About terminology

[Le Joueur]

Good afternoon Kester,

(Whew, am I glad this is still civil.)

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 argument, any argument, 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 the pertinent question to ask is whether or not Ron lets the reader know up front that he is not using common terminology,

Actually, the reason I think this whole thread is an unfair attack on Ron is because he is not responsible for people's understanding of his words.

I mean that's the whole point.

In fact, while people may be reading that I think Ron needs to change his terms, that isn't it at all.

I have two points.[list=1][*]Ron keeps having to defend his terminology.  If he likes doing that, more power to him.  However, I believe I've heard him state on numerous occasions that he wants to 'get on to other things.'  I suggest that requires a terminology change, but only if he does not like defending them.

[*]I think it is past time for the GNS to hog the limelight.  I've said it before (back when there weren't any 'other models' here), perhaps it may be time to change the title from "GNS Model Discussion" to something like "Discussion of Modeling Gaming" or some such.  As long as there is only one forum on the Forge explicitly for discussion of a single specific model, the Forge will be taken for representing that model (and vice versa).  The question is, is it time to evolve?[/list:o]Ron can change his terminology if he wants, it's his business.  Let's stop dumping on him and his terminology.  Let's talk about solutions to what is really the problem here:

The problem of getting newcomers 'up to speed.'

I mean that's what everyone is really arguing about isn't it?  It's not the GNS, but explaining it; it's not the terminology, but repeatedly defining it.  We're talking about a problem with discourse not with the GNS, so can we drop the 'Narrativism this, Nemism that' discussion and get to something that moves forward?

Fang Langford

p. s. Kester, you wrote, "Without the precursor elements in place, there would be no debate about GNS"  All I'm saying is, perhaps its time that the GNS takes its proper place amongst the "precursor elements."

[Mike Holmes]

First, Ralph, Ron was using what he thought were the best terms when he first promulgated the theory. The definition was actually pretty good at that time, and it's only because understanding of the theory by all of us has changes it over time that the "common use" meaning of the term has become further from Ron's definition than is strictly "handy". His adherence to them over time is not done in a malicious or obdurate way, but for important reasons.

As I see it, the reason for not changing an initial term later on is that it leads to a slippery slope effect. If we rename a term because of these refinements of the definitions, that's precedent to rename them again after any change in understanding. And at each change (even if only one) there has to be a propaganda campaign to get people to understand that the term has changed. I know that the whole "nemism" thing isn't serious, but just imagine trying to use such a term in discourse. We'd be laughed off the net. Any change in term at this point will be seen as "political correctness". Yes, that's right Ralph, you're supporting "teminological correctness" which is the same thing.

If Ron had made the change early on, when the theory was still very much in a gelling state, I would have supported a change. But it's far to late now to do so without a lot of danger, IMO. Perhaps I'm biased, as I can read through the essays, and there is no traslation that occurs. I do not see simulation in Simulationism when I read it.

The same thing occurs with a certain pet peeve of mine with military radio traffic. I can parse the word "repeat" to mean what it does on a military radio net, that being that artilliery on the net should refire the last mission. Somehow everyone wants it to mean "repeat what you said", which is supposed be stated as "say again" on a military radio net. The problem is so pervasive that people die of friendly fire accidents from it occasionally, and movies do it wrong all the time (in fact they never even get close to what radio traffic on a net really sounds like).

The point is that this is all "jargon"; which is defined as use of terms by members of a specific field in a certain manner which gives those terms meanings that are different from their common use. Every profession has these sorts of terms. And they are not neccessarily a bad thing. They do require that people learn the definitions of these terms, however. But that's OK. To deny that one should use Jargon ever, is to try and create a uniform understanding of all language. You'd have to admit that even if we used a better term like "Exploration" that we'd still have to explain what it meant in this context. It's just not a realistic or neccessary goal to make all words have but one meaning. When meaning shifts in terms occur (which they always have, and always will), one must adjust. Or be left with our grandfathers asking "What's a Jiggy?"

And lastly, I should point out that Narrativism at least did not exist before Ron ccoined it. It never fails to confuse me how somebody can claim that a word that Ron made up must mean something different from what he says it does, simply because there are other similar terms. That really seems absurd.

