a Radical Notion

[Valamir]

I know I'm not the first to come up with this idea, but let me be the first to start a thread on it.

GNS:  Chuck it.  Chuck the whole blasted thing.  Why?  Ask yourself "where is the value added?"

I'll tell you where the value added is.  Its in the "N".  ITS IN THE "N"!!!.

And there's a whole lot of value to that N.  There is a whole glorious, revolutionary, tantalizing, wondrous way of roleplaying in that N.  I'd venture to say there isn't another resource on the whole bloody internet that knows as much about that N as the people of Hephaestus's Forge.

But you know what the Forge has actually become?  A huge waste of intellectual resources.  Think of the brain power and gaming knowledge that exists here.  Think of that power directed at exploring and developing the "N" and whatever might lie beyond.  Who knows what might be uncovered!

Instead what do we have...for every 1 post in the Sorceror or Actual Play or Design forum on the "N", there's a dozen posts argueing about the G or the S.  What a waste.

And I know, I contributed alot to a couple of those threads...even initiated a few.  You know why?  Because the "S" is broken.  The "S" is broken and the "G" likely is too, except its so vaguely defined its hard to even discuss it.

So scrap 'em!  Just acknowledge that the G and the S are not the Forge's areas of expertise.  Just recognize that there are people out there who know more about the G and the S than the caretakers of the Forge have even begun to realize exists.  Admit that the Forge will never be "the" (or even "a") authority on the G or on the S.  

So why waste resources on it?

Stick to what you know, is what I'm saying.  There's no one on the web that knows more about the N than the Forge.  Concentrate on that and leave the G and the S to someone else to mess with.

The Turkus have a site dedicated to the totally extreme totally immersive style they like.  If you don't want to play that way, go somewhere else.  This is the web, there's always somewhere else.

What the Forge needs is not a FAQ about GNS it needs a FAQ about N.

"Here is N, here is what it means to play N.  Here is why we like to play N.  Here are the tools that will enable you to play N too, come and share your N experiences with us".

Thats what the Forge needs.

All the rest is just detracting from where the real value lies.

[Gordon C. Landis]

The Forge for "N" only?  I guess I'd still be visting - seems like there's a lot of stuff to cover even just within "N".

But I'm interested in more than just "N", and I'm interested in discussing more than just "N" in the same intellectual-but-fun manner as folks here on the Forge usually discuss things.

So I'd rather things just stayed as they are, with GNS attempting to cover the whole RPG world (or at least most of it).  It may be doomed to fail, it may occassionally lead to flames leaping about, but . . . I still like it, and find it valuable.

Just my NSHO,

Gordon C. Landis

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ralph, Gordon,

I'm personally far more interested in issues of group managment and actual play than I am in G/N/S cosmology stuff, but that being said, I don't think you can just focus on N. The Turkuists refer to other play styles in their manifesto, and define their goals in relation to those styles.

And as far as group management is concerned, G/N/S is important to an understanding of player psychology. I don't think there's such a thing as a game group with perfectly uniform player objectives. A GM needs an understanding of player psychology to anticipate how that psychology will interact with his expectations and his event management, and how it will manifest in player use of the nuances of the game system.

Paul

[Supplanter]

I think what Val is saying, and he is, IMHO, right, is not that nobody who hangs on the Forge is interested in G or S. Sheer politeness is keeping him from being as clear as he might be. When he says "people on the Forge know a lot about N" he means that the authors of the model and FAQ, specifically Ron and Logan, to name names, know a lot about N. And that their enthusiasm for N keeps their model from providing genuine understanding of other kinds of games. I doubt he means that non-narrativists should bug out: rather that confirmed narrativists not try to carry the burden of authority on styles of play with which they are so out of sympathy that it compromises their critical acumen.

(I must be in the Cult of Val now!)

The difficulty of the relationship of a site devoted to "independent rpg" design, marketing and play to a particular theory of play style and game design is one that will, at some point, not be possible to finesse. Supporting the development and proliferation of independent role-playing games is a fine goal. Developing a universal theory of roleplaying is a fine goal. Advocating a particular movement in design is a fine goal. But they are not the same goal. They are even mutually incompatible at the extremes. Is an indie rpg an rpg that is creator-owned and creator-vended or is it an rpg that is a) creator-owned and creator-vended, AND b) designed in accordance with one particular model?

Best,


Jim

[Gordon C. Landis]

I just don't understand why so many people think that the fact that Ron and Logan and whoever really like Narrativist stuff is such a big deal.  By the evidence I've seen in the Simulationist debate here, that doesn't prevent them from listening to what those who don't like N have to say about the GNS model.  That model was/is initially less well-developed in the non-N areas, 'cause they were more concerned about how to NOT do those other things than how to do them well, but as those who want to see S and/or G done well chime in, the model responds.  I'm actually pleased with how well it has responded to the S-pushing it has gotten recently, and look forward to the day when some G-pushing enriches it.

