Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[Pyske]

You folks haven't seen me around here before.  Hi.

Let's start off with a compliment.  Logan, Ron, I was very impressed with the FAQ.  As a long time RGFA reader, I expected, and attempted, to make a paragraph by paragraph criticism.  I didn't have enough disagreement to support it, which is about the best compliment I can think of.  I thought your version was interesting and useful.

Of course, I did have points of disagreement, and you asked for comments, so here are my suggestions:

1)  Take advantage of the HTML format.  Although you don't want to burden a FAQ with justifactions for every statement, it would be worthwhile to have footnotes or links to discussions where some of your claims are justified.  In particular, why is it more important to follow the rules in a rules-light game?  Similarly, link to an explanation of WHY PCs must impact the game world within Narrativism, and to what extent that can be limited (for example, if the contract is to tell a certain kind of story, can "railroading" be used to enforce that contract).

2)  You may want to set off your examples and conclusions from the main definitions by markers, similar to the section markers in Hero Wars or "... For Dummies" books.  

3)  You will save yourself a lot of repetition of the same objections if you note that your stances model is NOT the same as the RFGA model.  I had a half-page diatribe written on how you had conflated Actor, IC, and Immersion before I got to the following section on IC / OOC, at which point I realized that you actually have a different stance model.  Since this is a "precursor" section, people are expecting that you are establishing groundwork for people who do not already know the terms, and are not expecting the introcuction of new concepts with the same names as concepts they are familiar with.

4)  Nitpick:  "Gamist players play to overcome challenges, solve puzzles, gather stuff, increase character capabilities, and win."  This should end with "_or_ win", and I recommend that you add that emphasis.

5)  "Many Gamist players will happily alter their approach to play if the GM or rules of the game provides a reward for doing that."  I would delete this, or strongly revise.  Many players will alter their approach to play just because you ask them to, and will simply incorporate it into the rules they are playing by.  I think emphasis on playing within the constraints provided could be added here as well (not cheating, spirit of the rules, etc.).

6)  "Many good Gamist players are cagey..."  Again, I would strongly suggest revision.  Something along the lines of "One form of gamist play involves seeking advantage within the precise definitions provided by the rules."  I would then add something about this not being universal, as a hedge against the fact that it is a common prejudice that all Gamists are "rules lawyers."

7)  Nitpick:  "random methods play little to no roll" s/b "role".  (Sorry to be so picky, but FAQs are highly read, and this doesn't get caught by a spell-checker.)

:smile:

9)  Metaplot & railroading:  don't put this in the FAQ, or if anything, move it to current issues.  I second the objections to calling this an (inherently) sim technique.  Also, realize that not everything will fit the model.  For example, I have seen valid arguments for use of "script immunity" in all 3 corners (yes, even sim, but that's a discussion for another time).

10)  You imply that switching styles much occur between games.  This is not my experience, although I agree that I have not seen multiple styles in use at the (exact) same time, I have seen them blended in different aspects of the same game.

11)  System does matter.  However, I think it is poor form to dismiss unaligned games as badly designed.  This is true only if the group desires a given triangle preference.  OTOH, in a mixed group, a centrist game provides greater ease of accomodating ALL of the styles in proportion to their representation among the players, AND the preferences for various game tasks to be resolved using different styles.  I realize this is likely to be controversial, but maybe a thread about it would be worthwhile.

All in all, an excellent first effort, and I hope my comments prove helpful in the revisions.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-23 10:35, Brian Gleichman wrote:
I on the other hand consider nearly the entire definition irrelevant. The characters actions may or may not matter at all, only the 'real' outcome is important.

Yes, this is true.

Further, issues of fairness, verisimilitude, and experience are also besides the point. Life isn't fair, nor are Simulationist games. Verisimilitude is also broken in both life and Simulation (remember the old comment, "Truth is Stranger than fiction"?).

While I agree that fairness and experience are besides the point, for the reason that you stated (i.e., "Life isn't fair."), I think that verisimilitude is what people get from Simulation in practice.  While the goal is to make the setting and situations seem real, in practice the the GM and players are going to be judging whether it is real or not based on the verisimilitude of the setting for them unless the are actually verifying results with outside objective data.  While that's certainly a valid form of simulation, I think there is a pretty broad range of how loose or tight the fidelity to absolute reality needs to be.  