Mike

[MK Snyder]

I have two degrees.

Anthropology and technical writing.

In my professional opinion, the GNS essay is not written well.

*Idiosyncratic use of English
*Passive voice obscuring tense
*Lack of concrete examples
*Lack of contrast and comparison to other models

Insisting it is the responsibility of the reader to unlearn English in order to decode text is counter to the very purpose of expository writing.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi MK,

All that's fine ... but it's not to the point of the thread, which is to say, whether the communicative power of the terminology per se is altered.

Fang and Ralph, my argument is that even something like "Author-sharing" in place of Narrativism would itself engender a whole constellation of misunderstandings, ranging from snap judgments at first sight to pained and elaborate semi-refutations after a first try at critical reading. Sure, many of the terms generate Confusion X about the concept involved. I don't think, however, that on the whole my terms are so awful that they generate irreparable confusion, which frankly, Fang, is what you're saying. That, I'll disagree with.

[Side note: Proponents of or participants in the rec.games.faq.advocacy usenet discussions sometimes bring ownership-indignance to their discussion of GNS, and I can't help that. No one likes to see "their" terms co-opted, but that's how science/discourse works.]

Ultimately, I evaluate these things in term of the long view. The Forge has seen the current essay up for how long ... a year now, right? (Geez, is that all?) And how well have people understood it, granting that different people will go "boink" at different stages of interacting with it? I think, pretty well. Damned well, for that matter, in comparison to any other proposed model regarding role-playing thus far. And it's still under development, as it says right in the text.

I fully agree that the essay does pretty poorly compared to some idealized dream model which is instantly accessible, developed in all possible conceptual angles, fully referenced and exemplified, and written with precisely the right mentoring diction for every possible reader. Less snottily, I also agree that it's far from ideal in terms of realistic quality as well - which is what the putative revision is all about, in the long term. I'm willing to entertain any and all suggestions about the latter, but suggestions or protests coming from a desire for the former aren't going to mean much to me.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Like I've said before.  I have no problem with the terminology now...after what...nearly 2 years of being in the middle of huge extended threads discussing their meaning.  

I just find it highly unfortuneate that the easiest way to explain GNS terms to new people is to instruct them to insert gibberish words into the text so they won't be confused (and no this last example with MK is not the first time I've recommended that).

And Mike...really.  I would never claim that Ron used the words he did for malicious intent that's ridiculous.  And yes I do know that the model has come along way from when it was first coined (but given the HUGE closest-thing-to-a-flame-war-we've-seen-here-on-the-Forge over the term Simulationist from a year and a half ago, the word hasn't fit probably for the majority of its life).

As for the arguement that its too late to change.  Rubbish.  The %age of total gamers (even total gamers who frequent the internet) who've even HEARD of GNS let alone given it serious consideration is miniscule.  I mean realistically who would really be effected by having the terms change.  40-50 regulars, a couple of hundred casual people and maybe 1000 "heard about it and don't cares".  Does the theory even really have a life independent of the Forge?  Not a sizeable one.  Personally I think the reluctance to make changes is more based on pride (well deserved as it is) than on any actual beneficial reason to not.

I understand that there will be education involved no matter what the term is, but educating from scratch is a lot easier than first having to deprogram.  Right now its twice as much work.  Before you can even begin to explain a term you have to spend half a dozen posts purging them of the connotations they already have for the term.  Yes I would agree with Fang...it IS an impediment to both learning and teaching.

It would be like inventing a new mathematical operation and calling it multiplication.  "oh I know how to multiply", "No no, forget what you know about how the rest of the world uses the word multiply, here on the Forge multiply means to take the log square and divide by pi" "huh"...that is how I feel explaining Simulationism and Premise et.al. over and over and over again.  

That said, its not my model to change.  I've reached the point for my own use where I understand most of it well enough to get it to do what I need it to do.  I'm not about to launch some picket line or boycott over the issue.

But consider this.  

Ron, you've expressed some desire to pass the torch a little bit and encourage the "next generation" of Forgeites to take more of a lead role in educating new comers.  If a sizeable portion of the people who'd be taking such a role think the terminology makes the job of educating new comers extremely difficult, do you think they'll be more or less eager to shoulder that responsibility.  How long do you want to be stuck with the job of primary source of GNS knowledge?

