(Split from "Seven Misconceptions") Cult of GNS

[Steve Dustin]

Here's my deal on the Cult thing.

Hey, just to re-interate, I'm not saying the Forge is a Cult, or blasting anyone here. I'm just saying, for an outside observer with neither the time or inclination (sp?) to look deeper, GNS has many cult-like elements.

With that said, I think the barrier for entry to the Forge would be cut significantly by either a glossary or a set of examples to get people up to speed. I know better examples in the essay would have helped me immensely, but I think mini-essays from others (like say, on one or two topics to give them better clarity, instead of attacking the whole enchilada at once) would be better than making the GNS essay longer and denser.

And maybe essays on what makes a rule G, N or S; or how to apply G, N or S thinking to rules design.

Steve

[Clinton R. Nixon]

"One such comment is that those who dabble in RPG theory don't actually game."

That's the only argument I've seen that has any validity - if reworded to "Those that don't game and dabble in RPG theory are only engaging in intellectual exercise and not actually testing their thoughts."

I've seen this argument quite a few times, and I have to say: I don't get it either. Maybe these people are talking to misguided GNS numb-skulls that don't game. As for here - Ron games 2-3 times a week, I game 1-2 times a week, Dav games, Mike Holmes and Ralph Mazza game - I don't know many people here that don't game.

You should find a group, Jack. I don't see a location in your profile. Put one up - there might be some Forgers around.

(Off-topic: Robin's Laws refers to Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, a 32-page booklet printed by Steve Jackson Games (yeah, I know) that I personally feel is mostly stuff we've covered here, with a few nuggets of pure, unadulterated genius that were well worth the $8 I paid for it.)

[Bankuei]

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.

I second that.  

I don't debate GNS, I occassionally show up, say my bit, and bow out.  I come, see what's worth using in my next game/design, and leave.  I don't care about the terminology, its useful as a means of communication, and not a holy writ to me in any way.  I don't think it needs defending in any fashion, Ron is far more the scholar and can put down his views as he sees fit.

The only thing Ron has said that I hold up is,"Story Now!"...  that's it.  And that's not GNS, its just a good goal.

To clarify what I said on a different thread, we're here to talk about gaming, or design for gaming.  Theory, terminology, etc, are just tools for those two activities.  Let's not forget that.

Chris

[GB Steve]

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.

I imagine that some of the problems stem from the fact that your two essays have not been updated. One can't wade through the Forge looking for every Ron post with an update to the theory. In fact any thread elsewhere always brings out the call to read your original articles.

The point which surfaces here is that although the theory may have changed based on what others have said, you always acknowledge your sources, the final arbiter of GNS is still recognised as Ron Edwards.

When GNS is debated elsewhere the rallying cry is always go back to "Ron's essay". One, well me at least, is presented with the mental picture of people going back to "Ron's essay" and being duly converted to GNS. Emerging as little Rons to carry on the good work.

If perhaps they could say "look at Ron's essay here, Valamir's take on it here, then see Fang's objections with his take on simulationism, then the sort of thing that John Kim mentions and finally the state of affairs at rec.gaming.advocacy" then I think GNS would be all the stronger for it. After all, one common view of theories is that they are only to be accepted as such if the means of their possible falsification is also presented.

Finally I don't think anyone has ever been "treated like shit at the Forge" that I can recall in my limited experience. There's perhaps some debate over whether some people at the Forge in one thread looked on others (i.e. RPGnet) with some degree of condescension because they do things differently there. However I don't think that such a debate is useful however galling it may have been to some (primarily me).

[On that kind of recommendation, I'm off to by Robin's Laws tomorrow.]

[Gordon C. Landis]

Finally I don't think anyone has ever been "treated like shit at the Forge" that I can recall in my limited experience.

Just so this issue is clear - there are people who (wrongly, IMO) do feel that they were treated like shit.  I've had personal correspondences with 'em, and they can be VERY insistent and persistent in their claims that the Forge done 'em wrong.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'll back Gordon up on this one - I am aware of a solid dozen individuals, if not more, who are best described as "Forge self-exiles." My comments in my previous post are based on these actual people, not some hypothetical case. My comments about their behavior stand in full.