As a specific example, when playing Immersively, it is mainly important that the character (and through extension, the player) believe that the setting is real.  Things outside of the character's experience or needs are not necessarily held to as strict of a standard for believability.  My standard approach to games that I know are going to be Dramatist is to create a character that has a loose connection to the reality of the world.  Flighty impulsive characters with lots of delusions and little engagement in figuring things out can easily miss any problems in a Dramatist game.  It isn't perfect but it is one way to deal with playing in a mismatched style.  From a more distanced perspective than immersive (e.g., third-person IC), the overall reality of the setting is going to matter more.

And a number of Simulationist GM's have comment that they couldn't care less if the players didn't so up at all, let alone have a "unusual experience"

I'd describe it more as not caring if the players wind up being the guys who grab their chest and yell, "I've been hit!"

In simulation, everything must be real. Not the illusion, but the fact. Pre-plots wreck this from the start.

While I agree that pre-plotting wrecks the entire simulationist model, I think that's an artifact of trying to exile railroading from the Narrativist style.  Simulation was a convenient carpet to sweep it under since I'm not convinced that people here really get that style of play.  It would be interesting to see this discussion on r.g.f.a which is where many of the simulationist are.

That said, I think the ideal is that everything be real but, in practice, that's only a problem if someone notices so I think it is more accurate to say that everything must seem real.  I don't think you can really expect more than the GM and players making a best attempt at being realistic.  After all, if no one notices the mistake, it isn't a problem.  So what you are describing is an ideal but I think it works better to describe it as verismilitude.  In other words, so long as it feels real for the players and GM, it is good enough.  This then runs in to a whole complicated issue of emulating dramatic settings and whether the genre rules should be built in to the rules or whether they are too metagame.

Indeed. I have often encountered people on r.g.f.a who are of the mindset that the best simulation can only be had through mechanic-less play since any mechanic method (in their view) comes with faults and abstractions.

I think that the people who define Gamism and Simulationism as rule-heavy link the two through their experience.  I think that what perhaps happens is that when Dramatists/Narrativists free themselves from the rules, they do so by becomming Dramatists or Narrativists.  I think they link the two and find it difficult to imagine someone abandoning a lot of rules without going through what they see as a related switch to a different style of play.  Of course, a failure to address or understand this causes rules-light and Dramatist/Narrativist people to miss the issues involved with trying to recruit people directly into those styles.

I would say that Gamist games give the power to the players by way of the rules.

While I agree that that's the overall effect, I was trying to emphasize that everyone in the game is supposed to play by the rules.  The player in a Gamist game are not free to adjust the game in the way that players in the Narrativist games described at the start of this thread could.  They are obliged to follow the rules.  

Actually, Simulationist games give power to the World. Any power anyone else has is indirect by way of that path.

This is a fine, but important distinction.

Yes.  Much better.  Substitute "world" for "rules" in what I just wrote above and I think that fits.  Of course using that way of looking at it, it is possible to say that Narrativists give power to the collective story.  Hmmm.  That rather brings this full circle with Narrativists being "story-based" (the original r.g.f.a terminology) and Simulationists being "world-based" (the original r.g.f.a terminology).  Calling Gamists "rules-based" doesn't sound entirely correct.  Comments?

I'm beginning to think that the older terminology was more clear and maybe the Threefold should be going back to it.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-23 07:54, Mytholder wrote:
John - if you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at the other threads relating to simulationism and the FAQ (my 'long and bloody' one, & Supplanter's 'towards a sense if not a theory' one? We made a lot of the same comments you did, and I'd like to see your opinion of the results of those comments.

I know you made a lot of the same comments and, frankly, I don't seem them being listened to or addressed.  What I see in the first article in this thread is that the current GNS is an advocacy model for the Narrativist style of play and that the authors don't really care if it models other styles corerctly.  Basically, you can't describe someone else's style if you don't understand it or describe it based on the worst examples.  

What I really think they need to do is stop trying to adapt someone else's model that they clearly don't really understand (*) and come up with their own model without worrying if it has three or four or a billion different vertices.  I think a valid point can be made that Narrativism is different from other styles of Dramatism and that's great.  But the way they are fitting that in to this model is defining Narrativism very narrowly as all of the positive things that they like and then they seem to be sweeping everything that they don't like under the Simulationist and Gamist rugs because they have no other place for it.  That's a recipe for a very bad, very biased model useless for anything but advocating the annointed style of play.  Basically the model gets reduced to an idealistic style of play and then two caricatures.