Hopefully the version of the article you're working on will find a way to ram home the points of "forget your preconceptions...here's what the term means for purposes of this discussion" well enough to elminate most of the problem.  I hope so.

[Le Joueur]

Fang and Ralph, my argument is that even something like "Author-sharing" in place of Narrativism would itself engender a whole constellation of misunderstandings, ranging from snap judgments at first sight to pained and elaborate semi-refutations after a first try at critical reading. Sure, many of the terms generate Confusion X about the concept involved. I don't think, however, that on the whole my terms are so awful that they generate irreparable confusion, which frankly, Fang, is what you're saying. That, I'll disagree with.

Is it?  Or was I saying that if you don't believe your "terms are so awful that they generate irreparable confusion," you shouldn't change them; they're yours man.

On the other hand, please don't mischaracterize me as agreeing that there are better words extant for the three modes.  I do not.  I am saying that to keep them as they are, and never have to correct misunderstandings based on connotation, you need to use words that no one knows.  Make stuff up!  Use Latin.  I don't care; nonsense words are better than baggage-laden terms.

But the point is that you only need to change them if it bothers you.

I still see the real issue is one of communicating.  Don't blame the specific example that causes the problem unless you have a counter offer, let's not whine.  Look carefully; people aren't complaining about the terms, but what they believe they are forced to do because of them.  They not offering alternatives, they're complaining about repetition.

I say bugger to them.  If they can't find an alternative or offer a suggestion, what's the point?  Commiseration?  I think people can get lazy always falling back on terminology that is 'perfect.'  I happen to believe I wouldn't have half the understanding of GNS, the Scattershot model, or gaming, if it weren't for all the times I'd been confounded in explaining GNS.  Teaching is one of the finest ways of learning.  However, sticking to one model, forever, is not the best idea in my mind.

Fang Langford

[MK Snyder]

I can see why they are upset.

This argument has been going on for *five years*. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Frankly, Ron, your ideas would much more quickly be appreciated as innovative if you hadn't used such similar terminology, as well as be quickly understood overall.

I think more explicit compare and contrast on your part to point out the novelty of your ideas would help as well.

What good has come out of willfuly clinging to obfuscation? It retards discourse and makes the author look like a plagiarist.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1019256558d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5pf9af%242fc%40camel12.mindspring.com&rnum=6

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

Oddly enough, I agree with you about the evolutionary context of your posts, in that GNS et al. may end up being itself a basis for deriving somethin' else that works way better. So far, I think, it's been robust (GEN being an example), but the SGR and similar material are right and proper Forge topics for just that reason. I'd hate like a bastard to be the kind of theorist who can't move on, although admittedly, the originator tends to be like that.

Ralph, good points, all 'round, I'm seeing what you're saying, and although my outlook (Gordon's, Mike's) is different, there's some room for maybe positive steps that work for both of us.

It just so happens that I'm working up two rather big essays at the moment, one all about Simulationist RPG design and other all about Illusionism and related terms. Let's see whether the existing terminology is robust enough to make those essays work, and whether they change certain aspects of the terminology (which are a bit squeaky in one case) to make more intuitive sense.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Hey Ron,

I'd hate like a bastard to be the kind of theorist who can't move on, although admittedly, the originator tends to be like that.

Most people don't value this important 'service.'  If the originators are unwilling to provide this 'service,' instantly leaping to the next paradigm, the whole thing turns into nothing more than a fad society.

I look forward to cracking the whip over all the new theories post-dating mine.

Fang Langford

[MK Snyder]

I think "nemism", "gemism", and "semism" worked just fine.

I'm mulling over the replacements for "Premise" (I used "cookie" in another thread) and "Explore" right now. The definition of "Explore" currently offered has the Big Word Connotativewise "Imagine" embedded in it, will also requires narrowing--since over on another thread we're duking it out whether or not that means passively viewing or actively inventing.

'course, I'm coming from the land of disk drives, bits, bytes, CADs and RAMs.  

French as a source of neologisms is a problem for me, as I have no clue on how to pronounce or spell francowordlets.

