Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-26 08:28, Logan wrote:
I think somehow you and I speak different languages. I say something that I intend to mean one thing, but that's not what you hear.

Well, that is ultimately the biggest challenge of any Internet discussion.  

Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

Which is fine.  But familiarity and comfort with the existing model should not, itself, be an excuse to resist change.  The measure by which the model should change or not change should be whether the change produces better clarity or accuracy.  While I'm aware that there is quite a bit of subjectivity involved in that, I don't think it should piss anyone off.  See your comments about growing a thick skin, below.

Having been on the other side of this with the .advocacy Threefold (the creating and defending side), I know something about investing a lot of energy into a model and growing attached to it.  I'm simply afraid that you will be making some of the same mistakes that the r.g.f.a Threefold made which I now see more clearly in retrospect.  The r.g.f.a Threefold continues to be mocked and continues to be misunderstood.  I simply hope that your GNS model avoids that fate, though that wish may be too late.

I think you want a revolutionary approach, but we take an evolutionary approach. That is a big source of friction. If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well.

The problem with an evolutionary approach is that the model takes on a life of its own.  I do software development for a living and one of the dangers of the evolutionary prototype model of software development is that the prototype often becomes a replacement for the real thing and the full piece of software never gets written.  By limiting yourself to the r.g.f.a Threefold, at least in part, I think you are stuck on a prototype and it is making your model more difficult to understand.  To focus on one issue, I'd simply suggest a reassessment of the terminology, for each part of the model, something that does need to be done all at once.  Pick words that clearly describe what the aspect of the model describes instead of stuffing complex definitions under a label that may no longer fit.

You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

More likely, I'll try to revise the r.g.f.a Threefold, a model I'm more familiar with.  I've actually been considering that for several months now.  My real hope is that S. John Ross will right an article on the subject.  For all of his bluster and bad manners, he really does have a lot of insight into the inner workings of the hobby.

It's easy to criticize, far more difficult to actually do something.

Do a search on DejaNews/Google for "Morrow" in "rec.games.frp.advocacy".  Let's just say that I was there at the dawn of the Threefold and spent a lot of time discussing that model.

Everyone's a critic, so make sure you've grown a very thick skin.

Been there.  Done that.  Was once the top 8 source of news on the Usenet as an undergrad posting to the original talk. group.  I've been called things that you probably can't even imagine.  I'm way past taking this stuff personally.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-26 12:55, Blake Hutchins wrote:
I prefer to look at the G, N, and S as the vertices of a triangle (kudos to James and Ron for this idea) that represents the possible range of RP gaming behavior and design.

FYI, the triangle with points on it idea was part of the original r.g.f.advocacy Threefold.  The unfortunate thing is that no one seems to think about it that way in practice.

The process versus outcome dichotomy Brian mentions is interesting, but I see it as a behavior watershed that can be found within each "ism." Story-oriented goals aren't necessarily outcome-oriented, in my opinion.

They aren't outcome-oriented in that they insist a certain outcome happen but outcome-oriented in the sense that they insist that certain outcomes don't happen.  "You grab your chest, scream, 'I've been hit!', and fall over dead." isn't story-oriented (99.44% of the time).  I think that would almost universally be considered a bad story, especially if the character never dealt with any of their dramatic hooks.  That's a pefectly acceptable Gamist or Simulationist (r.g.f.a sense) outcomes if the setting situation calls for it.

They are all about conflict resolution and try-fail sequences. If the GM fudges to permit a rigidly predetermined outcome, it's railroading, pure and simple. Railroading isn't confined to Narrativism -- it's not even a necessary component.

Remove the word rigidly.  Still not right?  How about if I rephrase your sentence to, "If the GM fudges to prohibit an unacceptable outcome..."?  Why would a Gamist do that?  Why would a Narrativist?  Why would a Simulationist?

