About terminology

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This post is directed mainly to Ralph and to MK Snyder, who have recently voiced an uncompromising criticism over the terms I've adopted or introduced. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that "Narrativism" (for instance) isn't suited to its definition as I've proposed, and that seeing that very word simply "pops" an inappropriate interpretation into a reader's mind, creating a cloud in front of his or her understanding of my definition. The same applies, based on previous discussions, to things like the names of the Stances or to Currency or ... well, to anything, really.

My response? No. No, and no again.

Why? Because this phenomenon is endemic to any discourse whatsoever. There are no "perfect terms" that simply create understanding in the absence of the reader (a) continuing to read the definition and (b) thinking critically about it. I expect the reader to do (a) and (b) - if he or she doesn't, then bam - they instantly get encouraged to do so. If they don't, then that's it ... no more attention; that reader has not entered the zone of discourse no matter how much bandwidth they occupy.

Ralph and MK have definitely taken the time to do (a) and (b). That's good, it's great, it means we can have all sorts of discourse about the internal logic or issues surrounding my and their ideas. But their criticism about the terms, which to my reading states that other people should be exempt from (a) and (b), has no impact on me at all.

So does this mean that "any" term will do? No. Well-chosen terms can help an argument, certainly. Any terms-creator is doing his or her best, at the time of writing. However, since no terms can themselves be explanatory, therefore readings can turn into mis-readings very quickly - and will do so, in the absence of (a) and (b).

For instance, you'll note it's called NarratIVism, not "Narration" or "Narrationism." Narrative means conflict + resolution yielding theme; narration means to talk or to describe. I chose the term pretty carefully for this reason, which is to say, there was some logic at work when I chose them. However, a certain fraction of readers of my ideas don't distinguish between the IVE and the ATE and assume that Narrativism = talking (i.e. Drama mechanics). I recognize this as a necessary limitation of the process of communicating, which means I do correct this mis-usage and I don't get bent out of shape about it.

Ralph and MK, that's my take on it. You're free to disagree, and so on, but I'm not going to be sympathetic to the idea that the terms are manifestly ill-chosen because a certain number of people aren't troubling themselves to do (a) and (b).

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ. The purpose of an essay like your GNS document is to communicate ideas to others. It's not a set of personal notes in which you express your ideas in terms that you yourself will understand. Your requirement of A and B on the side of the readers is a cop out. All it really means is that people can't learn GNS from the essay... they have to come here and have it explained to them.

Critical thinking can't ocurr until the reader understands the message. By using non-obvious terms, you've just made it harder for an outsider to get to the point where the essay is useful. People come in here all the time under the misapprehension that they understand the message. Their discussions fail miserably. The threads generally turn into the regulars trying to clarify the terminology for the newbies. This is a bad, bad, bad thing, because it means the people from other groups (RPG-Create and RPG.NET frex) who don't have the time or inclination to come here and put in the time required to figure out what you actually mean have a completely off the wall idea of what you're all about.

The problem is that many of the terms you use have common meanings that have absolutely nothing to do with the way you use them in your essay. It would be one thing if the terms were slightly tweaked to achieve more precise meaning. But you define your terms to mean things that they don't mean! The most extremely unfortunate example that come to mind is Simulationism.

GNS bears a striking resemblance to Musashi's Art of Five Rings: lots of great content, encoded so that it's practically impossible for a reader to grok it without instruction.

Note that these areguments aren't just theoretical either. I experienced it first hand when *I* was first learning GNS, and I've seen *soooo* many GNS flamewars in which the people simply didn't know what you were talking about. I remember trying to explain your use of "Exploration" to Bradd Szoyne once. His response was something like "That's even worse than I thought! Exploration doesn't mean that at all!"

If this post comes across as being a bit strong, that's because it is. I'm a huge fan of GNS. It's incredibly useful and thought-provoking. I think it's a shame that we have to spend so much time explaining "What Ron Meant" (read "What Ron Should Have Said") to people. If only they could understand "What Ron Meant" simply by examining the essay. Much time could be saved, and many flames averted.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

Best,
Ron

[Alan]

I, like many people, have had to work to understand Ron's GNS model.

