My simplistic linguistic analogy for the big model.

[PlotDevice]

Hi all. Thanks for these boards. Much brain food here.

I have read intermittently since I first discovered here. Over time my understanding of the big model has evolved into its current status, which is to say, I think I have a handle on it, more or less.

So I had a bit of a brain spasm on the weekend, and did a 24 hour rpg. I was rehashing an old idea, so had to fire some new concepts into it to make it interesting. When I was writing of my intent to do the game I speculated on what I was going to use as attributes. I wondered if anyone had tried to design a game in which the good old GNS elements were actually attributes in the game.

I doubted anyone would be that foolish/arrogant. So naturally my next step was to do exactly that.

Here is the result: http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Waxing_Lyrical.php

To short note the turn modes that a player can use:

Narrative mode: use complete statements that move the story
Gamist mode: use verbs and adverbs to interact with / overcome challenges
Simulationist mode: use nouns and adjectives to flesh out the setting and genre

My Questions: Is this dramatic oversimplification of any value to anyone else but me? Is it entirely off base in some fundamental way that I have missed?

Aside: I then went on to draw a music analogy with Melody (game), Rhythm (narrative), and Bass (simulation) but I think this was pure lyrical license, and not as fundamentally on the mark as I hope the linguistic analogy I mentioned above might be.

As this post is about an intuitive speculation rather than theory, I may have placed this in the wrong forum. If so, many apologies.

Warm regards,
Evan

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I forgot about this thread! Sorry about the late reply.

Unfortunately, your whole analogy is ... um, how does one put these things. "All wet," my old mentor might have said. It doesn't fly at all.

I'm not talking about the game, which I think is neat. But you're mistaking all sorts of terms for what they don't say or mean. "Overcoming challenges" isn't Gamism, not if by challenge you simply mean fictional adversity. "Advancing the story" isn't Narrativism. "Adding stuff to the picture" isn't Simulationism.

You have a great vehicle for role-playing, there, but the components aren't doing what you suggest their doing.

Best,
Ron

[PlotDevice]

Thanks Ron!

In my usual leave it a week and re-read I ended up with Fun, but terribly misguided. Which is better than incomprehensible. ;)

When I revise I will take out the GNS references explicitly. It was fun to try, but even on brief reread it clearly doesn't do what I thought it might.

I might actually try to make the game mechanics more implicitly try to evoke the actual Step On Up for the verb usage, and so on for the other stats, if I can. As an excersise in comprehension / construction.

Thanks, and warm regards,
Evan

[Ron Edwards]

Heya,

Yes - do work up the game. That's a fine thing. And hey, if you wanna give the theory-stuff a workout, I'm here.

Best,
Ron