What does seem to be a necessary component of the model is a determination of the relationship dynamic between GM and players for each vertice, i.e., what level of centralized direction comes from the GM versus decentralized direction from the players. Direction versus collaboration might be a more concise way of explaining this dynamic. Another issue certainly is the degree to which the rules affect the direction-collaboration balance.

I think that's a totally different model.  No games technically need a GM and any game can be played collaboratively.  And there are other variables in there.  And neither direction nor collaboration adequately describes what I do when I GM as a Simulationist.  I'd probably call it "facilitation".

Let me explain. In Gamist games, rules should presumeably be fair in order to protect game balance, to ensure players face a challenge measured to their capabilities. In Simulationist games, the rules strive to reflect the reality and credibility (which could be genre-specific) of the game setting. In Narrativist games, the rules aim at encouraging colorful event description and maximizing dramatic tension.

Given those definitions, how is a Dramatist anything but a Narrativist?

One thing that is missing here is the role of the metagame which is fairly important in determining the compatability of games and gamers.  Is the explanation for an outcome inside the game setting or is the explanation outside of the game setting?  If the GM fudges, why are they fudging?

I've thrown out these ideas because I see the argument as having become a comparison between the rgfa model and the GNS model. I agree we need to clarify our definitions, but I like the basic structure of the GNS model. Three poles work for me.

That is essentially the r.g.f.a  Threefold as well. For an excellent Usenet article illustrating the early Threefold thinking on rec.games.frp.advocacy (and possibly the first use of a Triangle to model it), take a look at this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?start=10&hl=en&safe=off&th=a383b6304c35d077,14&rnum=14&ic=1&selm=57ot8k%242sa%40nadine.teleport.com

This article provides a good look under the hood of the r.g.f.a Threefold.  The terminology for the vertices in this article, for example, probably reflect the meaning of the three vertices in the Threefold than the existing terminology.

As I've said, human beings are cognitively wired to think in threes. Subdividing RP behavior and design ideals into more and more boxes seems to add unnecessary complexity to a model that has a lot in it already. In terms of the triangle, I submit we can find any of our behaviors or design goals in that triangle.

Two problems.  

First, the human mind is really wired to think in pairs in opposition.  Big and small.  Tall and short.  High and low. See the r.g.f.a article I pointed to above.  Can you provide any examples of threes?

Second, you can make anything fit into any model if you twist it enough.  But that isn't a good thing.  That's the tail wagging the dog.  The goal should be to have a model that accurately describes what you are trying to describe, not to fill in a fixed number of slots with things that may or may not fit together.  When preservation of the model becomes the purpose of the model, I'd suggest you've become detached from any valid purpose for having the model.

The r.g.f.a Threefold didn't start out as a triangle.  It started out as a single axis between story-based and world-based.  It grew into a triangle because of a need to account for another style of game.

[JohnMorrow]

Another early version of the .advocacy Threefold triangle.  This is the one that more people remember.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=f61038e1a857e3f9,49&start=10&ic=1

[Blake Hutchins]

John,

Thanks for the feedback and links. I am not familiar with the history of the other model. I'll check out your links and get back to the boards here in more detail after I've had a chance to digest things.

A couple of quick points:

"Fudging" is a different issue than railroading, and I submit it does happen in all game styles to one degree to another.

Whether or not a character's instant and unexpected death violates story-oriented games depends utterly on the game. I've had it happen in my games, and it was a great direction for the story. Narrativist games may provide more metagame options for players to alter fortune mechanics to dodge the bullet (so to speak), but they do not, in my opinion, encourage outcome-oriented fudging from GMs more than the other corners of the triangle.

I thought your point about facilitation was an interesting addition to the description of GM-player behaviors. How would you define it? My guess is that it falls somewhere between direction and collaboration in terms of the centralization dynamic.

My understanding is that research on argumentation and rhetoric shows that people respond best in recalling and understanding models and arguments using three components. It's certainly true that in terms of perception, the ability to compare and contrast two qualities seems to be the most basic level of wiring.