(*) The reason that I say the original Threefold isn't understood is that this thread starts with a complaint that the r.g.f.a model doesn't recognize the wonders of the Narrativist style of play and Theatrix in particular.  The r.g.f.a Threefold was designed specifically to explain to David Berkman, himself, why other people have no interest in his style of play.  It has clearly failed.  Since the authors clearly can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to play in a Narrativist game (I see a resurrection of the old idea that if you'd just try it or do it right, you'd love it -- David Berkman's frequent and patronizing refrain), they can't really understand the original model since they can't grasp its purpose -- all styles are equally valid. I can't help but think of this as Berkman's Revenge.

[JohnMorrow]

I simply wanted to add that despite my criticism of this GNS model as a Narrativist-advocacy model, it is certainly fair to the critical of the r.g.f.a Threefold as a Simulationist-biased model.  I'm not saying that the r.g.f.a Threefold is perfect.  

[JohnMorrow]

I just had in interesting idea.  How about creating a new vertex called "Bad Role-Playing".  That way, you can have all of the other models and sweep all of the negatives in to "Bad Role-Playingism".  Don't like railroading?  Into the "Bad Role-Playing" category.  It certainly makes more sense than sweeping all of the negatives into a style that you don't understand and, as a side effect, it lets you tell people that they are engaged in "Bad Role-Playingism". :smile:

[greyorm]

the current GNS is an advocacy model for the Narrativist style of play and that the authors don't really care if it models other styles corerctly.

they need to do is stop trying to adapt someone else's model that they clearly don't really understand (*)

I know you made a lot of the same comments and, frankly, I don't seem them being listened to or addressed.  

I'm not convinced that people here really get that style of play.  It would be interesting to see this discussion on r.g.f.a which is where many of the simulationist are.

For someone claiming that you don't see points being addressed or responded to, you apparently haven't read much of what I've said on the issue of pre-plotting and simulationism.  In fact, it seems to me as though you have completely ignored those statements or never read them, or have chosen to disregard them because you perhaps disagree with their conclusions.

Also, I find your broad generalizations of "them" (ie: the writers) and "us" (ie: those who understand) rather insulting, as well as your very, very bold claims that the FAQ writers are just Narrativist advocates who don't really understand the model.
This is not a "them" vs. "us" situation, it is an attempt to explore and develop, and we would all do well to remember that, avoiding drawing lines in the sand.

Villification and broad generalization is not the way to conduct a discussion.  It would be more proper and constructive to say the current FAQ seems to imply these things than to start pointing fingers and developing psychologies for individuals, let alone entire loosely-defined groups.

Thank you.

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-23 13:20 ]

[Logan]

Pyske,
Thank you very much for your comments. Rest assured, the rough spots will be smoothed. :smile:

John,

You make some very interesting points. I want to respond to some of them.

I know you made a lot of the same comments and, frankly, I don't seem them being listened to or addressed.  What I see in the first article in this thread is that the current GNS is an advocacy model for the Narrativist style of play and that the authors don't really care if it models other styles corerctly.  Basically, you can't describe someone else's style if you don't understand it or describe it based on the worst examples.  

Yes, there is a certain amount of Narrativism advocacy. That criticism is fair. No sense denying it or crying about it. That doesn't mean we give less weight to other styles - at least, I hope it doesn;t mean that. I care about the accuracy of the presentation. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to dig through rgfa posts. I wouldn't go out of my way to invite outside commentary or debate. I wouldn't try to negotiate a reworking of terms so that we get a clear, strong model. I want to portray all play styles accurately and with respect. Our presentation is somewhat different from rgfa presentation because we have different goals and a different core audience. Furthermore, just because a series of posts hasn't received a direct response doesn't mean it hasn't been read.

What I really think they need to do is stop trying to adapt someone else's model that they clearly don't really understand (*) and come up with their own model without worrying if it has three or four or a billion different vertices.  I think a valid point can be made that Narrativism is different from other styles of Dramatism and that's great.  But the way they are fitting that in to this model is defining Narrativism very narrowly as all of the positive things that they like and then they seem to be sweeping everything that they don't like under the Simulationist and Gamist rugs because they have no other place for it.  That's a recipe for a very bad, very biased model useless for anything but advocating the annointed style of play.  Basically the model gets reduced to an idealistic style of play and then two caricatures.

The primary reason much of Dramatism has been lumped under Simulationism in our model is because the behaviors are almost identical. The relationship between GM and player are practically the same. Obviously, this area has already received a lot of attention and I will change the presentation in the next draft. The other stuff... Not everyone agrees with you. Some people think we're spot on. Some think we're way off. That's what makes debate so much fun.

