Forge vocab one more time

[Eric J.]

Very interesting.  I don't feel competant to do a word, but my job category included "dictionary editor," so I would be willing to help in any way I could.

[Kester Pelagius]

Having only recently stumbled upon this thread I thought I'd try to answer some questions while posing one.  That question being:  Is this the sort of entry (it's cyclopedic) which you had in mind Pale Fire?


The GNS Theory

As outlined by Ron Edwards in his essay, "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory", a essential underlying premise native to basic role-playing methodology that refers specifically to the styles of actual play.  Per the GNS model these styles of play are trefold and defined as follows:

Gamism (Gamist):  That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players.  Per Mr. Edwards this approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Simulationism (Simulationist):  That style of game play typified by the assumption of predefined roles for the purposes of in-game exploration of roles, sometimes in the pursuit of set objectives.  Mr. Edwards defines this objective as being focused upon "Exploration as the priority of play" in relation to "the internal logic and experiential consistency" of the game world being explored.

Narrativism (Dramatist): That style of role-playing in which story telling takes precedence over all other aspects of game play.  This method of role-playing is plainly described by Mr. Edwards as being "expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme" and as set within one of the classic milieus of the literary genre.  (IE:  Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy, etcetera.)  However, being a game, the basic principles of the Pulp genre seem to also be a necessary integer of the formulae.  Thus there is usually some form of conflict and conflict resolution involved in the story telling process, of which the players are often directly made a part.[/list:u]

    Mr. Edwards original article may be accessed in full

here.  Articles pertaining to this trefold model of role-playing can also be found here "Styles of Roleplaying" while other related articles may be found here "Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice" and... This is just a beginning, more links can be added once located.

Sample entry provided by:  Kester Pelagius




Creating an entry like the above can be rather simple.  1st step is to identify the word/concept to be defined.  2nd step is to locate the originating source and paraphrase using your own words.  Which, of course, does require one to know what sort of terms The Forge dictionary/encyclopedia should have.   I chose the obvious. :)

So I second (or is it third?) the motion for the creation of a master lists of terms which need definitions created for them.  Until then let me know how you would like me to reformat the above.  Did I leave anything out?  Are there better links available?


Kind Regards.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Chris, I think the first posting pretty much explained what I was thinking of. It has to be a short definition followed by references and comments. The problem with the GNS eassay is that it's hard to grasp. There are numerous posts explaining things in detail. It would be great not only to have the definition but also links to places where it is defined and elaborated on, so you don't need to have people explaining the same thing over and over again.

[Kester Pelagius]

Chris, I think the first posting pretty much explained what I was thinking of. It has to be a short definition followed by references and comments. The problem with the GNS eassay is that it's hard to grasp. There are numerous posts explaining things in detail. It would be great not only to have the definition but also links to places where it is defined and elaborated on, so you don't need to have people explaining the same thing over and over again.

True.

From what I read it sounded like you were wanting a master glossary with dictionary/cyclopedia references containing pointers to articles.  (I didn't really think about linking to posts.  Sorry.)  Sounds like what you really want is a master file with hyperlinks to all the pertiennt information extant within this site?

Hmm.

If all you want is hyperlinks wouldn't it be easier to set up a dynamic boolean search installed to allow visitors to search the entire site for specific terms, catch phrases, etcetera which provides up-to-date links?
Or something?


Otherwise, if my initial write up wasn't too bad, what you're saying is it would need to have way more links to practical information?  Point taken.  Problem is if said information could be easily found there wouldn't be much need for such a glossary.  Too, what one person may consider practical another might not.

It is a interesting dilemma.

[Le Joueur]

If all you want is hyperlinks wouldn't it be easier to set up a dynamic boolean search installed to allow visitors to search the entire site for specific terms, catch phrases, etcetera which provides up-to-date links?

There is a search installed, the problem with using it for a glossary, and I think I'm not alone on this one, is that it brings up too much chaff with the wheat.  The idea, I thought, was to write a crisp definition and follow it with links to the postings that elaborate on it (and not the arguments that obscure it).

That way, when someone seems to be getting it wrong, you can link to the glossay saying, "Oh, I meant this...."  The trick, socially speaking, is to keep it from seeming like, "You're wrong, only the Forge Glossary holds the true meaning."  The glossary sounds like a tool of consensus, sorta "Here's how we've agreed to speak" kinda thing.

Personally (time available), I'm really pumped to get this going.  Walt's all but agreed to hand out the assignments; all we need is site moderator authorization and software direction.

Come on, let's get this going before the embers die again!