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-06-27 13:32 ]

[Damocles]

On 2001-06-26 08:28, Logan wrote:
what you hear. Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

I find that unlikely. In my experience, changes always piss somebody off even if everyone benefits. Human nature and like that.

If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well. You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

I don't like the way this sounds. It seems as if each forum has their own house model which they grow attached to. That's not a productive way to work. I see it like this: All three of these models are seen as valid or at least useful by a number of reasonably smart people. Accordingly, it's reasonable to assume that they are all at least worth discussing.
I should perhaps add that I'm not overly fond of any of the models, although so far Jester's seems the most reasonable to me. For my taste, though, all of them are too much concerned with ideologies instead of behaviours. But that's a different topic I guess.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-27 13:19, Blake Hutchins wrote:
"Fudging" is a different issue than railroading, and I submit it does happen in all game styles to one degree to another.

It can.  And this is where "purity" issues come into play.  I think you can get close to the r.g.f.a Threefold if you categorize why a GM might Fudge.

Whether or not a character's instant and unexpected death violates story-oriented games depends utterly on the game.

I would think that a random meaningless and unsatistfying death would almost always violate the sensibilities of a story-oriented game.  That's what I had in mind.

I thought your point about facilitation was an interesting addition to the description of GM-player behaviors. How would you define it? My guess is that it falls somewhere between direction and collaboration in terms of the centralization dynamic.

It falls past collabortion.  It is when the GM's role is simply the allow the game to happen without asserting any will over it.  An extreme example has the GM acting simply as a rules referee and the moderator of random rolls deciding what happens next.  It is the absence of the GM asserting any will over what happens in the game.

My understanding is that research on argumentation and rhetoric shows that people respond best in recalling and understanding models and arguments using three components.

Fair enough.  My point is that a model should have the number of components that it needs, not an pre-fixed number of components within which everything must be sqeezed.  

[Blake Hutchins]

I think you can get close to the r.g.f.a Threefold if you categorize why a GM might Fudge.

Fair enough.

I would think that a random meaningless and unsatistfying death would almost always violate the sensibilities of a story-oriented game.

I'd think it would violate the sensibilities of any game. If a character is crushed to death by a stone slab minutes into a game because he failed to check for traps or he missed his die roll, I submit that only the most hardened players would find enjoyment in it. Likewise in any Simulationist or Gamist game. In fact, in the case of old school DnD, I'd suggest the resurrection spells were put in place as a workaround to take the sting out of randomized, unsatisfying deaths.

(Facilitation goes beyond) collaboration.  It is when the GM's role is simply the allow the game to happen without asserting any will over it.  An extreme example has the GM acting simply as a rules referee and the moderator of random rolls deciding what happens next.  It is the absence of the GM asserting any will over what happens in the game.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. So (to clarify) you have no story or desire in mind for your games? Do the random rolls require any judgment on your part (i.e., deciding what to roll about, setting the odds, etc.) or do the players make those decisions also?

My point is that a model should have the number of components that it needs, not an pre-fixed number of components within which everything must be sqeezed.  

I agree completely. However, I don't think GNS needs more components. It certainly does not need them for the sake of distinguishing it from a separate, albeit related model. Nor am I convinced that harmonizing it with the r.g.f.a. model is a desireable or even pertinent goal, though the comparisons and history are interesting. Neither would I change terminology purely to distinguish the two. (I don't suggest you've called for such changes, incidentally.)

The crux of the debate over the GNS model revolves around the definition of Simulationism, and we've opened several avenues toward resolving this issue. It may be the term itself will change following a clearer, more commonly acceptable definition, but we'll have to wait for the next iteration of the FAQ.

Best,

Blake

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-27 21:57, Blake Hutchins wrote:
I'd think it would violate the sensibilities of any game. If a character is crushed to death by a stone slab minutes into a game because he failed to check for traps or he missed his die roll, I submit that only the most hardened players would find enjoyment in it.