(*) The reason that I say the original Threefold isn't understood is that this thread starts with a complaint that the r.g.f.a model doesn't recognize the wonders of the Narrativist style of play and Theatrix in particular.  The r.g.f.a Threefold was designed specifically to explain to David Berkman, himself, why other people have no interest in his style of play.  It has clearly failed.  Since the authors clearly can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to play in a Narrativist game (I see a resurrection of the old idea that if you'd just try it or do it right, you'd love it -- David Berkman's frequent and patronizing refrain), they can't really understand the original model since they can't grasp its purpose -- all styles are equally valid. I can't help but think of this as Berkman's Revenge.

This is the most interesting point of all. When did this come up? Before '95? There's evidence of this assertion in some of what I've read, but no direct link. If you're right and this is somehow "Berkman's Revenge," I'm happy to be part of it.

Best,

Logan

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-23 15:02, Logan wrote:
Yes, there is a certain amount of Narrativism advocacy. That criticism is fair. No sense denying it or crying about it.

It will perminantly poison the ability of this model to be seen as an accurate descriptive model of role-playing styles.  The fact that you don't see the problem that an advocacy model poses suggests that you miss that there simply is no best way to role-play.  

Role-playing is a recreational activity and whatever the players and GM do that is fun for all of the participants is good.  The one valid purpose of a classification model, in my opinion, is to help people that aren't having fun (A) understand why and (B) potentially fix or avoid the problem.  

Your model will be soundly rejected if it suggests that one style is superior to or more evolved than others.  And rightfully so, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean we give less weight to other styles - at least, I hope it doesn;t mean that. I care about the accuracy of the presentation.

It isn't accurate.  The fact that a lot of self-identifying Simulationists and Gamists feel that the model is wrong is strong evidence of that.

If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to dig through rgfa posts. I wouldn't go out of my way to invite outside commentary or debate. I wouldn't try to negotiate a reworking of terms so that we get a clear, strong model. I want to portray all play styles accurately and with respect.

Yet you want to priviledge one style?  If people don't want to self-identify with your labels, that suggests that they aren't sufficiently accurate or respectful.

Our presentation is somewhat different from rgfa presentation because we have different goals and a different core audience.

I believe that I have some idea of what your goals are (though you should feel free to tersely restate them if you want) but what is your audience?  Is it not "everyone"?  If it isn't, then I'd suggest limiting the discussion and release to the desired community.

Furthermore, just because a series of posts hasn't received a direct response doesn't mean it hasn't been read.

It doesn't look like certain problems are being addressed because they seem to be repeated over and over.  You might very well feel that they are not real problems but I'd use the "Where there is smoke, there is fire." measure.  

The primary reason much of Dramatism has been lumped under Simulationism in our model is because the behaviors are almost identical. The relationship between GM and player are practically the same.

I believe you've got a couple of problems.

First, the logical reason to group gaming styles together is because they are in some way compatable.  Simulationism and Dramatism aren't really compatable play styles.  Indeed, the r.g.f.a Threefold started out as an opposition model between just those two styles in the form of "world-based" and "story-based".

Second, it sounds very much like you are trying to combine a model of how decisions are made with respect to player involvement into a system designed to describe why decisions are made.  I don't believe there is any reliable mapping between them and I don't think there is any value in trying to create a mapping.  

I don't dismiss the validity of creating a model to describe how decisions are made in a game in order to make people aware that players can be more involved in the process.  I simply think that trying to define such a model inside of a model designed to describe why decisions are made isn't going to ever work very well.  You are using a hammer to drive screws.  You've started with the wrong tool for the job.

If you want to describe how decisions are made, I think the factors you should focus on are the locus of control (GM, players, and/or both), randomness (decisions outside of human control from totally diced to diceless), and rules (how much everyone appeals to written rules in order to make decisions).  There is no reason to try to adapt the r.g.f.a Threefold since (A) it was designed to do something very different, (B) it contains a lot of baggage that only confuses the model, and (C) it already has a large number of detractors that you are going to inherit.  Why not build a model up from scratch like r.g.f.a did?

Obviously, this area has already received a lot of attention and I will change the presentation in the next draft. The other stuff... Not everyone agrees with you. Some people think we're spot on. Some think we're way off. That's what makes debate so much fun.