Maybe something will show up that causes it to break - Scarlet Jester over on GO makes some good points about how it seems each of G and N and S are defined under different . . . scopes, in terms of goals vs. techniques.  But -

Heck, I really just wanted to say "I don't see the big deal others are seeing here."  I should just leave it at that, before I wander off on more tangents.

Gordon C. Landis

[Supplanter]

That model was/is initially less well-developed in the non-N areas, 'cause they were more concerned about how to NOT do those other things than how to do them well, but as those who want to see S and/or G done well chime in, the model responds.

And you see what material change in Logan and Ron's thinking as a result of the criticism?

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

My thinking... You will see significant changes when the time is right. Ron's thinking is Ron's thinking. Considering the second draft is still on my desk and I'm the only one who knows what changes have been made thus far, I think all this talk is premature.

As far as GNS is concerned, my goal is to present its current state without bias, to refine its definitions to a point where it's clear, and to increase its accuracy as much as possible for the benefit of our core audience. That would be the people who have read what we have to say and find something that resonates.

The people who are really unhappy will continue to be unhappy. Sad but true. I see no point to alienating the people who are happy just to satisfy the unhappy people.

I am glad that we have some opposing views. It has exposed some problems and allowed us to address them. However, people should not expect that we will just junk the model at the drop of a hat. The model had supporters and critics before the faq was published. It will have supporters and critics after the faq is published. If Ron decides to completely rewrite his model, that's his decision. If another model magically appears, it will be a separate, independent model, and GNS will continue unmolested.

As far as Jester's comments go, if he has something he wants to say, he can e-mail me or he can bring his short, fat, red ass over here, log himself in, and tell us.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-28 10:08 ]

[Mytholder]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm content to wait until the next version of the FAQ before talking any more about the GNS take on the dramatism/simulationism problem/horribly maiming car crash. I'm going to continue to refer to non-narrativist story-oriented play as "dramatist" for the moment, though.

I don't think dropping the whole GNS thing is worth it. Indie games, which don't have to worry about market share and appealing to as wide a cross-section of gamer as possible, are free to concentrate more on "extreme" styles of gaming, which the GNS model attempts to identify and define. It's a tool which indie game designers can probably take more advantage of than "industry" designers.

That said...there should probably be a quota of three actual-productive-gaming posts to one arsey theoretical GNS mumbo-jumbo post.... :smile:


[ This Message was edited by: Mytholder on 2001-06-28 11:53 ]

[Supplanter]

The people who are really unhappy will continue to be unhappy. Sad but true. I see no point to alienating the people who are happy just to satisfy the unhappy people.

I'm curious. Who would be angry if, to take a particular suggestion that has been floated, you kept the model as is but called "simulationism" something else?

Let's make it a poll.

1) Who would like to declare that they would feel betrayed, alienated, hurt, what-have-you if Ron and Logan rename the 'S' apex of their model something else. How mad would you be, and what would you do about it? Boycott the Forge? Boycott Ron's and Logan's games? Spread anti-Ron and Logan invective on gaming boards across the web? Start a splinter group and propound the virtues of the "true" model on a website of your own?

2) Who would feel betrayed, alienated, hurt, disillusioned or otherwise unpleasant if Ron and Logan kept the name "simulationism" but dropped the claim that drama-based decisions were compatible with it, another common suggestion? Again, please state how bad it would make you feel and what you would do?

If the decision is to be based on the emotions of the audience, let's gauge them.

Best,


Jim

[Le Joueur]

I'm a little late, but here goes anyway.

I guess what has been said about "N" may or may not be true.  I see the issues about relative accuracy of "G" or "S," but lacking experience can hardly make any statement on them.  But what I think is being missed is not about "N"ness or "G"ness or anything.  It is "GNS"ness.

A model like this is not about perfectly describing any one part.  It is not the "N" model and the "G" model and the "S" model, it is the "GNS" model.  There is strength in the concert that cannot be supported by soloists.

I am okay with a model that has one facet pegged (who am I to say), but when you toss the other two legs, however rickety they are, the stool falls over.  I say leave it how it sits (though I hardly think that needs to be said, by itself, but it lacks something without the rest of my statement as much as my statement lacks something without it; if you understand).

Just trying for perspective,
Fang Langford

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-28 17:57, Supplanter wrote:
If the decision is to be based on the emotions of the audience, let's gauge them.

I took the point of Logan's post to be that the decisions are NOT based on emotions (e.g., "I hate that what rgfa calls D is S here"), but rather will be based on remaining consistent with what's gone before until and unless it is demonstrated to be completely unuseable/inaccurate.

So, I think the questions are moot - but if they weren't, my answers would be that those decisions themselves would have no impact on me, emotionally or behaviorally.  The only way they'd effect me is if they made the model/discussion less useful/valuable to me.

