Frank's summary of the Big Model

[Frank Tarcikowski]

For what it's worth, I once wrote a brief summary of what Tony called the "Ron Edwards stuff" for a German RPG board. Of course, this is filtered through my own perception. Here's a quick translation:

What are the main points of Forge Theory?

Role-playing is a social activity
RPGs are played by people because they want to have fun. Therefore, any sensible analysis of role-playing must start with the players as real persons, and not with the characters as fictional persons. The whole context of social interaction between the players has been called "Social Contract".

Role-playing is creating fiction together
The participants of an RPG are creating imaginary events through play. To do that, the pictures in everyone's head of what happens need to match to a good degree. These matching pictures have been called the "Shared Imagined Space".

The Shared Imagined Space is created through negotiation
The players' interaction at the gaming table is directed toward including certain situations or events into the Shared Imagined Space. The back and forth thus developing is best understood as a process of negotiation. Only if all players at least tacitly agree to a new piece of fictional content can play continue on that basis. This simile has been called the ,,Lumpley Principle".

System does matter
"System" has been used to describe the rules by which the negotiation process is organized. These rules may be written or implicit. In some groups, they deter massively from what is laid down in the game text. Therefore, if someone tells you that system doesn't matter, she is referring to the rules in the game text, and she is saying so because her group is not playing much by those rules anyway. The actual rules they play by are mainly their own, and they do matter indeed. These actual rules greatly influence two equally important things:

1) The fictional content shaping the Shared Imagined Space.
2) How players act at the table to create said content.

There is role-playing, and then there is role-playing
The way how people role-play (see the above points) may vary widely from group to group. That's because different people have different priorities in playing RPGs. You get the best chance for a gaming group to be fun on a sustained basis when all players in that group follow the same or similar priorities when playing together. This has been called the Shared Creative Agenda.

Attention: Creative Agenda is the full picture! It is recognized when watching a group play for a longer instance, with special attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other. That's not to say that any action by a player at any time during play needs to fit a scheme or something.

The following three general categories of Creative Agenda have been identified in the GNS model:

1) Gamism: The players accept the challenges of the Shared Imagined Space, taking risks and showing performance (as players) and reaching or missing a certain goal. Sometimes all players may work together to a goal, sometimes they may compete.

Attention: Gamism is not the same as "Powergaming", which represents a sub-species.

2) Narrativism: The players engage in the moral and human issues of the Shared Imagined Space, taking a position (as players) and thereby making a statement about their characters/the game world/themselves.

Attention: This is not what is commonly called ,,Storytelling" or ,,Cinematic". If functional (= fun), both is usually considered:

3) Simulationism: The players experience the Shared Imagined Space as something worthwhile for it's own sake, something which they do not fully control because it follows it's own laws. Experiencing the Shared Imagined Space and contributing to it is part of any role-playing, but in this mode, it's the top priority.

Attention: Complex ,,realistic" rules are only one style of Simulationist role-playing. More frequently, you'll find features like style, atmosphere, acting, or dramaturgy. 


So, that's what I have gathered. Ask a different person, you'll get a slightly different account.

[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:

Attention: This is not what is commonly called ,,Storytelling" or ,,Cinematic". If functional (= fun), both is usually considered:

What does it mean?

Thanks!
+ Mikael

[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]

Hi Troy,

Thank you! To answer your question: Introducing people to the Big Model means focusing on the basic points and the big picture. An abstract definition of Techniques and Ephemera makes sense only if you are going to discuss specific Techniques and Ephemera. Same goes for the elements of Exploration. But that's not introduction any more, that's advance theory. I don't usually try to explain advance theory to people in abstract, and neither do I claim or aspire to be an expert. In terms of introduction, I think the "System does matter" paragraph above is perfectly sufficient.

When discussing specific aspects of game design or actual play, I may bring up the concept of Stances or IIEE or what have you. But I rarely use those terms, rather just paraphrasing the concepts themselves. If the people I talk to are interested in the Big Model, I may explain things in context. But usually that's not necessary for applying those concepts in a useful way. If I read an actual play report where there is, say, confusion about IIEE, I can point out the problem and suggest a solution in simple non-jargon terms. There is no need for the others to even ever have heard of the Big Model.
   
- Frank

[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]

For what it's worth, I once wrote a brief summary of what Tony called the "Ron Edwards stuff" for a German RPG board. Of course, this is filtered through my own perception. Here's a quick translation:

[...]

So, that's what I have gathered. Ask a different person, you'll get a slightly different account.

Very good. Mind if I translate it in italian and spread around?