[Kester Pelagius]

Good evening Joueur,

Hope the weekend ahead turns out to be a good one for you.

p. s. Kester, you wrote, "Without the precursor elements in place, there would be no debate about GNS"  All I'm saying is, perhaps its time that the GNS takes its proper place amongst the "precursor elements."

To keep it short...

Depends on what those who actually *use* the GNS Theory as a *applied* sort of... skill?... want to do with it.  IMO

As a Theory it's as good as any other.

Time catches up but, keep an eye out, I may just go ahead and post the current draft of my little article/essay thingy.  It'll at least give the denizens somethign else to fling their rotten fruit at!  ;)


Kind Regards.

[M. J. Young]

Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ.

With all due respect to Paganini, Ralph, and MK, MJ sides with Ron on this one.

I may have missed the middle; but I think I was around for a critical point that was not the beginning but the budding of the branch.

What is overlooked here is that GNS is a development, a next step, of GDS--regardless of whether those who developed GDS recognize it as such or whether those who support GNS retain that claim. The term Dramatist was changed (by Ron) to Narrativist for valid reasons of taxonomy (which I believe are explained in System Does Matter, although it has been a few years since I read that). The intent was not to find a term that better described what was being defined, but rather to avoid a conflict in understanding between two models that applied to the same field. It was an important change to make; even within the past year, someone from the Yahoo Game Design list confused my statement that something involved Drama resolution with the use of Dramatist in the old GDS model, despite having just read my materials in which I clearly presented Narrativist as the term used for that and Drama as a form of resolution mechanics.

That means that Ron's work on GNS is primarily an effort to plumb the meanings of these terms, to come to a better grasp of what they involve. It is not a separate competing model, but an interpretation of the existing model which has developed beyond its origin.

Ultimately, the primary argument Ron raised against GENder was that there was not a taxonomical reason to change the terminology.

I would argue that this is an academic pursuit. Ron may not come up to Maryanne's standards for academic writing with the current form of the article (although the fact that it is a work in progress is mitigating in that aspect), but as I recall the biology professor has hammered these ideas against at least two lawyers (one also a theologian), a physicist, and several others with graduate degrees, all of whom take our gaming very seriously, prior to writing the current work.

As an academic effort, it is quite reasonable that it uses terminology--Jargon, as has been rightly illuminated--which requires some immersion in the field. I would not expect that all of you, no matter how well educated or intelligent, would be able to read a Law Review article and understand exactly what it meant, because the author quite reasonably would have relied on his expectation that the reader was already versed in the language of the field, probably also at least some of the recent literature on the subject and the relevant case law. Similarly when my wife, ACLS certified critical care nurse, starts telling me about her night, it is not at all uncommon for me to have to ask her what a word means when she uses it that is different from what I, as a layman, would understand.

There is a long history behind the meanings of the words used in Ron's work. He does an admirable job of short-circuiting the work required to grasp the terminology. But readers should not expect that they can tackle one article and immediately know everything that is meant by words that have been in cloistered use for over half a decade. Is it intuitive that drama mechanics means decisions made by one of the participants? On my part I still don't quite get why karma mechanics means direct comparison of scores/strengths. In each case, a word was chosen at the time it was needed which, in the mind of the originator of the concept, most clearly expressed what they intended by it. Then the concept was examined, handled conveniently by this label, a word, that had been attached to it. In some cases, such as fortune mechanics, the concept changed so little with handling that no one has ever been confused by the term. In other cases, the word has come to mean what no one would have anticipated. That's normal. Language changes, and ideas focus, and they don't always go the same direction. Most people who are not lawyers would have no clue what a parole evidence rule is, even after hearing their lawyer state that it applies if the meaning of the document is not patent.

It is often said on the forums:

You must understand that the phrase "Narrativist Game" is shorthand for "a game which more easily facilitates narrativist play"

and other statements like this. Similarly, you must understand that the use of the words narrativist and simulationist (since they particularly seem to be under attack) are shorthand for all the baggage of meaning that has appeared in articles and forum posts over the past years. We work to bring newbies up to speed on these precisely because you can't jump into an academic discussion without picking up the undergraduate courses.