I'm generally with Brian.  Call me a hardened player if you want but if the situation calls for a dead PC, then there should be a dead PC.  It isn't a matter of enjoying it.  It is a matter of enjoying the alternative even less.

Likewise in any Simulationist or Gamist game. In fact, in the case of old school DnD, I'd suggest the resurrection spells were put in place as a workaround to take the sting out of randomized, unsatisfying deaths.

Yes.  I'm not saying that I want randomized unsatisfying deaths.  It is more a matter that I don't want an absence of randomized unsatisfying deaths.

For whatever it is worth (and I'm not looking for sympathy here because my childhood was quite good), my mother died a randomized, unsatisfying death.  She literally dropped dead in a grocery store from a heart problem while I was in school when she was 39 and I was 6.  Let's just say that she was a woman programmer since the mid-1960s so she had a whole lot of potential (I'm told that they trained her as a programmer because none of the men in her office could do as well as she did on the logic tests).  My point?  Randomized, unsatisfying deaths are very real part of my real world.  I notice when the are totally absent in a game.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. So (to clarify) you have no story or desire in mind for your games? Do the random rolls require any judgment on your part (i.e., deciding what to roll about, setting the odds, etc.) or do the players make those decisions also?

It depends.  I can play in several different modes.  

I do often run with heavy random rolling.  "Is there a weapon store in this town?"  (Roll dice -- a high positive result is shown)  "Yes.  There is actually a very nice weapons store that carries fine and exotic weapons." or something like that.  The point is that I don't care if there is or isn't a weapon store there.  It is interesting either way for me.  Basically, what I do is interpret the dice across the range of possible outcomes and I go with what the dice say.

My definition of Facilitator is partially speculative.  I've never gone to the extreme of totally random roles and allowing player input to have a big influence but I can imagine it happening.  Some of my first role-playing games, without GM, were sort of like that.

I agree completely. However, I don't think GNS needs more components. It certainly does not need them for the sake of distinguishing it from a separate, albeit related model. Nor am I convinced that harmonizing it with the r.g.f.a. model is a desireable or even pertinent goal, though the comparisons and history are interesting. Neither would I change terminology purely to distinguish the two. (I don't suggest you've called for such changes, incidentally.)

I think that the current inclusion of the r.g.f.a Dramatism under the GNS Simulationism is problematic and this problem could potentially be solved by additional categories.  My concern over similarity with the r.g.f.a Threefold is that these models get used in the RPG community and the r.g.f.a Threefold has a several year jumpstart over the GNS.  Misunderstandings, like my own earlier in this thread, are bound to happen and they won't help get this model used or accepted by the RPG community, which should be the goal for a good model.

The crux of the debate over the GNS model revolves around the definition of Simulationism, and we've opened several avenues toward resolving this issue. It may be the term itself will change following a clearer, more commonly acceptable definition, but we'll have to wait for the next iteration of the FAQ.

One thing you might want to look at is the difference between Simulation in the sense of "Simulating a Genre" and Simulation in the sense of "Simulating a self-consistent and plausible world".  These often aren't the same thing.

[greyorm]

Names please.

After all, people coming here could well claim that Forge regulars (John and me) agree with them that G/N/S has major flaws.

I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that there is any degree of complete agreement about the model on RGFA, and I rather suspect there is as much debate there about what fits into what category, and what is which, as there is here.

Thus, to me, to say "Well, RGFA says this" is specious and just looking for trouble since you immediately marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with your presented viewpoint, whether or not they should be.

You will not catch me playing "The folks in this camp here are the One True Followers of the Great Model, and these folks over here are just confused or blasphemous heathens."

Frex, "Bhuddists believe that Bhudda is not divine" ignores that certain large sects of Bhuddism believe Bhudda IS divine.  So if I state the latter and you say real Bhuddists don't believe that, and ask for names, you would be guilty of trying to present your beliefs as God's Own Truth and detractors as unimportant annoyances who refuse to accept canon.