Which is fine.  But I think the real test is not whether Narrativists agree with the description of their style written by Narrativists but whether Simulationists agree with the description of their style written by a Narrativist.  If not, you need to wonder if the model is good.  One of the enduring flaws of the Gamist description in the r.g.f.a Threefold, in my opinion, is that most of the Gamists don't like it.  

This is the most interesting point of all. When did this come up? Before '95?

It probably started before '95.  What year was Theatrix released?  David Berkman was active on the Usenet before it was released with playtest copies of the game.  

I believe the discussions started out as a Dice vs. Diceless debate, a discussion of why everyone wouldn't want a good story, and as a discussion of the stances and some earilier models.  Try reading the "Dice and the IC POV" thread that I started and was heavily involved in.  Also look up "story-based" and "world-based" -- the original terms for Dramatism and Simulationism.  The terms "plot" and "realism" were also tossed around a lot.  A lot of it won't be relevant to this discussion but it might give you some background.  

There's evidence of this assertion in some of what I've read, but no direct link. If you're right and this is somehow "Berkman's Revenge," I'm happy to be part of it.

Then you should also be aware that David Berkman's unyielding advocacy of his style of play, and his insistance that people who don't like it keep doing it until they, do made him more of a pariah than a hero -- not because Simulationists and Gamists were rejecting his style because they feared it but because they didn't care for it and he couldn't grasp that.  The situation was less like a person trying to convince a bunch of deluded individuals that he world really is round and more like a person telling someone to eat a food that they don't like because they will learn to like and, besides, it is good for them.  

I don't like brocolli.  I'm not affraid of it.  I simply don't care for it.  And no amount of eating the stuff is going to make me like it and I see no reason to torture myself by eating a food that I don't like.  Similarly, I don't like the style of play advocated by Theatrix.  I'm not affraid of it.  I simply don't care for it.  And no amount of playing that way is going to make me like it and I see no reason to torture myself playing a style of game that I don't like.  It's really that simple.  The r.g.f.a Threefold was designed to explain why.  It seems to have done a horrible job of that.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-23 14:41, Brian Gleichman wrote:
In practice yes, but that isn't their goal. I consider the distinction rather important. I also think the corners must be defined in terms of their goals and not their reality.

I think that if you don't take the practice into account, that people who can't live up to the ideal will be left out.  Dealing with ideals give the impression that the style isn't achievable.

It's also part of the whole "system does matter" mindset which is a major driving force behind G/N/S. Unless corners can be defined by their use of mechanics terms, a major goal of the model is lost.

Actually, I'm starting to see the GNS as an attempt to describe how decisions are made with respect to who is making them while the Threefold is designed to explain why decisions are made and doesn't really concern itself with how they are actually made.  I think that explains a lot of the dissonance.

My point is that I don't want the fact that the rules exist to empower the player to be lost in the exchange. It is by the rule that the players override the GM's plans and it is by the rules that they meet their goals in whatever test of skill that is at hand.

I agree.  I have a gamist streak and I guess that since I assume that this is a given, I didn't see the potential for misunderstanding here.

Skill based.

Yes.  But I think you need a better word to encapsulte that idea of "player skill".  How about "challenge-based"?  I'm way behind on r.g.f.a.  Maybe I'll try to catch up and get involved.  Could you float this terminology there?  Maybe we could put a stake in the heart of the other terminology since it seems to cause so many problems for so many people.  It would also let the GNS have it instead of attempting to maintain the confusing division between what the GNS does with it and the original Threefold.

There are many on r.f.g.a that agree with that.

OK.  Time to get back on r.g.f.a again.  I think I've got enough ideas to reopen the Threefold there.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-06-24 12:29, JohnMorrow wrote:
It isn't accurate.  The fact that a lot of self-identifying Simulationists and Gamists feel that the model is wrong is strong evidence of that.

And a self-identifying Gamist that I know (namely, me) feels that the model is spot-on. I don't see a lot of opposition--I do see one or two antagonists not involved in the two-year-long discussion that led to this model now poking up their heads and arguing.

Our presentation is somewhat different from rgfa presentation because we have different goals and a different core audience.

I believe that I have some idea of what your goals are (though you should feel free to tersely restate them if you want) but what is your audience?  Is it not "everyone"?  If it isn't, then I'd suggest limiting the discussion and release to the desired community.