However, I have to support his assertion that terms are non-obvious.  Vocabulary only covers areas that have been explored; when you explore a new area, or make more distinctions in an old one, you have to assign new meaning to words.

Hence, unless you invent a new word, a term always has the baggage of the old meaning as well as the new.

- Alan

[Le Joueur]

Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

True enough, but some terms have less connotative baggage.  In fact, Latin is often used to alleviate much of this problem.

But I have a final point to make: this is not academic discourse.  Depending on people to think critically and so forth works fine in an academic venue, which this isn't.  Confusion reigns, but has anyone ever gotten confused about my Sine Qua Non Technique?  Not really, they have to go look it up (in the Scattershot forum, hint hint), there really isn't any connotative basis.

I understand where you're coming from Ron, that's probably why you weren't impressed enough to add me to your list of detractors.  But let me put the discussion in a completely different perspective.  You frequently say, it "has no impact on me at all."  I argue that it does.  This very post is that impact.  Every time you are compelled to respond like this is "impact" on you.  I know you are unassailable in your ivory tower, but you can't say it has no "impact" on you when you have to go through this again and again.  You have, if I remember correctly, stated that you wish you could 'get past' this and really get into discussion of the details and implications.  Well, that ain't gonna happen.

That's the "impact."

I think there's value in considering the Gemism, Nemism, and Semism renaming concept.  You've never addressed the difference in using terms chosen carefully to eliminate potential connotation and all this repetition.  What I'm saying is, 'sure all terms are non-obvious, but how about some that aren't connotative?'

I'm sure there are some historic reasons to 'stay the course,' but all that means is that eventually a new theory will have to take GNS' place.  I've tried to do that with the Scattershot model and let's not forget the SGR.  Heck there's no reason one of our other members, who believes strongly in the concepts of the GNS couldn't simply take all the definitions, slap nonsense terms on them, and introduce a competing theory lacking all the baggage.  Which would be better?  New terminology or plagiarism?

Because there's no escaping this "impact."

Fang Langford

p. s. I've gotten just a little to tired of the 'ivory tower' response (in repetition).

[Valamir]

I know.  You've taken this stance before.  Just don't expect me to stop bringing it up...cuz, to be direct about it, I think you're wrong.

The problem is not learning the GNS definitions.  The problem is unlearning the existing definitions that we already know and THEN learning the GNS definitions.  That's why I suggested to MK that substituting nonsense words into the article makes it easier to understand.  I'm sorry, but it does.  Putting Semism in the article instead of Simulationism makes a WORLD of difference.   It saves all of that back and forth "that's not what simulation means" stuff that we went through ad naseum a year and a half ago and periodically are forced to revisit.

In order to understand GNS you have to get past things like "Simulation" doesn't mean here the same thing that it means to the rest of the world.  The vast majority of gamers already know what the word simulation means and it doesn't mean what GNS says it means.  Its a word with an existing defintion.  So someone reading the article, sees the word and says "oh, ok, I know what that word means...and aha, I see where Ron is wrong".  Of course they think its wrong because your definition conflicts with theirs.

That's why Exploration is a better term.  Sure it has an existing definition, but people aren't likely to really think you're talking about literally slashing through a jungle with a machete so they're better able to fit the unique GNS definition into their lexicon.

While I absolutely see and recognize the definition between Narrative and Narration...I also think its splitting things way to fine to expect the typical reader to make that distinction.  

I just fail to see the value in intentionally and willfully setting up a conflict.  Of knowingly embracing a situation that increases confusion.  I certainly do think that there is and should be a learning curve, and that in the main we want people to have to wrestle with the ideas before concluding that they "know the theory" because that enhances understanding.  But I think there is a difference between wrestling with an idea because the concept is complex and wrestling with an idea because the terminology is an obstacle.

[J B Bell]

I was confused (though probably not as badly as some) by GNS initially.  It opened my mind in many ways, and like many new converts who felt many years of unsatisfactory or even painful gaming were explained by it, I became somewhat overzealous.  And my impressions were corrected by instruction here on the Forge, as well as experience.