I'm not going to do that.

I am reporting what I have experienced, and that is that a couple RGFA regulars differ in opinion as to what is encompassed by RGFA Simulationism than you do.

If you think I'm trying to claim that all of RGFAdom believes or supports this one view of Simulationism, as someone claiming you two regulars find GNS flawed and thus implying that the supporters of the model find it flawed, you are quite wrong.

Dropping names is unnecessary to support the statement.  Note they agree with your position that system and style do not affect one another.  This simply further supports that even RGFA is not a homogenous mass of Borg-like individuals who all agree on the "proper" interpretation of the model.

For were that so, this would be becomes nothing more than an argument by appeal to authority.

_________________
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 2001-06-28 04:12 ]

[greyorm]

I think it likely that your refusal to name them is due to fear that I'd go ask them to confirm the disagreement which would result in you eating your words.

Amateur psychoanalysm.
Raven don't play that.

_________________
-Raven

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-28 12:08 ]

[greyorm]

Raven also doesn't back up his claims. Hope you don't mind when people discount them as a result.

Brian, this type of response and the psychoanalyism above are uncalled for and unproductive; they are rude tactics and mud-slinging which contribute nothing and responses to which contribute nothing.

If you must mischaracterize others in order to feel "correct," then please feel free to do so...elsewhere.

Your contributions and insights on this subject are valuable, but not so valuable that they excuse or necessitate putting up with an attitude in order to see them.

This behavior is unecessary and adds nothing to the discussion, no matter how right you believe yourself to be.

Thank you; I hope we can continue to have pleasant discussions in the future, as we were prior to this.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-28 03:59, greyorm wrote:
I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that there is any degree of complete agreement about the model on RGFA, and I rather suspect there is as much debate there about what fits into what category, and what is which, as there is here.

There was as much agreement among the "regulars" on r.g.f.a about what the Threefold model was when it was created as there is agreement here on what the GNS model means.  Perhaps more.

Read the early articles that I cited previously in this thread.  The first one contains a post, by a relative lurker named Barbara Robson, abstracting the discussions on r.g.f.a into a pre-Threefold triangle model.  The labels on the corners of that triangle are very important since they contain the understood assumptions behind the development of the entire Threefold.

But, again, you miss the central point which is beyond my or Brian's personal opinion.  The original Threefold developed out of an opposition model between world-based and story-based games where "world-based" became "Simulationist" and "story-based" became Dramatist.  Gamist came later (I'll identify where, below).  Much of the relevant evolution of the model is available for your inspection on Google.  I believe you lectured me on how it was in appropriate to speak as an authority on a subject you haven't adequately researched and reviewed, did you not?

Thus, to me, to say "Well, RGFA says this" is specious and just looking for trouble since you immediately marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with your presented viewpoint, whether or not they should be.

When you spend a half-decade and thousands of posts discussing a model, it is just possible that you might understand it, don't you think?

You will not catch me playing "The folks in this camp here are the One True Followers of the Great Model, and these folks over here are just confused or blasphemous heathens."

Why bother defining the model and writing a FAQ is there can be no one correct interpretation of the model on principle?  You seemed mighty unhappy with my interpretation of the GNS.  On what grounds is your definition better than mine if there is no one correct interpretation?

Frex, "Bhuddists believe that Bhudda is not divine" ignores that certain large sects of Bhuddism believe Bhudda IS divine.

Brian and I are not talking about Bhudda.  That's a nice red herring.  We are talking about a model that we watched developed and that I've used for about a half-decade.  

Frankly, if a couple of regulars from r.g.f.a who don't even have the same style of play can't understand what everyone was talking about after all that time, what kind of fool's errand is the GNS model?   Why bother with a discussion or FAQ if you can never trust that any definition as definitive?