Christ in a milkshake. The discussion, and the release of the FAQ is limited to one community--www.indie-rpgs.com. We certainly aren't running around on other internet discussion boards and talking it up. In fact, the only times I see it mentioned on rpg.net, the other RPG bulletin board I read, is when someone reads it, disagrees, realizes they can't defend their argument in this environment (because we'll make them back it up), and posts on rpg.net because they know they'll get some "hear, hear" blind support.

First, the logical reason to group gaming styles together is because they are in some way compatable.  Simulationism and Dramatism aren't really compatable play styles.  Indeed, the r.g.f.a Threefold started out as an opposition model between just those two styles in the form of "world-based" and "story-based".

This is not the r.g.f.a. model. Read that over and over. "World-based" and "story-based" are not concerns in this model--they're irrelevant. The GNS model is solely about system. In terms of relationships between GM and player dictated by the system, Dramatism and Simulationism are not very different.

Why not build a model up from scratch like r.g.f.a did?

We did. We spent two years on it. Some of the names are the same because they make sense in an RPG context. The definitions are in no way the same.

But I think the real test is not whether Narrativists agree with the description of their style written by Narrativists but whether Simulationists agree with the description of their style written by a Narrativist.

You'll have to ask the Simulationists. But once again--I'm a Gamist, and I completely agree with the description of Gamists.

To summarize--this model is for a select audience, which is not exclusive, and we'd love you to be a part of, but don't interrupt after two years of work and say, "by the way, I just looked this over and it's garbage." That's less than constructive.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-23 13:04, greyorm wrote:
For someone claiming that you don't see points being addressed or responded to, you apparently haven't read much of what I've said on the issue of pre-plotting and simulationism.  In fact, it seems to me as though you have completely ignored those statements or never read them, or have chosen to disregard them because you perhaps disagree with their conclusions.

I read some and I skimmed some.  I see a lot of the same complaints being recycled and I've seen some of the responses that don't seem to really address the complaint because they miss the point of it.  It is entirely possible that I've skimmed over something important.  If you want to point me to a particular thread and message, please do.  I was primarily responding to what I saw at the top of this post.

Also, I find your broad generalizations of "them" (ie: the writers) and "us" (ie: those who understand) rather insulting, as well as your very, very bold claims that the FAQ writers are just Narrativist advocates who don't really understand the model.

I see a lot of evidence of the original Threefold being misapplied.  I frankly find myself unable to understand why you simply aren't creating a new model from the ground up instead of using part of the Threefold terminology.  That's saddling you both with the potential for great misunderstanding and an artificial limit of shoving everything into three categories.  Again, I was replying to the top of this thread since that seemed to contain some authority.  If it doesn't apply to you, that's great.

This is not a "them" vs. "us" situation, it is an attempt to explore and develop, and we would all do well to remember that, avoiding drawing lines in the sand.

The top article on this thread give the distinct impression that the GNS is an advocacy model.  It very much says "Us vs. Them" to me.  The pop-psychology analysis elsewhere on this board suggesting that Simulationists have some sort of problem giving up control is similarly both laughable and insulting.

Villification and broad generalization is not the way to conduct a discussion.  It would be more proper and constructive to say the current FAQ seems to imply these things than to start pointing fingers and developing psychologies for individuals, let alone entire loosely-defined groups.

No problem.  Can you go back and read my comments in that context and address the other issues, as others have, instead of my clearly imperfect way of expressing them.  I don't believe that the finger-pointing or pop-psychology was important or central to what I was saying.

[Logan]

John,

Theatrix came out in 93. Now you say one purpose of the rgfa model is to discredit that one game and also the Narrativist style of play. As I think about it, it's a closed-minded and pathetic goal. It sends a miserable message, especially since some people most definitely are interested in that style of gaming. All in all, I'm glad you failed.

If there are problems in the expression of our model, we will work on them. That is one reason to have a faq.

I think there's something more to be said about advocacy. I think we advocate roleplaying as a positive activity in all of its forms and styles. I think Gamist games and Simulationist games, and all the games in between are every bit as important and entertaining as Narrativist games. If you're not understanding that, then my message isn't getting across. Fortunately, I can try again.

I will do what I can do, what I think is right to do. Ron will do what Ron does. People will agree and disagree. I've said from the beginning that whatever we do, it simply won't satisfy everyone. At some point, people will simply have to agree to disagree. Until that point, the debate goes on.

Best,

Logan


[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-24 13:08 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi everybody,

This may be of interest to you:

All comments are being read and considered. Because Logan and I are minimally involved in this discussion doesn't mean the posts are being "ignored" or "not addressed."

