Frank's summary of the Big Model

[Frank Tarcikowski]

[Ron Edwards]

This post made it onto the forum by accident; Frank intended to post it on some other board. He asked me to delete it.

However, it's so good that I decided to keep it and place it into this forum.

Let's look at that last sentence: "someone else will give you a slightly different account." You know what? If they do, regarding anything substantive about the basic points, they're wrong. Because what Frank says is totally accurate.

Where people vary in their accounts - given that they understand what they're talking about in the first place - is typically a matter of who's asking the questions they're answering. Different people need different angles of attack, because what's totally obvious to one person, and should be used as the foundation for the answer to the tricky part, is another person's tricky part which needs a different starting point for them. That's why all dialogue about these issues must be rooted in accounts of actual play.

There's also the issue of people sounding off about the ideas who really should be keeping their mouths shut. I can name a few guilty parties quite easily, some of whom are much like C students who fail to graduate, then run around telling everyone outside the university how This And That Really Are. Fortunately this has become rarer in the last couple of years.

Best, Ron

[xenopulse]

Bannig gode tosamenfaten, Frank

In other words, yes, that's a good summary.  As this is in site discussion, let me propose to make some sort of sticky out of it.

[Mikael]

Hey, this is good! I want to use it with my group to spark some discussion.

To make it ready for publication, I can change "deter" to "differ", but this one I cannot open up on my own:

	Logged

Playing Dogs over Skype? See everybody's rolls live with the browser-independent Remote Dogs Roller - mirrors: US, FIN

[M. J. Young]

There's also the issue of people sounding off about the ideas who really should be keeping their mouths shut. I can name a few guilty parties quite easily, some of whom are much like C students who fail to graduate, then run around telling everyone outside the university how This And That Really Are.

Comments like this are always a bit unnerving.

After all, this implies that there are those who do know what they're talking about who are getting the word out correctly, but there are also those who only think they know what they're talking about who are misstating things grossly.

But to say that again in a more useful way, those who are misstating things think they are stating them correctly.

This in turn means that if you think you know you're presenting it correctly, you might yet be mistaken.

Ron, I realize that it would be awkward to embarrass people by stating publicly that they don't get it, but do you contact such people privately to let them know you feel you have been misrepresented? I'm pretty confident that I've got it right, at least (Vincent read through my Theory 101 series before it went to Places to Go, People to Be, and although it took a long time for all three entries to be published, he was happy with it at the time), but if these comments unnerve me, I'm sure they unnerve a lot of people who think they get it but can't be sure--particularly those who have not had the pleasure of meeting you in person.

Thanks.

--M. J. Young

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Hi there!

Wow, this is a pretty impressive confirmation of my own feeling that I have "got it" by now. Thanks Ron! Not bad for a first post, eh? ;-)

Please note that this text, "The Forge in a Nutshell" originally, was written in German with a lot of thought, but translated quickly and carelessly for posting at The RPG Site. For example, "attention" is a clumsy literal translation of German "Achtung". "Note" would have been much more organic. Also, I did not care to do any formatting. If this thing were to become a source of some kind here at the Forge, I would certainly want to work over it first.

Mikael, the bit you quoted is to say that "Storytelling" or "Cinematic" usually refers to a Simulationist mode of play, if that mode is supported my a Shared Creative Agenda. It's only Sim if it's fun (to the participants). If there is no fun, there is no Shared Creative Agenda.

- Frank

[Andrew Cooper]

I second the motion to sticky this thread.  (Like it really matters that I second it. :-)  This is one of the best condensations of The Big Model I've seen and I'd love to be able to reference it quickly when I need to.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Nice post, Frank.  That's the best summation of the Big Model I've ever seen.  One thing I'd like to ask you about is how you have explained Techniques and Ephemera to people you've introduced Forge Theory to.  How have you shown them how those things relate to the larger boxes of SIS and System?

Peace,

-Troy

[Frank Tarcikowski]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

M.J., you asked:

do you contact such people privately to let them know you feel you have been misrepresented?

No, I don't. I am not concerned with the internet as a community outside of the Forge and a very limited number of other sites, and I don't think it's my place, or useful, to run around wiping other people's noses for them.

For instance - a number of people, most recently Andreas (Settembrini) here at the Forge, constantly bitch about how people "from" the Forge go around telling others about the ideas here. Maybe some of them explain the ideas very well and encounter entrenched resistance based on subcultural defensiveness. Maybe some of them do so very poorly and encounter reasonable resistance against silly notions. I don't follow which is which, and I don't care. My response to all such complaining is that on any site which purports to be a "forum" (in the technical sense of the word), participation should be moderated to be rigorous, well-referenced, and intellectually productive. If someone throws around terms as a cheap pseudo-intellectual club, they should be stopped; or if they can back up the terms with sensible explanations and references, then they should be acknowledged and the ideas integrated into further discussions. If that isn't happening as a matter of course, then the site is trash from the start, and nothing about the details, i.e. accuracy of presentation, matters anyway.

I mentioned the issue of people shootin' off their mouths with Forge-ic terms not because I regard it as an insult or a problem to be stamped out by me in any way, but rather because it illustrates the point I was making about variation in explanations. One source of the variation is valid and to be respected (i.e. the context of the explainee); and another is invalid to the point of not being a variant at all, but rather intellectual flotsam.

Again, though, the latter phenomenon is now rarer. I suspect the main reason is that posing as an anti-Forgie or "not really" a Forgie despite utilizing the principles and publishing innovations developed here, now garners more ego-boosting in internet terms than posing as an insider-Forgie. In the long run, although the basically adolescent motivations remain the same between the two, I see that transition as a positive development. It means that the principles and innovations are really getting out there into the world, even if a number of people are putting on little "not me" hats even as they use them. It matters more to me that the principles and innovations are put into practice, regardless of the hats.

Best, Ron

[Filip Luszczyk]

Frank,

If you don't mind I'll translate it into Polish and post on Indie Explosion! forum.

[Filip Luszczyk]

And while I'm at it, what's the origin of "Lumpley Principle" term? Am I correct that it comes from Vincent Baker's nick, or maybe it is the other way around or something?

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Hi Filip,

No objections to a Polish translation, please go ahead! And yes, the "Lumpley Principle" is named after Vincent Baker, who first came up with it on the Forge. At least legend has it that way.

- Frank

[Filip Luszczyk]

So I thought, but I was wondering if my translation was correct.

For those who can read Polish, here it is.

[Gugliandalf]