So if I state the latter and you say real Bhuddists don't believe that, and ask for names, you would be guilty of trying to present your beliefs as God's Own Truth and detractors as unimportant annoyances who refuse to accept canon.

Some people believe the world is flat.  Is their viewpoint as valid and relevant as those of us who believe the world is roughly a sphere?  If you believe that all viewpoints are valid, then I simply suggest that you accept Brian and my viewpoint as valid and be done with this.

I'm not going to do that.

Of course you aren't.  That would spoil the whole holier-than-thou tone, wouldn't it?

I am reporting what I have experienced, and that is that a couple RGFA regulars differ in opinion as to what is encompassed by RGFA Simulationism than you do.

And those r.g.f.a regulars are?  

Dropping names is unnecessary to support the statement.  

No, it is very relevant.  If someone quoted myself or Brian with respect to the GNS model simply because we have contributed here, would you consider their interpretation of the GNS using Brian and myself as support to be as valid as your own interpreation?  I'm really struggling to understand how, on the one hand you can be claiming that no one can claim to have a definitive definition of a model but on the other hand claim that someone else's interpretation is wrong.

Would you mind if Brian and I drafted a FAQ for the GNS model and then put it up on the web with the claim that it is a valid interpretation of the model and as legitimate as the one being worked on here?  Sure you would.

Note they agree with your position that system and style do not affect one another.  This simply further supports that even RGFA is not a homogenous mass of Borg-like individuals who all agree on the "proper" interpretation of the model.

Actually, I disagree with Brian on this point but that is hardly the point being argued here.  It is irrelevant with respect to what the corners of the r.g.f.a Threefold means.

For were that so, this would be becomes nothing more than an argument by appeal to authority.

Whatever.

[JohnMorrow]

FYI, the first mention of Gamist that I could find (and I believe it is the first) in a thread titled 'Definition of Simulation (was Re: Proposal to retire the term "IC")'.  The title of the thread as well as the discussion contained in it (which considers "gamism" to be a variation of "simulation") are relevant.

[greyorm]

But, again, you miss the central point which is beyond my or Brian's personal opinion.  The original Threefold developed out of an opposition model...

Er, how does what I'm saying miss that point?  Since I'm not addressing it in any sense?  

I'm saying, "Hey, look, these other RGFA guys disagree with you about this 'a simulation must be realistic' bit, since one can simulate genre."
Where the two bits came from has nothing to do with this point in the least.

I'm also not dropping names because discussion with one of the individuals revealed a serious, serious dislike of of Brian (FYI, this conversation took place last month, before I'd really interacted with Brian).  Actually, it was more like undying hatred and disgust.

Knowing this, and naming him, will likely bring nothing more than heated flamage or insult from Brian as he attacks the individual rather than the idea.

The individual is a regular (or former regular, not certain which) who was around when the model was first created and helped in its development, or so I was lectured.
I have no reason to distrust him on this, and we're certainly not friends, though you would have reason to distrust because it's problematic for you to have someone you can't tear down personally playing counter-point.

In fact, I know RGFA doesn't completely agree on what the model represents, and I know that your narrow view of Simulationism is not the end-all, be-all of the RGFA model, despite your fervent claims to the contrary.

When you spend a half-decade and thousands of posts discussing a model, it is just possible that you might understand it, don't you think?

You might want to ask yourself that in regards to the GNS model and Ron's understanding of it before you go ahead and start tearing his model apart...but wait, you can't do that since it means your arguments are invalid by that criteria, since Ron has spent two+ years and who knows how many posts and time developing GNS.

But hey, he's wrong about his model despite that, but you're right about yours because of it.  Interesting.

Brian and I are not talking about Bhudda.  That's a nice red herring.  We are talking about a model that we watched developed and that I've used for about a half-decade.

Oh give me a break...this is BS.  This is the red herring.

The Bhudda > divine/not example is called an "analogy."  Look up the term in the dictionary, please; if you don't get it, don't lecture me that "We're not talking about Bhudda" as though I'm trying to turn this into a conversation about religion or somehow make the point into something else.