Also, as I've said before, the current document is a rough draft, and it was not entirely satisfying to ME OR LOGAN when it was made available for comments. This point tends to get overlooked throughout this thread.

One food-for-thought: "about story" is much like "pornography" - it can mean anything or nothing. I am making a distinction between CREATING story (in its strict, Lit 101 form) and EXPERIENCING story (in say, the Call of Cthulhu sense). I know from vast experience that role-players engaged in one of these cannot abide the presence of role-players engaged in the other at the same table. Such a group cannot be effectively GM'd - it's like having two active, intense Gamists at the same table as an immersive/Sim fellow. Therefore I think employing the rhetoric-word "story" as a catch-all is not especially useful.

I should also point out that Theatrix is not, and has never been, a conceptual center for my thinking regarding Narrativism. I consider the paragon game for this style or mode to be Prince Valiant.

Best,
Ron

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-24 12:44, Clinton R Nixon wrote:
And a self-identifying Gamist that I know (namely, me) feels that the model is spot-on. I don't see a lot of opposition--I do see one or two antagonists not involved in the two-year-long discussion that led to this model now poking up their heads and arguing.

Do you have any self-identifying Simulationists or r.g.f.a-definition Gamists agreeing?  If so, could you point me to their comments?

Christ in a milkshake. The discussion, and the release of the FAQ is limited to one community--www.indie-rpgs.com. We certainly aren't running around on other internet discussion boards and talking it up. In fact, the only times I see it mentioned on rpg.net, the other RPG bulletin board I read, is when someone reads it, disagrees, realizes they can't defend their argument in this environment (because we'll make them back it up), and posts on rpg.net because they know they'll get some "hear, hear" blind support.

Do you really believe that the only reason that people won't argue their opinions in this environment is because they can't back them up?  

This is not the r.g.f.a. model. Read that over and over. "World-based" and "story-based" are not concerns in this model--they're irrelevant. The GNS model is solely about system. In terms of relationships between GM and player dictated by the system, Dramatism and Simulationism are not very different.

The r.g.f.a Threefold defines that relationship, too, but from a different angle.  Theatrix has two "innovations" that make it different from traditional role-playing systems.  The first is that it encourages the GM and players to create stories.  That's the "why".  Second, it encourages them to do so collaborately (though it doesn't go as far as some more freeform games do).  That's the "how".  Yes, I can see that the GNS model is all about "how" but it is using terminology it inherited from the Threefold to describe "why".  This is not only confusing (since it creates two incompatible models that use nearly the same terminology) but misleading because it creates a false association between "why" and "how".

Yes, I'm in full agreement that it would be useful to have a model to describe "how".  And I think that using the Threefold form and terminology is only hurting your effort.

If you merge Simulationists and Dramatists into one category, why are you still calling it "Simulationist"?  Is it?  And what does giving players more authority to make decisions have to do with "Narrative" unless you use the very narrow model of Theatrix as the only example?  There are Simulationist (Threefold sense) games that use very light rules systems and give the players a great deal of authority do decide what happens in the setting.  Yet in the GNS sense, that person would be a Narrativist, right?  Don't you see where your terminology could be confusing?

We did. We spent two years on it. Some of the names are the same because they make sense in an RPG context. The definitions are in no way the same.

And I think you are suffering from the same nearsightedness that r.g.f.a suffers from (saying that as a past member of that community that was quite nearsighted, myself).  When you are close to a model, you know what the words mean but other people won't.  If your chosen terminology is misleading, the people who created it won't generally notice it because they know what they mean.  I would argue that the term "simulation" is bad.  It is bad in the Threefold and it is bad here.  It means too many things to too many people to ever be useful.

You'll have to ask the Simulationists. But once again--I'm a Gamist, and I completely agree with the description of Gamists.

Do you have any self-identifying simulationists here?

To summarize--this model is for a select audience, which is not exclusive, and we'd love you to be a part of, but don't interrupt after two years of work and say, "by the way, I just looked this over and it's garbage." That's less than constructive.

I don't believe I've said that it is garbage.  I think that what you are trying to model is valid.  I think that how you are trying to model it is problematic and a big problem is simply (A) the terminology and (B) the fact that I'm not sure you should be limiting yourself to three categories.  

