directly.

That's an important point. If person X reports that "They treated me like shit at the Forge!" then I have to ask, "Why didn't you address that issue with me personally?" In some cases, the person is leaving out the personal exchange we did have, in which my views toward their behavior were expressed clearly (funny, they never mention that in their complaints). In other cases, the only indication I have that someone was unhappy is their discussion elsewhere, months later, or a tearful "fuck you!" as they slam the door on the way out. If they don't or can't bring it up to me, there's nothing I can do about it. More shrug.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

As far as other people seeing GNS proponents as a cult, I'll be blunt here, even though I've tried my hardest until now not to:

Most of the arguments I see are nothing more than unbridled anti-intellectual claptrap of the worst sort, and therefore have little to no relevance to me.

I've seen this.  One such comment is that those who dabble in RPG theory don't actually game.  

This hits home for me since I don't get to game because of my work schedule.  But then, I'm in no hurry to join up with my old group since I am simply not excited about playing D&D anymore.  Add to that my own cowardace in trying to find a new group, and there you go.  I should remedy that.

BTW, where are these Robin's Laws?