The point is as above, you are trying to state that "this is the way the model works" as though it were the true way to interpret the model, and I pointed out "not everyone on RGFA agrees with that."

As well, as far I've been made aware, Brian has publically stated that he disagrees with the RGA threefold (at least the Gamism bit, which I know for a fact), and that he thinks Ron's version and the GO version are both "whacked."
Knowing this, he may not be the best person to use to support your contention that you and he know the model intimately and can prove what it really means, since Brian's version of Gamism isn't universally supported by RGFA (and it shows there are still divisive splits in what the RGFA model represents to the members of that group, exactly as I pointed out).

Some people believe the world is flat.  

And you talk about red herrings...the shape of the world is scientifically provable, and it is an object, not a concept or idea...the model is an idea and subject more to the whims of subjectivism than the shape of the world is subject to the same.

When you make an analogy, it should be similar to the thing you are comparing it to.

Of course you aren't.  That would spoil the whole holier-than-thou tone, wouldn't it?
...
Whatever.

Since you got here, you've been nothing more than an attack dog with polite vocabulary and a talent for hiding personal jibes and insinuations in the content of your posts while attempting to pass it off as constructive criticism.

I say if we're all so "holier-than-thou", perhaps you should just take yourself out of here instead of trolling.  No use arguing with fanatics, after all.

And you might want to check yourself and Brian for the same derogatory tone, because it is definitely there.

I can stand so much, but this is it.  It is obvious that you have an attitude, a negative pre-set notion about folks here that you are unwilling to change, which colors all your interactions with people here, and one which you take any chance to present or rub in people's faces!

And that's the real annoyance.
You're like a raving atheist on a Christian discussion group, intent on proving how evil the Christians are because they've done so many horrible things and are so stupid and confused that they can't see the massive flaws with their own religion and with being sheep, etc. etc. etc.

You're treating anyone with a different opinion as a raving, unthinking fundamentalist, and publically stating it, repeatedly.
Seriously, go away.  No group needs an individual with this kind of attitude hanging about.  I don't care if you think this just proves you right about "us" or even just me.

Well, now I see why I was originally thinking to myself, "I'm not going to get involved."  Thanks, but no thanks, I don't need the aggravation of digging for diamonds in a sewer.

Like I said, if we're all so damn holier-than-thou, you're a fool for trying to convert us.

Thanks and good night.
(Sorry about this everyone else, but this is really the last straw for me in this whole continuing "brainwashed cultist" thing...I'm out of here)

[Supplanter]

FYI, the first mention of Gamist that I could find (and I believe it is the first) in a thread titled 'Definition of Simulation (was Re: Proposal to retire the term "IC")'. The title of the thread as well as the discussion contained in it (which considers "gamism" to be a variation of "simulation") are relevant.

That was me! I hated those damned simulationists, and I simply didn't understand what they were driving at. Looking back on it, I and other defenders of story-oriented gaming on rgfa spent much time and energy trying to prove that rgfa simulationism essentially didn't exist as an esthetic, that it did not amount to a coherent body of principles and preferences.

This interesting in light of a principle Ron elucidated a couple of days ago, and John's point in the other thread about the "two types" of games discussed under simulationism in GNS. Ron says "story-oriented" is too broad a term because there are people like him who love distributed-direction story-oriented games (narrativism) hate concentrated direction story-oriented games (non-narrativist dramatism) so they can't be the same thing. It is obvious that there are people who love strict rgfa simulationist games who hate non-narrativist dramatist games. If the rgfa simulationists did not hate story values and rgfa dramatists not consider rgfa simulationist games pointless, they wouldn't have bothered to create a model that sets the types in opposition in the first place. So by Ron's own principle, non-narrativist dramatism and rgfa simulation don't go together.

Best,


Jim


[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-06-29 08:04 ]