One final point on this "cult" horse-puckey. I am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."

These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

Send... more... converts.

Seriously, though.  A cult?  "Cult-like behavior?"  Give me a break.  That's hyperbole that borders on hysteria IMO.  Folks who post here aren't robots.  Ron gets respect on the boards here because he's a fuckin' smart guy who happens to have articulated something that resonates with a lot of us.  That be it, though.  A lot of individuals besides Ron post here, people on whose brain activity you could warm your hands on a chilly night, and that's one thing I love about this site.  You want intelligent discussion without flame or pointless OT burbling, you're at the right place.  You'll find little tolerance for either of the two behaviors I've just cited, though some people take the firm intervention of the moderators as unfriendly.  People here disagree with Ron on a regular basis, disagreements that often lead to interesting debates, and I've witnessed the shift in Ron's thinking on issues as a result.  He and Clinton and Mike and Paul and Fang and a bunch of others provide leadership, whether or not they all agree with each other, and it's fun to watch the thinking evolve.

Is there jargon?  Sure.  How can there not be?  The community's been at it for over a year just here at the Forge, not counting the years at GO and elsewhere.  Should there be a simple one-page intro to GNS and a glossary to wean people onto the larger essays and the details of model-speak?  I think so.  I've raised that idea here myself, back in the mists of time.  If someone posts with incomplete understanding of GNS, we'll likely steer them to the essays if only because it's easier and less wearying than running through explanations yet again.  If someone posts a ton of sweeping generalizations that indicate they haven't read or have misread the model, they'll get comments to that effect.  Does all this separately or together constitute cult-like behavior?  I hardly think so.  I mean, I could throw together a proof for my argument, cite chapter and verse, toss out analogies and examples of real-world cults and cult psychology, dissect the "cult" accusation's logic to death -- but come on, it's ridiculous.  Drop this cult thing, 'K?  The real issue is that the Forge hosts such highly intellectual and analytical discussion with so much history behind it that newcomers have a lot to catch up on, and thus far, no one has provided the primer to make that orientation less daunting.  Ron wrote the essays that are up on the site.  Hence it's easy to point to them as "Ron's essays."

Whoops.  I'm moving into full attorney-scenting-an-argument mode, which is not where I want to be right now.  Mini-rant over.  Time to go throw roses at Ron's forty-five gold Rolls Royces or something.

Oh, and welcome to the Forge. ;-)

Best,

Blake

[Mike Holmes]

A lot of individuals besides Ron post here.

Well, I'm not one of them.

Heh, just proved my non-cult status by breaking one of Ron's cardinal rules about not allowing Monty Python references. I expect that this message will be expunged in the morning by the cult whip, Clinton. Hey, Ron, yer indie site needs a PR man to clean up it's image.

"Irony, it's so...ironic." --William Shattener

Mike

[GB Steve]

Half my post disappeared, I guess that's some kind of omen. What I was saying is something about a contradiction in this but who cares. I'll get back to RPGnet and not bother you again.

I am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."

These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.

[/i]

[Ron Edwards]

Sigh.

And no attempt whatsoever to say, "Ron, you're the content moderator dude at the Forge, and I think I'm being mistreated." No dialogue. No attempt to find common ground. No reflection on point A from you, then point B from others, and then how B relates to A.

Paraphrase: "They disagree with me, so I must not be welcome."

Amazing, isn't it?

Best,
Ron

P.S. Clinton does not delete messages except for double-posts and other glitches. All message-deletions have been performed by their authors, or with the permission of their authors. [Clinton, if I'm over-stating this, then correct me in Site Discussion.]

[Matt Snyder]

One final point on this "cult" horse-puckey. I am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."

These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.

Ron, I think it's a dangerous behavior to dismiss human emotions as you have here.

I see it, rightly or wrongly, like this: you're a smart, logical fellow. Heck, you're the paragon of logic -- you're a professional scientist, and you borrow terminology from the world of science eagerly. You call 'em like you see 'em, and make no bones about it. That's well and good. I generally like that approach; there's no confusion, no bullshit.

