A call for new terminology

[Logan]

In the actor/immersion thread, Fang mentioned that terminology that causes confusion should be changed. I agree with Fang. The longer this discussion goes on, the more obvious it is to me that we are severely hampered by our extremely heavy reliance on terminology from other sources. Most of our terminology comes from the rgfa model. I suppose it wouldn't matter to me if I had never heard of their discussion, but I no longer have that ignorance as an excuse. The bottom line here is that we are using terms developed by others for similar purposes, but we are taking those terms out of context. It's really no small wonder that there is confusion and disagreement about the meaning and use of those terms.

As I see it, Narrativism is a reasonable add-on to GDS; and ERM is a very compelling piece of original thinking. But the rest of it... Either we should be discussing all this in an rgfa forum or we should rebuild from the ground up. We have fallen into a very large bear trap. We fell in a long time ago. These terms that we're using... They're not our terms. Some people here don't know or care about the history of the terms, but the people who do know will agree with what I'm saying. It's not helpful for us to redefine those terms and then chastise others for not understanding our meaning. This is especially true given the fact that our posted faq is now months out of date and means essentially nothing as a reference document.

I no longer believe that the GNS triangle (or any mere triangle) is sufficient to describe the dominant styles of play. At the bare minimum, we have G, N, S (which should be broken into 2 different styles) and D (Dramatism).

I think a lot of people have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to make GNS stronger, but their input has been ignored. I am ashamed to say that, at times, I have  been part of the problem. That will no longer be the case. I begin by calling for an update to the faq so that people can once again see where we are in the debate. I also call for new and expanded terminology. If these are not desired, then that should also be stated and I will go back to my own planet.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Logan

[kwill]

I think the central issue here is a revision of the FAQ

I, for one, am willing to contribute by submitting Q's that I F A :smile:

I no longer believe that the GNS triangle (or any mere triangle) is sufficient to describe the dominant styles of play. At the bare minimum, we have G, N, S (which should be broken into 2 different styles) and D (Dramatism).

to this end, I disagree -- just because we have three central goals/styles of play does not mean there is only one way to achieve them (see the variations of Sim, which I don't think are conflicting in AIM, just different in METHOD and/or PREFERENCE)

argh, off-topic...

...here for example I think a FAQ should clarify what IS defined, "Simulationism's goals are...", and what is left open, "Some simulationists prefer..."

(also, this will relieve any vocabulary issues -- if we're talking about Ninja Motivation, it'll be there in the FAQ, history or no history)

anyway, I'll brainstorm with the ppl I'm always burbling on about this stuff to, get back to basics (I've forgotten the exact difference between Author and Director, frex [blush]) and submit a list of Q's to A within the next two days or so

==

additional thought:

(I came up with this, then forgot about it, and am now reminded...)

let's say you start a thread asking/discussing/exploring a particular concept, be it GNS, Stance or whathaveyou...
once the thread seems to have come to a close (or left alone for a week, or whatever), perhaps it would be a good idea to make a kind of summary post at the end, outlining the answer/s & viewpoints, which could then be easily incorporated into an update of the FAQ

("Well, we looked at merging Gamist and Narrativist design goals and...", "We had another look at Simulationism, and decided it did exist, but kinda like Schrodinger's cat...", "My Karma ran over...")

review
- FAQ update, thumbs up
- terminology rehash, thumbs down
- list o' questions, coming up
- thread summaries

[Valamir]

Well, my feelings on the use of the word Simulation is well documented here.

But to add, I think too rigid an adherance to a mere geometric shape has led to wasting far too much time on argueing how much should be combined and subsumed and explained away in order to fit everything into the requisite number of vertices.

My own personal take on the model identifies what I consider 5 valid styles (so far).

I consider "simulationism" and "gamism" to be closely related as Tactical Gaming styles.  Both are very similiar in emphasising the use of game mechanics to interact with the game world.  A simulationist does so to enforce verisimilitude and so has a rigorous set of standards for what is acceptable and what not.  A gamist does so because its fun.  His standards rely more on fairness, clarity, and playability that verisimilitude.

I consider "dramatist" and "narrativist" to be closely related as Story Driven Gaming styles.  Both are very similiar in emphasising the idea that story trumps other considerations (though not that other considerations get ignored).  The key difference is that to a dramatist the story path is driven by the GM, while to a narrativist the story path is a collaborative effort of players sharing a degree of GM authority.

I also have come to see "Immersion" as completely seperate from any of the above and what I would call a Character Driven Gaming style (the fact that it doesn't have a partner to balance the symmetry causes no great concern to me).

At any rate, the above is not so much to open a thread on my personal takes, but just to illustrate how much easier it is to account for variety when one is not limited to thinking triangularly.

[Logan]

I should also add that I am no longer involved with the faq. I turned over a draft July 11. Since that time, I've heard nothing more about it. At this point, it's out of date and must be considered obsolete.

I am not (and never have been) any sort of functionary for this website. Therefore, my requests are made as an ordinary visitor and long-time observer of this debate. My thoughts and comments are my own and have no more or less impact than anyone else's thoughts and comments.

Since people are already making suggestions and generously offering their opinions (again), I hope (this time) someone with power to get things done on this site will listen and take positive action.

Au Revoire!

Logan

[Supplanter]

Stupid Question: What's ERM?

Best,


Jim

[Le Joueur]

For me this is a welcome topic at this time.  After having plenty time to reflect on what I wrote in my Get Emotional!<Get Emotional!<game<Get Emotional!)

Valamir wrote:
I consider "Simulationism" and "Gamism" to be closely related as Tactical Gaming styles.  Both are very similar in emphasizing the use of game mechanics to interact with the game world.  A Simulationist does so to enforce verisimilitude and so has a rigorous set of standards for what is acceptable and what not.  A Gamist does so because its fun.  His standards rely more on fairness, clarity, and playability that verisimilitude.

I consider "dramatist" and "Narrativist" to be closely related as Story Driven Gaming styles.  Both are very similar in emphasizing the idea that story trumps other considerations (though not that other considerations get ignored).  The key difference is that to a dramatist the GM drives the story path, while to a Narrativist the story path is a collaborative effort of players sharing a degree of GM authority.

I also have come to see "Immersion" as completely separate from any of the above and what I would call a Character Driven Gaming style (the fact that it doesn't have a partner to balance the symmetry causes no great concern to me).(That way leads to the dark side of jargonizing.)<Emotional! ideas.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-12 11:59 ]