And now I think I'll wait for the FAQ v2 - someone (Mythholder?) recommended 3 non-GNS posts for every GNS-related one, and I am WAY out of proportion there :wink:

Gordon C. Landis

[Supplanter]

I thank you for answering the poll. I'd still like to hear from anyone who would feel bad in the circumstances I outlined in my earlier message. And Gordon, there is a question pending for you on GO that I'd love to hear your answer to as well.

I took the point of Logan's post to be that the decisions are NOT based on emotions (e.g., "I hate that what rgfa calls D is S here"), but rather will be based on remaining consistent with what's gone before until and unless it is demonstrated to be completely unuseable/inaccurate.

What a curious reading. Firstly, Logan said that he did not want to make changes that would make people unhappy who were now happy. Secondly, on the other thread, he said that changes would be evolutionary "to avoid pissing people off." I don't think those were the only references to the emotional stakes he sees at issue, but they are the ones that I've had the time to check up on. For the life of me, I can't see how one can read "I see no point to alienating the people who are happy just to satisfy the unhappy people" as other than basing his concerns on the presumed emotions of the audience on both sides of any proposed change. It doesn't say, "I see no point in compromising the accuracy of the model (for the sake of currently unhappy people)." He says, "I see no point in alienating (my emphasis) the people who are happy..."

What's more, I haven't seen "I hate that what rgfa calls D is S here." I've seen a lot of "It's a big mistake to call D 'S' for these reasons." If anything, your puzzling take on Logan's message reverses the actual source of overt emotional appeals in this discussion.

Best,


Jim

[greyorm]

1) Who would like to declare that they would feel betrayed, alienated, hurt, what-have-you if Ron and Logan rename the 'S' apex of their model something else.

I'd be bothered in-as-much as I see no particularly compelling reason to change the name (note: I do not consider that 'some people find the term to be too heavily connotated' to be compelling, since there are apparently an equal number who do not consider it so).

2) Who would feel betrayed, alienated, hurt, disillusioned or otherwise unpleasant if Ron and Logan kept the name "simulationism" but dropped the claim that drama-based decisions were compatible with it, another common suggestion?

Alientated?  Come on...

I'd ask for suitable, solid evidence that "drama-based" decisions should not be part of the model, or at least not part of Simulationism before I accepted such a change.  Thus far that has not occured (yes, arguments have been made, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, I have serious problems with the premises of those arguments).

It fits fine for me where it is, and I completely understand what it is listed in the category it is in, so I'd be adverse to removing them simply to satisfy a minority of protesters (who seem to be asking this model to simply be a rewrite of the RGFA model, along the lines they prefer).

That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.

[greyorm]

A model like this is not about perfectly describing any one part.  It is not the "N" model and the "G" model and the "S" model, it is the "GNS" model.  There is strength in the concert that cannot be supported by soloists.

And a good point you make, Fang.

I am okay with a model that has one facet pegged (who am I to say), but when you toss the other two legs, however rickety they are, the stool falls over.  I say leave it how it sits

Indeed.  Peg one facet, then work on the other two, or the next one.  Seems to be the best way to work things out without having to rewrite everything from the ground up whenever there's a quibble.

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-28 19:35, Supplanter wrote:
. . . I outlined in my earlier message. And Gordon, there is a question pending for you on GO that I'd love to hear your answer to as well.

Can you be a bit more specific?  In a private msg is fine - I'm remembering to check for those lately - but I'm just not sure wht you're referring to.

What a curious reading. Firstly, Logan said that he did not want to make changes that would make people unhappy who were now happy.

I took that to be about NOT leting emotional upset make the decision - continue on the course that, after all, a fair number of folks seem comfortable with.

Secondly, on the other thread, he said that changes would be evolutionary "to avoid pissing people off." I don't think those were the only references to the emotional stakes he sees at issue, but they are the ones that I've had the time to check up on.

I confess, my comments are related entirely to the post in this thread.

He says, "I see no point in alienating (my emphasis) the people who are happy..."

Different interpretations of a word here - for me, alienating was the key - it's not about emotion, it's about avoiding unproductive disruption.

What's more, I haven't seen "I hate that what rgfa calls D is S here." I've seen a lot of "It's a big mistake to call D 'S' for these reasons." If anything, your puzzling take on Logan's message reverses the actual source of overt emotional appeals in this discussion.

OK, it's very hard to judge emotion in postings, but I in general see more "charge" on the issue from the  . . . critics? than from the proponents.  Maybe that's just 'cause this IS the GNS "home", after all, and proponents have the ease of "home field advantage".

Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from.

Gordon C. Landis

(. . . and now I REALLY need to post something non-GNS realted . . . maybe over in Actual Play, when I get home tonight?)