Fang Langford

[Emily Care]

Gamist (alternative names: G)
First defined by: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Originally appeared in: frp.advocacy FAQ
Basic definition:
fjeifie ije fiejwfojieijfoiewjf oie oi
fiejfew oijfoiejfoie owjfiejoeij fejoiewj wfew  
Reference articles and threads:
The GNS Essay
Another Thread
A third thread
Other comments:
Pale Fire: I think yada yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda
                 yadda yadda yadda
Box12398: Or you could also say yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda
                 yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda

Going back to Chris' original format seems best.  

Forgive the above attribution if it's incorrect; did it arise on another forum before Advocacy? But quoting Chris brought up an issue for me.  A lot of these definitions predate the Forge. Ron formulated Narrativism, but G/D/S, the stances and so on came from online conversations back in the mid-90's. It makes sense for us to give credit where possible. For those unfamiliar, here is John Kim's frp.advocacy FAQ. And the Threefold Model (G/D/S). For historical curiosity.


The definitions in the glossary, of course, are what have found consensus here on the Forge, so it may be more appropriate to quote current sources, and simply give credit to those who went before.  

Or we can skip the "originated with" credit altogether? I'm not fond of that, though it may be more practical.

--Emily Care

[Christoffer Lernö]

Emily, when I wrote "First defined by" I was thinking mostly that this would be Forge members. That would mean that the person credited could be contacted at the Forge for further discussion and so on.

We could maybe changed that to "Suggested by" and only provide the attribution if it's a) well established and b) is a forge member willing to have her/his name there. That would fill the same role.

[Emily Care]

We could maybe changed that to "Suggested by" and only provide the attribution if it's a) well established and b) is a forge member willing to have her/his name there. That would fill the same role.

Sounds good.

"Suggested by" will help remind us that all of the definitions are works in progress, open to input by all, rather than the Word of Go--I mean, Ron.

:)
--Emily Care

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings,


So, from what I've been reading, I am not certain what peoples thoughts are about the actual sample entry I posted.  So let me expand:

It took a little under 15 minutes to compile, not including the search for the links.  All this talk about avoiding arguments talking "about" the information in a negative way is fine and dandy, point well taken even, but it really doesn't tell me much one way or the other.  Just point me to the pertinent information and a cyclopedic entry will follow.

Of course, you know us tempermental authors...

Should I invest another 15 minutes to flesh the entry out and make it a proper cyclopedic entry?

Or should I just wander off into the dark forest and find a nice barrow mound to sleep in?

[Emily Care]

Don't go burying yourself yet, young master. I'm sure the silence regarding the content of your definition is quite a positive thing. If anyone had problems with it, you'd have been corrected, politely but firmly already, I am sure.

Anyway, the issue with your entry is form, not content. (And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected.

Gamism (Gamist):  That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players.  [T]his approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Could be followed by:

Suggested by: Ron Edwards
Source/First Appeared in:"GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory" by Ron Edwards
Reference Articles and Threads:
GNS Essay
"Styles of Roleplaying"
"Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice"
More links here.
Other Comments:
etc.

--Emily Care who hangs her head in shame for not noticing that Kester had already referenced the Three-fold Model....

[Kester Pelagius]

Don't go burying yourself yet, young master. I'm sure the silence regarding the content of your definition is quite a positive thing. If anyone had problems with it, you'd have been corrected, politely but firmly already, I am sure.

Anyway, the issue with your entry is form, not content. (And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected.

Gamism (Gamist):  That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players.  [T]his approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Could be followed by:

Suggested by: Ron Edwards
Source/First Appeared in:"GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory" by Ron Edwards
Reference Articles and Threads:
GNS Essay
"Styles of Roleplaying"
"Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice"
More links here.
Other Comments:
etc.

--Emily Care who hangs her head in shame for not noticing that Kester had already referenced the Three-fold Model....

Yeah, sorry about that.  I put all my references at the end.

Now the problem with the above, as I see it:

If I left my entry "as is" that would be fine.  But, as I said, I really did that up in about 15 minutes.  I would like to expand it into a proper cyclopedic entry, with references hyperlinked of course, but to do so under this format would literally mean I'd be tripling the size of the entry.

Then again, I'd also be using non-Forge originating material, which I do not think defeats Pale Fire's original intent.  But to properly define what I chose-- lucky me, eh? ;)-- this is almost required.

Still your points are well taken.  Will consider them while working on the entry, thanks much.

(laughing)  Anything to distract me from the frustrating mess Crypt Fiends Revenge has become.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I would like to expand it into a proper cyclopedic entry....

Encyclopedic references don't seem to be the consensus intent here. A handy index of past discussions on the subject is more the Forge style.