However, this approach can obviously be off putting, particularly to Forge newbies, as we've seen folks miss cues and get riled up. They sometimes take offense.

Should they? No. They should take the time to understand what's going on here, just as you've suggested. They're likely to find a lot of very useful, constructive discussion and enough diversity to satify their needs.

Is it a normal, human reaction? "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes."

Now, I know, Ron, that you're a guy that understands the human condition very well. Hell, you're renown in this industry for a friggin' game famous for its Humanity. You "get it," clearly.

But from my perspective, it appears that sometimes we (we being "the Forge") just don't have time or aren't interested in taking those human conditions into account. If folks new to the Forge don't see the logic and reason for your comments, or if they're blinded by emotion, you have little time or patience for their understanding.

I can't say I blame you or any Forge regulars for that. Who does have time for every schmoe that comes along ranting about the evils of being "labeled" or some such?

However, what I think we do have time for here at the Forge is two things"

1) Acknowledgement that the Forge is not a symposium, it's a community. This is where I may meet some disagreement, particulary from our two fearless administrators/leaders/whatever. I don't mean to say that Ron and Clinton shouldn't be strict custodians of the Forge's content. Staying on topic makes the Forge the best discussion around. What I do mean to say is that this place is becoming more and more an emotionally valuable place to it's members. Too often, I think we diminish the value of human emotion and comraderie in discussions here, and the result is the occasional lost soul and the denial that we're becoming, for better or worse, an emotional community as well as an intellectual one.

2) Acknowledgement that Forge members need to do a better job of fostering a welcoming environment to fresh faces. It's not just explaning the GNS essay or clarifying what they might see as arcane terminology. It's that we should do a better job overall of what amounts to goodwill and public relations. There is a reason we should be doing a better job of breaking down the image that the Forge is an insular, fringe element of RPG community at large. It's because if we don't do that, then not only will those folks be missing out, but we'll be missing out on their valuable input.

How do I know? Because as of 5 or 6 months ago, I thought the Forge was indeed an insular, fringe element, and a pox on its house. I couldnn't see the use in coming here until people I respected (who aren't Forge regulars) said it's worth a second look. Obviously, my perception has changed. It took a long time. Too long. I might just have easily said fuck it.

But in the end, I stuck around, and the benefits are legion. This is a very useful site to me. What's more, it's an emotionally rewarding place to be, too. Nearly every day, I think about how I'm looking forward to GenCon so I can see again in person the folks I respect and admire here. I can only hope my contributions have helped others here as well.

Ron: In the end, I'm really glad I did stick around. You've never meant me any ill will, and I realize that now. You might have had a hard time convincing me otherwise when we disagreed about things here or on the Target Audience list. It just took me a while to figure out how you communicate. In the end, I think -- hell, I know -- you're above all a decent person who's is interested in what people have to say.

I think it's that communication 'learning curve' that drives some folks to see us in a wrong-headed way.

Here's to the Forge. Cheers.

Matt

[Ron Edwards]

Great post, Matt. I have a big response.

The learning curve you refer to is real. I think it's always going to be there, given the intellectual standards that we all want to maintain (if I'm not mistaken). I also think that by definition, it will be too steep for some, usually on an emotional basis, as you describe.

Now for the next question: by and large, as a general phenomenon, is it too steep? Too steep for Bob or not to steep for Mary is not the issue; I'm talking about the general picture, which is the only thing we can base policy on.

I'm willing to accept that we should all try to keep the curve from becoming unnecessarily steep. I don't see that the general behavior here, mine or others, is pushing in that unnecessary direction.

One nuance: take a look at Brad's posts in Indie Game Design, or Cynthia's when she first joined, or any number of other people who have arrived with concrete issues to discuss. I argue that they have all received far more welcome and instant camaraderie than they might find anywhere else, about the issues they raise. People take the time to say "welcome," and to bring up food for thought, whether it involves my essay or not. No one is dismissed because they are unfamiliar with GNS or because they (for instance) start with a dice mechanics issue instead of, say, Premise.