These words mean what they mean in game theory precisely because to those of us who have been talking about them all this time they have come to have these meanings. It would be different if, like Humpty Dumpty, Ron had just decided to give the words whatever meaning he wanted. Ron did not give these words the meanings they have. He gave certain concepts names which fit them as well as anything anyone could find at that moment (many of which he did not give but received from others already discussing these issues), and then worked with us to discover what the concepts really meant. The fact that having followed some of these concepts into places we never expected them to lead we find the handles don't fit as well as they once did is not sufficient reason to abandon the handles and start from scratch.

Besides, even if we were to call these things gemism, nemism, and semism, in five years we would be arguing that the meanings attached to those words no longer fit the concepts to which they were being applied.

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ.

With all due respect to Paganini, Ralph, and MK, MJ sides with Ron on this one.

Oops, sorry. Too many abbreviated M names. :)

[Alan]

I just want to comment on a couple undercurrents that seem to be running through this discussion.  Here's a list to begin with:

- The implication that an academic approach is somehow inappropriate to popular discussion of a subject.

- The argument about the group verses author ownership of theory.

- An implicit belief that there is one model which can address all aspects of the subject.

I'll start with the last and work up.

Theories are tools for developing useful insights into a subject, not clockwork simulations of the how the subject works.  As such, a theory can be thought of as analogous to a tool of analysis, like a telescope.  But just as astronomers only get limited information from a given tool (telescope, radio dishe, IR sensors) so does a given theory only give a limited range of insight.  

However, to get away from the physical sciences, where elegant solutions often do suceed in describing reality, we have to look at the application of theory to social phenomena.  As these are more complicated and intricate, the seach for an elegant single theory is often counter-productive.  

Especially in areas of social interaction, a theory must be judged by how useful it is generating new insights and how effective the results of its application are.  Ron's GNS theory is certainly successful in these areas, having triggered insights in many readers, and been the basis for very effective game design.  But we need not expect it to produce all usefull insights in the area.  We have other loops in our toolbelt.

By accepted tradition, a theory is not a democratically produced concept.  The process works by growth and synthesis. If one disagrees with a theory, one develops one's own hypothesis and tests the effectiveness of it.  The insights gained from the new hypothesis either verify a new theory, or suggest changes to the old one.

Finally, I want to challenge the idea that the academic approach is somehow innapropriate to this venue or to the purpose of communicating game theory.  The academic approach has been developed over millenia as a way to explore and analyze subject matter.  Is this not the purpose of the Forge Forums?  Why would we want to reinvent or ignore methods that have been proven so productive for our society?  It has certainly been productive in spawning discussion and insight into our hobby.  I applaud Ron and others for bringing these standards to our discussions.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Alan,

I want to challenge the idea that the academic approach is somehow inappropriate to this venue or to the purpose of communicating game theory.  The academic approach has been developed over millennia as a way to explore and analyze subject matter.  Is this not the purpose of the Forge Forums?  Why would we want to reinvent or ignore methods that have been proven so productive for our society?  It has certainly been productive in spawning discussion and insight into our hobby.  I applaud Ron and others for bringing these standards to our discussions.

Since I believe the "academic" concept is my responsibility, I'll speak here.

There is nothing wrong, whatsoever, with academic approach.  However I believe it is clumsy to take the academic approach to explain something outside of an academic venue.  Rigorous academic approach is one of the best ways to comprehend something.  It works great for working something out with other academics.  It doesn't always make the best way to communicate in an other-than-academic venue.

Unless you want to hang a sign on the door turning away anyone other than academics, I believe the Forge can't be considered a fully academic venue.  I believe the purpose of the Forge has something to do with aiding the proliferation of independent role-playing games.  Discerning the social implications of gaming can aid that, but I don't think that this is the only purpose.

"Ignore methods that have been proven so productive for our society?"  You mean like making things approachable and not unnecessarily confusing?  Teaching?  I am emphatically not suggesting that.

So yes, I am saying that "an academic approach is...inappropriate to popular discussion of a subject."  Note the emphasis; I am not saying that all academic approach is inappropriate, just the expectation that the populous must comprehend it all.  That's why I'm behind the 'approachable and explaining' side of things, too.

Fang Langford