The problem with an encyclopedic reference is that it assumes an authoritative stance on the subject. There is no authority on GNS; Ron's opinion (as originator of the theory) is given substantial weight, but can be, and often is, gainsaid. Many other common Forge terms are in a similar state. To provide a complete definition of all the common terms would be to circumscribe discussion in exactly the way that many of us would like to avoid.

[Marco]

I think these terms have to be hard and fast and iron clad. Without having defnitive terms all discussions willl disolve into semantic arguments.

Also:
1. The entries should avoid regular language whenever possible. Just as story-oriented is stricken, so should be "creation of story."

2. Some hard-core terms are generally misleading (Simulationist which doesn't pertain to the simulation of anything ... Dramatist about which no one can truly agree). In these cases the disagreement or confusing nature of the language needs to be simply noted.

3. This will prevent certain types of discussions--but that's happening now. Can I "Create story" without narrativist gaming? Is an adventure about "Assault on Mt. Everest" 'railroading' because the plot moves up and down? All of these questions can be answered without debate by the encyclopedia--and should be.


My answers would be:
a) Yes--because in the general sense story is created by any act of play. In the specific sense, no--but that's using a non-standard intuitive definition of 'story' that I'd like to see removed from the lexicon.

b) No--railroading is a term for a kind of "dysfunction." A linear, imutable plot is not railroading if no one involved dislikes it.

-Marco

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings,

Going over what Emily Care, Seth L. Blumberg, and Marco had to say in recent posts I have one comment.  There's a lot of great brainstorming going on here!

Let me just preface my comments by saying my idea for an cyclopedia entry is really something apart from this, but which could be used in conjunction with it.  That and I wanted to find out what sort of direction this was going to go.  Too, I saw so many posts requesting info about GNS that, well, uh....

In relation to Pale Fire's original suggestion, sounds like what we are (ultimately) aiming at is something which will allow input by members of The Forge and provide an output that perhaps looks something like this in a master database/list (?):


{{}}

The GNS Theory (Threefold Model)

First Outlined by: Ron Edwards
Originated in: a online essay @ The Forge
Basic Definition: GNS, acronym for "Gamist Narrativist Simulationist", a titular given the model of gaming theory describing what has been identified as three basic "styles" of role-playing.
Primary Reference Articles and Threads:
Ron Edward's GNS Essay
The Forge's GNS Discussion Forum
"Styles of Roleplaying"
"Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice"

Comments:

{{}}


I shortened the field descriptors.  If this is going to be embedded the shorter the field for the hard coded text the better.  Also I put in bold text and color (green for URLs) where I thought color would be warranted, though the latter may be more difficult to code in.  (A way around that might be to allow the board's native codes to be usable in the database, though the end result might not be uniform if everyone decides to use their own colors for different things.  I've seen this one happen in ancient of days, in the Land of BBS.)  Of course the actual end result will reside in the nimble fingers of the coders.  Also I put spaces between the header and the "Comments:" section, though I am not sure the latter is really necessary.

Of course that is assuming the local coding wizards in residence decide to code something like this.  In ancient of days it would require fossil drivers to allow access to the door, but I imagine it should be much easier to implement now.  Right?

On the other hand a list could probably be compiled by hand in the meantime.  [entering bad English accent mode] Pale Fire, old boy, I do believe that, as the instigator of this fine program that the wonderful joy of editing would fall into your hands. Eh, wot.  Kipper? Toasted scone?[/exiting bad English accent mode]

(Looking at expression on Pale Fire's face.)

(Rolling against my "Run Like a Frightened English School Girl" Skill.  ;) )


Kind and Humorous Regards,

Kester Pelagius.

[Christoffer Lernö]

I'm a little confused here by the entries you wrote up Kester.

What I was thinking of was a cgi style program with two main functions:

1. Search for terms in a database to get the current definition(s) and links to relevant documents (possibly off-site) as well as forge forum postings relating to it.

2. Allow input of new terms, adding new links and revising the old, editing definitions and so on.

This program would either be written by someone (I could even volunteer to do so if Clinton or someone tells me what I could write it in. Since my language of choice is Java and I've done a lot of jsp, I'd prefer that. Pearl is acceptable but my code is a mess (although it gets the work done). Other types I'd pretty much have to read up on) or we could use some prewritten thing.

What I'm currently waiting for is Clinton or Ron to decide what software they want to run this thing on.

Editing and writing up definitions of terms is kind of uninteresting to me before we have a program working. I can accept the role of making sure everyone has something to write and nag if they don't finish it, but first there has to be that cgi program.

Ok, so sure, we could put a forum which is only definitions and stuff, but that is hideously impractical for someone who wants to look up more than one definition. I'd say make a program for it.

But as I said: I'm still waiting for the admins to decide what they want...