My confusion lessens: GNS and Heroquest and my reviews

[cjr533]

I don't really think there is anything that should be done about it. Any attempt by people at this point to go about proseletyzing on the correct definitions of these terms is problematic. I only do it on rare occasions, and have been burned so many times that I really don't care to correct anyone anymore. I think that it'll have to suffice for us to try to keep the definitions straight here where there are standards of dialog that don't allow for as much drift in terminological meaning.

Yes, basically I'm saying it's everyone else's fault but ours. That may seem insular, or elitist or some such, but from the POV of somebody who spends a lot of time trying to get people to understand the correct meanings of these things, it's hard to see it as a matter of dissemination of information. I mean, once you'd taken the time to read the essays, you started to get what it was supposed to be about.

Yes, and i sympathise.  The poinst you mke are the ones which surprised me, and mainly I think those I identified. I had, mainly I think from rpg.net, managed to gain a completely false impression of what G/N/S was about. 

However, there is  away to demonstrate, to evangelise, and to encourage mopre precise usage of those terms, and that si to encourage people to plauy games which demonstrate so beautifully the ideas in question.  And that is easy Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorceror must have reached a substantial gaming population by now surely, and there are many many other games availabe therough the Forge that I am excited to try.

When my review comes out, I will add an addendum, explaining my progress since then in terms of understanding the ideas of RPG theory, in the forum response part.  I am looking forward t it now, but expect it to be very controversial...

cj x

[Ron Edwards]

All of this is good.

But it's time for you to take a break now. Review the threads, post in Actual Play, relax, check out some Ronnies submissions.

Best,
Ron

[Lamorak33]

However, there is  away to demonstrate, to evangelise, and to encourage mopre precise usage of those terms, and that si to encourage people to plauy games which demonstrate so beautifully the ideas in question.  And that is easy Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorceror must have reached a substantial gaming population by now surely, and there are many many other games availabe therough the Forge that I am excited to try.

When my review comes out, I will add an addendum, explaining my progress since then in terms of understanding the ideas of RPG theory, in the forum response part.  I am looking forward t it now, but expect it to be very controversial...

cj x

Hi CJ

Your last post gives the impression that you think Narrativism is the one true way, citing games like Sorcerer and DitV, which SUPPORT narratavism, but are not ARE narrativism. This is not what folk are saying here. What folk say here is that if you understand your players and your own gaming proclivities then that MAY enhance your gaming, and MAY you select a game SYSTEM that SUPPORTS your favoured approach.

As you are the GM you will get to transmit automatically what you want out of a game to your players. They do not need to understand where you are coming from. Show, don't tell - as I was told. And you know it works.I had one of my players tell me the other night, 'you know all that narr shit, the crap those forgies come out with, just aint my idiom.' Guess what? He's been playing narr for  a few months now! I'll tell him one day, but right now we are having a very good game so I think I'll just keep quiet!  :^D

I duck now as I can hear uncle Ron coming with his big boots on!!!

Rob

[Ron Edwards]

You didn't duck fast enough! You take a break too, Mr. Speedy Finger Typist guy.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

I don't see that the thread has been closed, precisely; only that people have been asked to slow down their posts. As I have not yet posted to it, and I perceive that no one has posted to it for over thirty-six hours (if I'm reading the time stamps aright), and I won't be back for a week, and CJ will be gone indefinitely after sometime today, I'm going to pop on with something hopefully useful.

I'm afraid, though, it's another article reference. It's something of my own summaries of much of the theory here, appearing in installments at the respected Australian e-zine Places to Go, People to Be, under the series title Theory 101. The concept of the miniseries is to attempt to introduce a substantial chunk of theory as understood here to a broader audience in something of a primer approach. Two parts are up. The first, System and the Shared Imagined Space, deals with the concepts of system as the social contract rules through which players apportion credibility between them, and covers stance as part of that apportionment of credibility. The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is primarily about referee styles, illusionism, participationism, trailblazing, and bass playing, and the conflict created in role playing by the notion that the referee controls the story while the players control everything the main characters do. I'm awaiting the appearance of the third part, Creative Agenda, which I hope will provide a fair and comprehensible explanation of gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. You can nag them for it, if you're eager.

I hope they're helpful. I'm also told that my Applied Theory article here at the Forge has helped some people grasp the Creative Agenda concepts, as it attempts to suggest ways in which specific design decisions can support each agendum.

--M. J. Young