Now check out those posts which begin with furious disagreement, and you will still find that spirit of welcome - see Mads Jakobsen's Gamism thread, and you will find a variety of responses that take his points seriously. The problem occurred when it became clear that he could or would not acknowledge or deal with valid responses; more properly, I should say "his" problem, not ours.

I appreciate your discussion of how you came to be more comfortable at the Forge, specifically in terms of dealing with me. I'd like to point out that it is, ultimately, a story about you, and to me it has a happy, acceptable, and comfortable ending. I rather like the fact that you had to do some self-reflection and examine your goals and your comfort levels.

I rather like the fact that people who cannot do these things do not remain active at the Forge. I don't see the extremity of their responses as being any indication of a problem.

In conclusion, I don't see any reason to say, "Oh no, we have to change our ways" in any really big way. Simultaneously, I do agree with you that all our efforts should be focused on making the learning curve be about the right things, and on keeping it from being unnecessarily steep.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

In conclusion, I don't see any reason to say, "Oh no, we have to change our ways" in any really big way. Simultaneously, I do agree with you that all our efforts should be focused on making the learning curve be about the right things, and on keeping it from being unnecessarily steep.

Best,
Ron

Ron, you've made an absolutely fair and astute reply. You cited good examples of newbies being welcomed. It's funny, because I was just chatting with Cynthia when I posted this and thought of her as an example of someone who found a "happy homecoming."

I think it's a fair assessment to say we don't really need to change our ways as much as keep a watchful eye on the "learnign curve." I guess what I was suggesting is just that. What I suggested is a subtle, , even "touchy-feely" empathy that's hard to quantify. Just recommending that we'd all benefit from more goodwill here.

So, I guess that makes this a "me too" reply to your reply! I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for responding so quickly and genuinely.

As always, have a good one!

[Christopher Kubasik]

Well, all this cult talk has got me thinking, and it's beginning to make sense.

My renewal membership just arrived for my Cult of Arabic Numerals, and I'm thinking I might not re-up.

Also, at last week's meeting of Cult of the Roman Alphabet, I thought, "Why am I being warped by this convention of writing pushed on me by stranger when I was a youth? To hell with using shared symbols just cause it's convenient, I'm out of here!"

And finally, since a lot of people get confused by terms like RPG, PC, OOC, d20 and don't even get the whole idea of role playing games, I realized, THIS IS A CULT TOO!

For the love of god, I ask you to burn your books, stop speaking with concerns for grammer, do not spell check anymore, and drive on any old darn side of the road you want.  Save your souls!  Stop using convention as a CRUTCH!  The Department of Motor Vehicles is coming for you too! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[Laurel]

I've been almost life-threatening ill for three weeks, and still in recovery but returned to forums and my day job last Monday.  So I missed the beginning of the Interesting Times that have happened regarding GNS and RPGNet and the Forge.  I'm not going to go back and read it all from the beginning, but just add in a comment regarding what I've skimmed through.  

I like GNS.  I think its a good tool.  I like Ron Edwards; he's been overwhelmingly friendly and helpful to me.  So have several other longtime Forgers.   There are also other good tools out there.  Ultimately, as game designers, GMs, and players, we have to ask ourselves if we are feeling fufilled and successful with our endeavors.  If the answer is no, and we look to GNS for some help, and are able to successfully apply it, then its been valuable.  

I have always held out that while GNS is enormously useful, it only covers part of the issues on why games break down.  Faulty interpersonal dynamics between game-players (including the GM as game-player) is, in my opinion, the #1 reason games fail.  Its also the reason why game *communities* break down, or create factions.  GNS cannot and does not deal with this kind of issue, which goes beyond stances and goals although they might be part of the conflicts.  

Faulty interpersonal dynamics lead to flame wars on forums too :)   And I believe that its actually by looking at why game-players have such difficulty communicating in forums and related environments that really gets into the heart of why games fail, more than GNS by itself.   The rivalries, name-calling, heated conflicts, incoherent communication, miscommunication, jealousies, bitterness, confusion, competition, different styles of communication, subjective points of view, old players leaving/new players coming, etc., are really the exact same fundamental problems that cause the failure of most game sessions that fail.  
 
Laurel