I say that as someone involved in the creation of the r.g.f.a Threefold and someone who has defended it vigorously.  It was and is a useful model for me because I learned a lot from it but it is of limited use to anyone else because the terminology can be misleading and because the terms have complex and subtle meaning that the original people who argued it understand but no one else does.  Having spent time away from r.g.f.a and having tried to explain it to people who aren't in that community, I can see where the problem are.

The r.g.f.a model was original designed for the people in that group to communicate with each other.  It clearly has been applied far beyond that use.  Your model, if it is good, will be used elsewhere.  It makes some sense to be aware of how it might be misused and to attempt to make it as accessible to people not in this community as possible.  The fact that your explodes into problems every time it leaves this group (much as the Threefold explodes outside of r.g.f.a) suggests that you could do better.  My biggest suggestion is to scratch the term "simulation".  It causes the most problems for the Threefold and I think it creates the most problems here.  

My hope, for all of these models, is that they improve communication among role-players, helps people diagnose problems that they are having in their games, and helps people find the style of game that best suits their needs.  This model certainly has a place at that table.  But I think you need to take a step back, as I have tried to to with the Threefold, understand why it isn't working for people, and fix it.  And, of course, you can ignore the people who simply complain about the model because they don't like models.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-24 12:58, Logan wrote:
Theatrix came out in 93. Now you say one purpose of the rgfa model is to discredit that one game and also the Narrativist style of play.

No.  Discredit is wrong.  The purpose was to explain why that one game and the style of play it promotes isn't for everyone.  In other words, it was designed to say that there were other styles of play and to define them.  It focussed on the "why" part of Theatrix (the fact that goal was to create a story based on Syd Field model) and not the "how" part (that the players and GM should both have authority to decide what happens in the game) because the "why" part was a bigger part of Berkman's inability to understand the objections.  The "how" objection was more rooted in the Dice vs. Diceless arguements and the discussion of the Immersive style of play.  I suspect htat if you are relying on the Google archives, you are missing a big part of this discussion.

As I think about it, it's a closed-minded and pathetic goal. It sends a miserable message, especially since some people most definitely are interested in that style of gaming. All in all, I'm glad you failed.

It wasn't the goal.  Actually, the goal was to be open-minded.  Berkman was an evangelist.  He felt that Theatrix was an evolutionary step that everyone should take.  He repeatedly insisted that people try his style and keep trying it until they got it right.  The truth is that many r.g.f.a regulars had experimented with games like that or Theatrix specifically and simply didn't like it.  The explanation of why people role-play (if not to play a part in good stories as Berkman assumed) evolved into the Threefold.  The Threefold is designed to explain "why" people play.  The terminology is designed to describe those goals.

If there are problems in the expression of our model, we will work on them. That is one reason to have a faq.

Has other terminology been discussed?  One thing to remember is that the terminology on r.g.f.a evolved from 'world-based' and 'story-based' to "Simulationism" and "Dramatism".  I was, regretfully, one of the supporters of that move.  Gamism was added later out of a need.  There is actually a fourth axis called "Social" that is rarely mentioned because most Social players don't trouble themselves with reading Internet discussions about role-playing style.

I think there's something more to be said about advocacy. I think we advocate roleplaying as a positive activity in all of its forms and styles. I think Gamist games and Simulationist games, and all the games in between are every bit as important and entertaining as Narrativist games. If you're not understanding that, then my message isn't getting across. Fortunately, I can try again.

I don't think it is and I think the terminology is part of it.  Don't think I'm singling out the GNS for this criticism.  I think that the Threefold suffers from a similar terminology problem and see it much more clealry now that I've been discussing it with people outside of that group.  The goal for picking style names should be to pick names that can't be misunderstood.  That goal is probably too idealistic so I'd suggest at least picking names that are resistent to being misunderstood.  I don't think the present names are.  And I think "simulation" is particularly troublesome because it means too many things to too many people.

Yes, there will always be people who reject models and terminology on principle.   RPG.net is filled with them.  But a lot of problems seem to be people misunderstanding your terminology much as people misunderstand the Threefold's terminology.  I know it is easy to get comfortable with a terminology because it is clear to you what all these things mean.  But I think it might be better to take a step back, define what it is that you are trying to describe, and then take out a dictionary and thesaurus and try to find words or phrases that clearly and with minimal confusion describe those things.

I will do what I can do, what I think is right to do. Ron will do what Ron does. People will agree and disagree. I've said from the beginning that whatever we do, it simply won't satisfy everyone. At some point, people will simply have to agree to disagree. Until that point, the debate goes on.

Fair enough.