I want to make it clear that I don't want to weigh in on "Ron's side."  I am wanting to directly challenge the idea that, as Fang said, "this is not academic discourse."

Creating academic discourse around role-playing games, and to some extent, gaming generally, is precisely one of Ron's, and the Forge's, major contributions to the hobby.  GNS, and many, many of the other theoretical discussions on here (not least of all yours, Fang--though your texts do have a much more casual tone, they are heavy going for me), require serious work to understand because they describe things with far more precision than normally seen in discussions of gaming.

What makes the Forge not an ivory tower is that the creators of the abstruse theories in discussion here are willing to explain them.  It's no more an ivory tower than, say, the many Linux development communities out there.  (I'd say it's a lot friendlier than most.)

It can certainly be argued whether Ron found the best terms to use in his GNS theorizing.  But his basic point that there is not going to be any terminology that doesn't require a pretty similar amount of work, and susceptible to similar levels of misunderstanding, is pretty solid, IMO.  I'd actually be pretty supportive of a Latin terminology, for that matter, but you can bet that would increase the perception that we're an ivory tower over here tenfold.

--JB

[Le Joueur]

I want to make it clear that I don't want to weigh in on "Ron's side."  I am wanting to directly challenge the idea that, as Fang said, "this is not academic discourse."

Ron is the one implying that it requires that kind of attention.  I pose that that requirement enhances the 'ivory tower' sensation.  I was going to go farther into this until I read:

not least of all yours, Fang--though your texts do have a much more casual tone, they are heavy going for me

"Heavy going" and "willing to explain" should describe an intellectual, but not academic, discussion.  Intelligent discourse is grand, but I go out of my way to either link terminology or explain it; not something I see occurring in what I've called academic discourse.  I'm saying it's okay to be 'a lot to swallow,' but shouldn't we make it 'easier to explain?'  (Which gets away from academia, I think.)

Fang Langford

[Gordon C. Landis]

Just a quick thought -

There's very little to be gained by disagreeing over the "right" underlying principles of terminolgy.  If someone thinks GNS (or Stance, or DFK, or whatever) would work better with other terms, they can (and should) go ahead and write up a full description of what they want to use, and why.

Seems to me, that's only way anything practical will result from this conversation.  Ron has stated why he's going to stick with his terms, and rather than trying to get him to change his mind, someone who wants different terms should just (as Fang has done) write 'em up and see if anyone is willing to use 'em.  I've no doubt that if there's a well reasoned discussion about why Shared Authoring is a better term than Narrativism for exactly the same thing, Ron will read.

Seems to me that specific examples and discussions that find a better way have a better chance of achieving the desired result.

All terms are non-obvious.  All possible terms are NOT equal.  I think everyone will agree on those two pronciples.  Fine, demonstrate that a particular alternate term works and is somehow "better" than the current one - sufficiently so that it's worth replacing what really is several years of experience with the old terms.  I'm sure it can be done, but I gotta admit, it won't be easy.  And it's worth acknowledging - it'd be a lot of work, work that's entirely unneccesary for those who understand the current terms.  
Not quite as quick as I thought, but . . . there you have it.

Gordon

[Christoffer Lernö]

If there is a possibility, like Ralph seem to indicate, that some re-labeling of the theory would simplify understanding (and remembering?) terms then I would like vote in favour of that.

My main problem is that a lot of terms are so similar that they really float together. I have to look really careful if someone is writing narrativist narration or narrative... it's even more tricky when they are used in compunds.

In addition it's tempting to describe mechanics where the player gets to narrate things in director stance as "narrativist mechanics" or similar. Am I the only one who has this problem - accidentally inventing terms that might mean something completely different within the GNS framework?

[Christoffer Lernö]

Very good point Gordon.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Ron,

I feel your pain.

That said I have Draft 3 of my "encyclopeida" entry hammered out-- Draft 2?  Oh, that went into the bin and I started over-- it's a bit longish but if you like I can post it here?

[joke]
Or, I suppose, could email it to you *alone* so that you get the joy of intense migrane confusion?
[/joke]

Unless everyone *else* would rather be spared my *expanded* encyclopedia article.  In which case I could just weed through my links and pop into the Resource library and add every single link to a role-playing glossary I have.

Whatever you folks want.  I mean this is a democracy... ?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Le Joueur]

Whatever you folks want.  I mean this is a democracy... ?

Actually, no.  The GNS is not a group idea nor is it democratically voted upon.  It is Ron's model and his alone.  Despite that fact this is quickly turning into a ragging fest about all the problems we've had over the GNS and explaining it.  Perhaps we need to change directions; anybody want to suggest alternatives that don't require Ron to change his model?

Fang Langford

p. s. This may question the whole framework of having (only) a GNS Model Discussion forum providing that it is not a Forge entity, nor a group effort.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Le Joueur,

Nice day here.  Hope it is warm and clear skies where you are at, too.

Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

True enough, but some terms have less connotative baggage.  In fact, Latin is often used to alleviate much of this problem.

But I have a final point to make: this is not academic discourse.  Depending on people to think critically and so forth works fine in an academic venue, which this isn't.  Confusion reigns, but has anyone ever gotten confused about my Sine Qua Non Technique?  Not really, they have to go look it up (in the Scattershot forum, hint hint), there really isn't any connotative basis.

I think I agree here, partially.

While one can't assume that others will approach an arguement, any arguement, from the same stand point as they themselves intend a discussion to begin from there is something to be said for making use of extant terms in a manner that is familiar.

However, pop into the Resource area, find the link to "Game Theory Net", visit it.  Somehow I do not think that what most might think of when they see the words "game" and "theory" paired together will be what is outlined there.

Is it invalid?

Hardly.

Is there a difference between common and uncommon application of extant terminlology.

[3 Stooges voice]
Why, certainly.
[/3 Stooges voice]

However the pertinent question to ask is whether or not Ron lets the reader know up front that he is not using common terminology, or is at least using commong terminology in a unfamiliar way.

If memory serves he did.

Or did you, Ron?  I recall something about an attempt to create a new lexicon, to me that would qualify... unless I am *misinterpreting*...

See, Ron is right here, we can ask him.  Whether or not he hurls lightning bolts down upon us from his white citadel or sage words, well, that's a different kettle of chili altogether.

(opening insulated umbrella)


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Whatever you folks want.  I mean this is a democracy... ?

Actually, no.  The GNS is not a group idea nor is it democratically voted upon.  It is Ron's model and his alone.  Despite that fact this is quickly turning into a ragging fest about all the problems we've had over the GNS and explaining it.  Perhaps we need to change directions; anybody want to suggest alternatives that don't require Ron to change his model?

Fang Langford

p. s. This may question the whole framework of having (only) a GNS Model Discussion forum providing that it is not a Forge entity, nor a group effort.

I beg to differ.

In fact I *can* link to at least one other "Threefold Model" so while the "GNS Theory" essays are Ron's, the underlying principles themselves are not wholly his.  And if memory serves, and this time I think I am actually remembering accurately, not even Ron claims the idea to be wholly his creation but rather his ideas, his views, his attempt to create a new model...  unless I am woefully in error about this?


To answer the rest... In my opinion an examination of the GNS (or "Threefold") Theory should not be divorced from what has come before it.  Namely the early debates about "roll vs role" play, which are really the infancy of this Theory.

I believe many pribobably disagree, which is fine, but evolution does not occur in a vacuum.  Meaning simple that, without the precursor elements in place, there would be no debate about GNS.  It is the culmination and end result of a role-playing game experiance.  And that experiance was born with the "roll vs. role" playing arguements.

As I see it, and this in only my opinion, it is a difference of concept and terminology employed.  Problem is we live in a "fast food" culture where everyone expects instant gratification.  Theories and models aren't that easy to distill into glossalia, not without grossly oversimplifying.

Which, from the GNS perspective, is what the "roll vs role" playing arguement probably looks like.  Which is good.  Complex frameworks are built upon simplicity.  So, since most can identify with that arguement, if only because they *can* find it distilled in glossary form here and there, it is as good a place as any to sart.  IMO.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius