The Problem With GNS

[C. Edwards]

Hey Heinrich,

You may want to stop and consider that regardless of how well reasoned your arguments may be they probably won't get any serious consideration when you come off as a complete ass. This doesn't apply to just the Forge but many other sites across the internet as well.

The number of insults (mostly passive-aggressive) in your posts is disturbing to say the least. But, blah blah blah the benefit of the doubt and all that, I'd just like to ask you to make a stronger effort to carry on your discussion in a more civil manner. And yes, I do understand that we don't live in a world of sunshine and lollipops but your current method of discourse is giving me a facial tic.

Thanks in advance,

Chris

[Jeffrey Miller]

You're the kind that is so pathetically sensitive that any kind of real questioning is construed as an 'attack' and who lives in a world of 'positive' nice people and 'negative' bad people.

Heinrich, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until you wrapped yourself in this flag, so often employed by passive-aggressive trolls.  "I'm only asking you tought questions" is a weak description of what you're doing.  

-j-

[Garbanzo]

Friend heinrich:

My understanding of your (initial) argument is that Gamism and Simulationism are not seperate entities.
Because rarely is there explicit "winning" in Gamism, just progression along a path.  This path happens to be festooned with markers (points, accumulated treasures, etc), but these markers can hypothetically be removed.   This (a) doesn't  change the nature of what's going on, and (b) causes the outcome to look a lot more like Simulationism.

Your example was Space Invaders.  Straight out of the box, it's a model of Gamism: you versus the baddies, a test of skill.  But by placing a post-it over that part of the screen that shows the points, suddenly it could be a Simulationist representation of an alien invasion.

Therefore, the line between Gamism and Simulationism is a false one.


Question:  Is this a fair restatement of your argument?


Assuming that it is, here's my response:

GNS bills itself as a method of examining player attitudes to a game.  Because different people have different aims, well-meaning gamers occasionally collide.  GNS is intended as a forensic tool for sifting through the debris.
Different games may better facilitate one or another of the modes, but it's the player's behavior that determines what's going on.

Your argument is focusing on the specifics of a game, an allegory to games in general.  But this can only shed dim light on GNS, which is concerned with the other end - player attitudes.  To mount a challenge to GNS, you need to examine whether Gamist priorities are identical to Simulationist ones.  That is, given the goals of "verisimilitude" and "challenge," are these in fact identical, or does one not exist?

For example, if someone with a Gamist mindset and someone else with a Simulationist mindset sat down at Space Invaders, do you feel they would be equally satisfied with the play?  The blurb on the back of the box might have some crazy story (your consciousness has been thrust into a 2-d universe, etc etc) about how this is a cohesive reality, but my own guess is that this would still be a terrible Sim (read: Sim-facilitating game); there'd be no real decisions left to make and nothing to explore.  

-Matt

As an aside, heinrich, you may enjoy past discussions on what - if anything - seperates Monopoly from rpgs. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6031

(It may be that my posts are absurd rubbish, my arguments have no merit, and I myself am pathetically sensitive and lack mental self-discipline.  I would rather, however, to reach these conclusions on my own, while reflecting back on a civil and insult-free dialogue.  Thanks, folks.)

[heinrich]

Question:  Is this a fair restatement of your argument?

This is not my main point, but it is a point that I tried to make.

Assuming that it is, here's my response:

GNS bills itself as a method of examining player attitudes to a game.  Because different people have different aims, well-meaning gamers occasionally collide.  GNS is intended as a forensic tool for sifting through the debris.
Different games may better facilitate one or another of the modes, but it's the player's behavior that determines what's going on.

Your argument is focusing on the specifics of a game, an allegory to games in general.  But this can only shed dim light on GNS, which is concerned with the other end - player attitudes.  To mount a challenge to GNS, you need to examine whether Gamist priorities are identical to Simulationist ones.  That is, given the goals of "verisimilitude" and "challenge," are these in fact identical, or does one not exist?

That some effort was made to make this clear in GNS, for example, is evident. I should go out of my way at this point to agree, and to point out that in GNS, for example, the separate GNS categories apply more or less to the limited context of player aims. The point is made even more clear in 'System does matter'. Yet, you really can't have it both ways. In an article that begins with GNS and ends with role playing design (see the title, 'GNS AND other matters of role playing theory'), the object under investigation is, very broadly, role playing. The whole kit and caboodle. This is no real problem, but it does show that it is assumed that everyone knows what we are talking about when we say 'role playing'. Role playing as a fact is assumed. This assumption is possible only as a result of avoiding the question of games in general.

My effort in writing these posts is to pose the question of games, now that the GNS model and other bodies of distinctions here appear to be reaching a finalized form. More specifically, it is to point out that this wonderful body of thought has one big blind spot -- namely the assumption of role playing -- and the question as to that blind spot can now be meaningfully posed.

(It may be that my posts are absurd rubbish, my arguments have no merit, and I myself am pathetically sensitive and lack mental self-discipline.  I would rather, however, to reach these conclusions on my own, while reflecting back on a civil and insult-free dialogue.  Thanks, folks.)

Contrary to recent opinions on the matter, there's not a thread of passive-aggressiveness to my insults. Civility is in act, not in word choice. Let's examine briefly the history of this thread. An outsider to the forum posts a message. The first sentence sets up the whole thesis: the body of thought as represented on this website that includes GNS and its associated role playing theory sidesteps the question as to what a game is. The post goes on to point out weaknesses in the distinction between gamism and simulationism as they apply to particular games. I readily accept by the way the point made in your post that gamism and simulationism, and narrativism, more rightly apply to players' aims and where they find their satisfaction. Particular games may suggest one or more styles of play, particularly when they feature the so-called 'meta-game' elements. I would be careful not to make too little of that emphasis, though, since what we are dealing with are the role playing games themselves in the final instance. For example, if given a strict simulationist game, I might find it impossible to play it as a gamist without adding concrete elements to the system. Likewise, as in an earlier post, if as a simulationist I downplay or reject the meta-game options, then really they do not exist in the game I am playing, and thus the 'game' has become simulationist.

But after my post, it was gently suggested three separate times that I go back and 're-read' GNS and System Does Matter, even though the main premise of my point was never addressed. An excuse for 'passive-aggressive' behavior? Not at all. It is straightforward aggressive behavior. The burden is on those sleeping the peaceful slumber of the convinced. As residents of the site, or at least representatives of the view I sought to argue -- as they made themselves by posting and advocating that same body of thought -- they should treat those with so-called 'negative' posts (those that question) as guests and not merely as Unawares.

I have nothing at all against insults. But it should be noted that nowhere are there any insults, or even direct address, other than the reply to jdagna who writes:

So, unless you have some sort of constructive disagreement, or honest inquisitiveness I'd recommend staying quiet.

This is in any objective view an insult, given the time I spent on my post, as well as the fact my post does both. The kneejerk reaction against anything faintly construed as 'negative' and anything that is not just a meandering and endlessly self-qualified rehash of the language in GNS, for example, is what you'd expect. But when someone is outnumbered, again, the burden is mostly elsewhere. If someone comes off as an 'ass' as another post has it, it's probably because he's not wasting time padding his words down while in the minority defending against half a dozen responses that are mostly complete misunderstandings and vaguely insulting.

[Valamir]

Heinrich.  

I humbly suggest you end this thread and begin another one.  This thread has started quite badly.

Here's what I propose.

1) You've read the articles, on the basis of one or perhaps a couple of read throughs you've now decided that you know better how to define what GNS is than people who've been wrestling with the issue for months and for some of us years.  I hope you can see the imbedded arrogance in this attitude.  It implies that you are so much more brilliant than us that you can percieve and fix something that literally hundreds of individuals have been working on over the course of many years in a single thread.  I have no doubt from your well articulated posts that you are indeed an intelligent individual and would be a fine contributor to the site but I hope you see how your initial introduction is probably not the best way to influence people.

2) You've made several statements about GNS that are patently false.  I'll mention tieing Gamism to points and Simulationism to simulations of reality.  Others have already corrected these conceptual errors so I won't repeat what was said.  I submitt that you might wish to reread the essays with C.Lerich's et.al. commentary as annotations.  Then start a new thread that actually *asks* questions rather than making statements.

For Example:  "I've read the Gamism definition on these articles, and am having trouble understanding the definitions.  Can someone explain to me why or how this definition of Gamism ultimately does not boil down to some variation of keeping score with points?"

THIS is the format of engaged and intelligent dialog that is a prerequisite for effective engagement on the Forge.  Your first attempt at dialog was unnecessarily confrontational (yes, you may protest, but it was VERY confrontational).  If such confrontation was not your attention (and I'm certainly hoping and ready to believe it wasn't) than I repeat my suggestion of ending this thread and beginning another one that begins with phraseology similiar to what I add above.


3) Certain debating tactics will not be recieved well here.  Among those I point out the following two which you have employed in your posts here thus far.

First, the Bait and Switch:  It is impossible to debate a moving target.  You started declaring that you had read the articles and based on them made some conclusions.  When it was pointed out that your conclusions were incorrect, you then pulled the switch.  You introduced the claim that the definitions were t0o vague to use as written and you were forced to modify them to make them useable, and thus according to your modified definitions your conclusion was right.  It is completely impossible, to offer concrete contradictory evidence if you keep changing the target we are to address.  Are we now to demonstrate that the definition of Gamism as it appears in the article does not say what you claim it says?  Or are we instead to discuss the pros and cons of your submitted modifications to it?  One topic per thread please and try to lay all your cards on the table first so we know exactly what it is you are looking for.

Second, the strawman:  You accused a poster of entering a strawman arguement above.  I really didn't see one, but I do see the majority of this thread as a giant straw man.  You read the articles...YOU then modified the definitions of those articles.  YOU then criticized and condemned the MODIFIED definitions.  Talk about your coup de grace on a straw man.  It is completely ridiculous to ask anyone here to defend a statement that none of us here have made.   There are no point requirements highlighted in the articles.  If you want to insert them into your own version of the definition just to give you something to refutes, feel free, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with GNS.  In fact, we'd all agree with you.


4) You've repeated several times that GNS is a taxonomy.  This is fundamentally proveably, demonstratablly COMPLETELY false.  In fact, I am on record here and elsewhere as stateing emphatically GNS is NOT a taxonomy.  

This feeds into your discussion of games and RPGs as games.  A couple things to say on that.

First:  GNS is about observable player behavior at the table as it can be identified over an instance of play.  This is the core conceptual truth of GNS.  It DOES NOT in anyway start from a position of examining games or game design.  Games have been used to provide examples by way of illustration.  Once the theory is understood it can be applied to analysing games and determining what components they contain that encourage or discourage the observable player behavior GNS is about.  Often we use a short hand of "Gamist Game" to mean this.  But this should be taken to mean only "a game whose mechanics and system promote players making gamist decisions".  Without players, and actual decisions being made in actual play...GNS does not exist and can not be measured (only speculated on).  Thus, since GNS is not about the games themselves your distinction of RPGs and Games becomes interesting, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Second.  Perform a search and you will find MANY very long threads where we have discussed "what is a game" and "what makes an RPG distinct from other games".  You are not introducing anything that has not been extensively debated here already.  Feel free to examine those other threads and see where the discussions have gone.  If you want to discuss that idea further start a new thread on it (we generally frown on ressurecting old threads) and I'm sure if you have some new thoughts people will love to discuss them with you.


5) Finally, you will note that in addition to the SDM and GNS articles there is an extensive article solely on Simulationism in the article section.  Very shortly Ron will be adding an article on Gamism which explodes a few lines and paragraphs into a multiple page analysis of just that mode.  You will see very clearly why we say that Gamism is not directly tied to the idea of comparing points.  Although that clearly is one possible way for Gamism to manifest, it is not the entirety of the definition.

So to conclude.  You may perhaps wish to table further discussion on Gamism until this new article come out.  It likely will save much rehashing of old ground.  Any further questions on the definition and meaning of the terms, things you don't understand, aspects you disagree with; I would encourage starting a new thread on, as this one has gone sour.  I also strongly encourage you framing your queries in a less confrontational manner and avoiding certain intolerable discussion tactics.

I hope to see further posts and contributions from you in the future.  I'm sorry that your start with us has gotten off to such a rough start.

[Alan]

I see nothing in GNS for example that distinguishes role playing definitively from other games

Why is it important to distinguish role playing games from other games?

[edit: apologies for posting after end of thread.]

[Valamir]

The first sentence sets up the whole thesis: the body of thought as represented on this website that includes GNS and its associated role playing theory sidesteps the question as to what a game is.

Again Heinrich, it is not the question that was asked but the manner in which it was asked that is causing bristling.  

Your premise includes three unstated assumptions.

1) That somehow the definition of what a game is, is material to the rest of the theory.  Frankly I don't see that it is, but I would certainly be interested in discussing the idea with you...again preferably on another thread.

2) That the definition of what a game is, is actually knowable.  More precisely that it is possible to write a definition of role playing game that includes all of the things sizeable groups of people would consider to be RPGS and exclude all of the things that everyone can agree are not.  I am on record as stateing that such a definition is essentially impossible.

3) Which brings up the third assumption, that we have not already discussed and rediscussed this very issue in depth on numerous occassions.  While we are certainly willing to enter into new discussions on the topic if there are new issues to raise related to it, the unspoken assumption that we have not already done so leading to the conclusion that therefor the whole theory is on a shaky foundation...is in fact, rather insulting.  

Please realise that before taking a confrontational attitude it would behoove you to be completely aware of all of the facts surrounding the issue you are about to discuss.  Otherwise you wind up putting your foot in your mouth and acting like a boor...in which case the responses are not going to be nearly as productive as they could be.


FOR THE RECORD, however.  While I am not a moderator.  Telling a poster that he should remain quiet is NOT acceptable behavior on the Forge.  Please don't repeat such a sentiment again.

I hope Heinrich, that you can at least see where some of the frustration embedded in that posters sentiment comes from.  You started off very belligerently, and things got worse from there.  I repeat my hope that you will start a new thread with clearly laid out and phrased issues and begin this discussion fresh.

[epweissengruber]

I have to agree here

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration.

I am a terrible wargamer because I always ask the "what if?" question.  I will send terribly under-equipped troupes against and enemy to see just how badly they do.  I sent over-equipped specialist troops to see if a few lucky rolls can allow the unit to overcome superior numbers.  So winning or loosing doesn't matter.  I like exploring the simulated world.

But I am not just moving my pieces around the board or getting into the "character" of a general.  I am playing the game.  And my opponents usually like it when I play this way ; )

[clehrich]

I see nothing in GNS for example that distinguishes role playing definitively from other games

Alan asked a good question: why is it necessary so to distinguish them?

I would ask a follow-up, which might clarify the questions I asked in my "patently absurd" post (a description to which I object, incidentally).

Question: Suppose RPGs are not games by a larger definition.  What happens then?  How does this affect GNS or other parts of the dominant set of theories here?  If you could clarify, this might help me, at least, spot what you're getting at.

A further point: While it is true that the large-scale model of which GNS is an important part is relatively dominant here at the Forge, it is not the case that it is absolutely accepted or unchallenged.  As an easy example, there is a running set of threads now, in both this forum and the RPG Theory forum, which seeks alternative viewpoints on several essential aspects of the model.  The notion of the Forge community as simply unwilling to challenge GNS is thus something of an illusion.

Chris

[heinrich]

I humbly suggest you end this thread and begin another one.  This thread has started quite badly.

I'll keep this brief. This will be my final post.

If this thread has started badly, it is because of the reactions to my initial post. That initial post began by asking a question. Then it looked at some of the definitions advanced by the GNS model. It was not, of course, confrontational to anybody but those accustomed to the kid-glove oversensitive debating school of internet discussion groups.

1) You've read the articles, on the basis of one or perhaps a couple of read throughs you've now decided that you know better how to define what GNS is than people who've been wrestling with the issue for months and for some of us years.  I hope you can see the imbedded arrogance in this attitude.  It implies that you are so much more brilliant than us that you can percieve and fix something that literally hundreds of individuals have been working on over the course of many years in a single thread.  I have no doubt from your well articulated posts that you are indeed an intelligent individual and would be a fine contributor to the site but I hope you see how your initial introduction is probably not the best way to influence people.

On the contrary, the arrogance is in assuming that I myself could not possibly have spent months and years wrestling with those issues because I have not been a member of the Forge community. But what again is going on here is that the GNS model and related theory is being confused with what it attempts to explain. There is a great vested interest it seems in this way of thinking.

2) You've made several statements about GNS that are patently false.  I'll mention tieing Gamism to points and Simulationism to simulations of reality.  Others have already corrected these conceptual errors so I won't repeat what was said.  I submitt that you might wish to reread the essays with C.Lerich's et.al. commentary as annotations.  Then start a new thread that actually *asks* questions rather than making statements.

Neither association made is patently false. It is a question of emphasis. It is still perfectly reasonable to maintain, despite the objections, that points systems remain the exemplar of the co-called meta-game element and, moreover, that nearly all meta-game elements can be reduced to some sort of points system. (Humanity points, while not accumulated, are still an example of using a number line to symbolize abstract character traits and relate to success.) But since this point differs from the language of GNS, in emphasis at least, it is still being regarded as a 'misunderstanding' of the GNS model and its related theory.

In fact, in defense of this point, I challenge you to mention a gamist 'meta-game' element that does not appear in some sort of points/cumulative system. EVEN IF you find a feature, like a marker that only can be obtained once and no more indicating some kind of trait or characteristic or ability, inasmuch as it could be absent, it still fits into a system of accumulation. One has it or one doesn't. The only conceivable meta-game element that could exist outside of the context of points/accumulation is one that has only a logical coherence -- one move or trait has only a logical meaning and is deployed to counter something else in its logical meaning. In other words, tactics from a pre-set and never growing stockplie would escape the accumulation/points concept, but here 'game' and 'meta-game' blur as they must given the ambiguity of the definition.

Regarding simulationism, what I said and continue to say is in fact patently true. Simulationism stands only in contrast to gamism with its 'meta-game' elements. No matter how you hash it, in regards to the concrete and formal nature of the game this is the case. A post after yours contains the anecdotal account of playing just to see the result. In other words, as I said above, in gamism you play to win, but simulationism you don't care whether you win or lose. But the point here -- and I'll slow down so that three or four people might actually catch it this time -- is that the rejection of the meta-game elements is done in *strict analogy to reality.*

Let me elaborate on this and clarify it so that maybe it will make some sense. When I have said previously that simulationism aims to make the game more 'real', it has been the kneejerk reaction that what I am talking about is the property of becoming convinced of the reality of the simulation. After all, it is a matter close to our hearts. We play role playing games and those who know no better accuse us of being morons for believing that it's all 'real'. The error they ascribe to role players is the same error being ascribed to me with my account of simulationism. I have not said that in simulationism, players try to become 'convinced' of the reality of what they are playing. I have said that simulationists try to make the game more 'real' and this means exactly that -- it refers to the dimension of being 'real' that reality has in contrast to games: there is no ending life and starting again, no cashing in luck points in front of the oncoming train. The concept of reality is two-sided. On one hand, it refers to whether we are convinced of something or not ('ghosts aren't real'). On the other, it has to do with anything that behaves in ways that we have intuitively learned to be lifelike, natural, expected, or 'real'. ('That robot acts real.')

A different argument that would be interesting to broach, but that I won't be around for, is whether or not for this reason simulationism might ENTIRELY be about the meta-game, since the whole game to the simulationist is the object. Those Who Have Become Convinced will miss the subtlety here and say the predictable thing, that I am conflating gamism and simulationism. On the contrary, just as with anything else, for there to be an inside there has to be an outside. No outside, no inside. The dialectical point being made here is that for the simulationist, the game is the object. If we go with epweissengruber, it is all he needs and it is what he is focusing his attention on. The outcome is irrelevant. Since it is the object, and not some outside like the 'reality' of the game, something locatable in extra-game space, he is obsessed only with the game qua game and as such is more overtly gamist than the gamists themselves. The gamists maintain the balance between interest in the outcome (construed as 'belief' in the game) and the meta-game mechanics which enable them to influence that outcome. The simulationists are 'convinced' to a lesser extent such that, again, there is only meta-game and no game. Or put differently but with the same meaning, there is only game and nothing else.

For Example:  "I've read the Gamism definition on these articles, and am having trouble understanding the definitions.  Can someone explain to me why or how this definition of Gamism ultimately does not boil down to some variation of keeping score with points?"

THIS is the format of engaged and intelligent dialog that is a prerequisite for effective engagement on the Forge.  Your first attempt at dialog was unnecessarily confrontational (yes, you may protest, but it was VERY confrontational).  If such confrontation was not your attention (and I'm certainly hoping and ready to believe it wasn't) than I repeat my suggestion of ending this thread and beginning another one that begins with phraseology similiar to what I add above.

That would sure be a nice namby-pamby approach. But the implied message here is that it doesn't matter what you say, conform first, or else. In other words, it's just a veiled threat: be nice, or we won't listen no matter what you say. And this elementary school mentality is precisely what has co-opted the banner of 'intelligent dialogue'!

If I had come in here really intending to inflame and not debate, I would have sounded off a few epithets like 'buggered black Jew whores' and left. All these apparently perfectly reasonable calls for taking the most circuitous and fearful route to break into a topic of infinite sensitivity, as if readers here were paralyzed old ladies with Victorian sensibilities, are typical for this day and age. Even role players act like their faces are going to break if their ideas are questioned. Look at Ron Edwards' articles and count the number of disclaimers and apologies and self-qualifications he has to make just to keep a bunch of hysterical miscreants like the comic book guy on the Simpsons at bay.

Let's not misunderstand, though. I rate the posts on the Forge rather highly. I think per capita there is more intelligence here than most other places, certainly in regards to role playing theory. Probably most of you won't be able to imagine how one person can write both the preceding paragraph and this one without being duplicitous, though.

By the way, as is inevitable, you can take your suggestion above and say that it is only a practical one, and has nothing to do with the kind of mental self-censorship it amounts to, by saying that 'some' people would get offended 'sometimes' and that just to be 'practical' try to be nice (though I have never tried to be not nice). Well, certainly the more effective route would be to post a slow stream of perfectly harmless and routine questions like you proposed, and over a period of months very politely and conscientiously establish myself as a credible among equals and then voice my opinions as only one among many, keeping most reservations to myself. But this is hardly worth that. I posted a message that tried to criticize what apparently are stable views held by a majority at the site -- a safe majority with no fears of any kind -- and that post was met with aggravated frustration by a half-dozen or so. The point is, like with so many other things, people have identified with the system and don't like to have that messed with.

First, the Bait and Switch:  It is impossible to debate a moving target.  You started declaring that you had read the articles and based on them made some conclusions.  When it was pointed out that your conclusions were incorrect, you then pulled the switch.  You introduced the claim that the definitions were t0o vague to use as written and you were forced to modify them to make them useable, and thus according to your modified definitions your conclusion was right.  It is completely impossible, to offer concrete contradictory evidence if you keep changing the target we are to address.  Are we now to demonstrate that the definition of Gamism as it appears in the article does not say what you claim it says?  Or are we instead to discuss the pros and cons of your submitted modifications to it?  One topic per thread please and try to lay all your cards on the table first so we know exactly what it is you are looking for.

You almost got me on this one. Because it is true, I argued against construals of certain definitions. This is not just a fancy way of putting it either. See above. The different articles that refer to gamism and simulationism, for example, each say a great many things that overlap and retain their ambiguity. It is only because of taking the definitions seriously and thinking about them seriously that I could argue against what I believe they amount to in essence.

But let me give an example. Again, this has to do with my early reference point of simulationism. I think I have put that pretty clearly to you above. But let me examine what I think the big dispute was. I said at one point that simulationism amounted to gamism without the game, or, without the meta-game elements. I backed this up by saying the exploration in and of itself can in no way be held up as the distinguishing trait of simulationism since it is part and parcel of role playing in general.

If you can understand that what is being referred to is the game and not the players' intent, then you can see a few things differently. Before you object, let me issue a few caveats about the convenient balancing act done between the games and the players' intents.

1. It has been asserted that the GNS model is restricted to players' gaming styles or their intents. A point that has probably been made before is that any game can be played with any intent. I could play a strictly 'gamist' game as a simulationist with a devil may care outcome regarding victory. In fact, I think it is at least likely this is mentioned in one of the articles.

2. If this is so, then there is a radical enough gulf between players' intents and various games and their rules systems that all mention of games and the GNS model (which even in the articles continues to be loosely applied to games themselves) should cease immediately.

3. If Number 2 is not true, then the requirements of any clear argument would be that there is a consistent and demonstrable link between GNS and games.

The long and the short of it is that one or the other has to take priority for the purposes of discussion. The truth is surely that role playing games as they manifest themselves as rules systems seem to favor one or other approach or style of play. The players then either stick with that approach or suffer under it, or make everyone else suffer because they are trying to turn a simulation into a novel.

My statement that simulationism is gamism without the 'meta-game' was taken without thought apparently to mean that when someone plays a simulationist game, he does so *because* it's not a gamism game. In other words, that the player regards or values simulationism as what it is because to him it is gamism without the game. This is wholly untrue. It couldn't be more obvious that when the simulationist picks up his pieces or rolls for his outcome, he hasn't the slightest thought or care about gamism. He cares not a whit for whether his game is gamism or not.

My statement refers to the game *at the formal level*. Again, feel free to counter that GNS isn't about games, but the players' approach. Then justify why it is routinely done even in the very articles to refer to a game's rules system as ('favoring') simulationism or gamism, etc. Take the old D&D, strip it of its POINTS system (symbolic evidence of character advancement: traits, attributes -- anything that can change) and what you have at the formal level is simulationism. They're indistinguishable. Thus the Space Invaders example. If this is not clear, step outside of role playing games for a minute and ask whether a single model developed by simulationists could ever be used by a computer or a missile tracking system or a factory robot. They don't simulate reality in any meaningful way whatsoever. It amounts to augury -- throwing chicken bones in a bowl to read the future. It's a symbolic tool to aid the imagination and punctuate its flow. It's the same in simulationism as it is in gamism to the extent that any example of either one has some method of determining outcomes ('simulating reality'). Again, for the purpose of being 'real' i.e. producing something that you can believe in as fully as you do reality? Of course not. Put 'real' as in 'in analogy to reality'? You bet.

Second, the strawman:  You accused a poster of entering a strawman arguement above.  I really didn't see one, but I do see the majority of this thread as a giant straw man.  You read the articles...YOU then modified the definitions of those articles.  YOU then criticized and condemned the MODIFIED definitions.  Talk about your coup de grace on a straw man.  It is completely ridiculous to ask anyone here to defend a statement that none of us here have made.   There are no point requirements highlighted in the articles.  If you want to insert them into your own version of the definition just to give you something to refutes, feel free, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with GNS.  In fact, we'd all agree with you.

If somebody calls you a moron, they have simultaneously: a) 'modified' you in calling you a moron; b) advanced the thesis that you are a moron. Anything that can be contradicted is therefore a thesis. Anything that contradicts necessarily changes it into something else.

In both cases listed above, both having to do with simulationism and gamism, I have used interpretations of both definitiions and justified them thoroughly. I have yet to see an honest rebuttal of either interpretation. When dealing with concepts, one looks for self-sufficiency. No concept can exist outside of a context, but this is not the same thing. The definitions as they stand suffer from certain inadequacies, *and the prevailing counter-argument* is that if you just accept the definitions in their entirety, the inadequacies fade.

4) You've repeated several times that GNS is a taxonomy.  This is fundamentally proveably, demonstratablly COMPLETELY false.  In fact, I am on record here and elsewhere as stateing emphatically GNS is NOT a taxonomy.  

This feeds into your discussion of games and RPGs as games.  A couple things to say on that.

First:  GNS is about observable player behavior at the table as it can be identified over an instance of play.  This is the core conceptual truth of GNS.  It DOES NOT in anyway start from a position of examining games or game design.  Games have been used to provide examples by way of illustration.  Once the theory is understood it can be applied to analysing games and determining what components they contain that encourage or discourage the observable player behavior GNS is about.  Often we use a short hand of "Gamist Game" to mean this.  But this should be taken to mean only "a game whose mechanics and system promote players making gamist decisions".  Without players, and actual decisions being made in actual play...GNS does not exist and can not be measured (only speculated on).  Thus, since GNS is not about the games themselves your distinction of RPGs and Games becomes interesting, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Of course, this is exactly the topic I proposed. I have to wonder what the value of GNS and the role playing theory on this site is if it remains unequivocally opposed to asking the question, 'what is a game?' It's like a post-holocaust environment in which Mad Max is holding college level courses on aeronautics. Only no one knows what a plane is. So instead, they hold classes on everything you can do in one. You can sit in them, for example. You can be served drinks. On the outside, the plane has two wings and a nose, but those features aren't directly related to what you can do inside the plane. Once you have mastered this, you get your degree.

The above example is actually a good one. Because in the post-holocaust environment there are no physicists around who can calculate force, thrust, vectors, momentum... So out of necessity they dispense with the question 'what makes it go?' Better yet, when someone asks 'what does the plane do?' they get smacked down, and are told, 'Don't ask what it does, just look at the sum of the details. That's all a plane is.'

But to reiterate, and to be a little more precise about your actual objection in that paragraph, that GNS is not a taxonomy, and it is only about players' aims, you should examine the exact link as to *how* an RPG can be said to 'favor' one approach over another. GNS and games are either totally separate or they are related, as I said above. Everything I have asserted about GNS, using examples and referring to rules systems, fits perfectly within the space provided by that special word 'favors' as it is laid out in the theory. If there is any link at all between them, you cannot simultaneously object to me traveling back and forth across that link.

Also, the assertion that GNS was developed in a total vacuum as a science of players' aims without any reference to particular games is radically suspect.

Second.  Perform a search and you will find MANY very long threads where we have discussed "what is a game" and "what makes an RPG distinct from other games".  You are not introducing anything that has not been extensively debated here already.  Feel free to examine those other threads and see where the discussions have gone.  If you want to discuss that idea further start a new thread on it (we generally frown on ressurecting old threads) and I'm sure if you have some new thoughts people will love to discuss them with you.

I find it hard to believe that whether or not somewhere in some post the question has been raised has any bearing on whether the GNS model and its attendant theory has taken any notice of the question or not. Again, confusion between questioning a body of ideas and a community, the Forge.

So to conclude.  You may perhaps wish to table further discussion on Gamism until this new article come out.  It likely will save much rehashing of old ground.  Any further questions on the definition and meaning of the terms, things you don't understand, aspects you disagree with; I would encourage starting a new thread on, as this one has gone sour.  I also strongly encourage you framing your queries in a less confrontational manner and avoiding certain intolerable discussion tactics.

It fairly turns my stomach to read such nonsense as 'intolerable discussion tactics.' To think, the use of the word 'intolerable.' It is not difficult to observe a very low threshold or very low sensitivity on anything having to do with questioning the ideas here in this forum. I could state the reason again: people are identified with the ideas and that interferes with the free flow of their thinking. I am not a member of your 'community' and did not make my post to elicit the kind of frantic innervated internet responses that should have been expected. I state again: the GNS model and related theory has gone about as far as it can. You can keep making finer and nicer distinctions, but having some inkling of what a 'game' really is, you may see a much stronger and more powerful theory, one that doesn't just start by presupposing what a role playing game is, or cover its ass by poo-pooing any thought that role playing might be a game and, thus, belong to something else.

[C. Edwards]

You just don't get it. You could be the biggest proponent of GNS to ever fall out of a tree, you could be mowing Ron's lawn, and you would meet the same resistance.

Hey, maybe you're just so brilliant we're all blinded by the almost holy light pouring from your misunderstood mind. Whatever. None of it matters in the least until you can treat people with some basic human respect. What you say? That's 'namby-pamby'? Screw the man I'm not gonna conform? Give me a break. You're about as hardcore as the Easter Bunny.

Anybody who disagrees with you is apparently a mentally impaired cultist, anybody who might be inclined to agree with you probably won't just out of spite. Can't say I blame them. You can't alienate the people you're expecting to have discourse with and expect the discussion to be fruitful.

Of course, due to your arrogance, which is rather impressive btw, you may be inclined to feel martyred or impinged upon. Don't, it's very unbecoming.

-Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Okay, everybody.

The starter of the thread said his most recent post was the last post.  You know the drill.  Should heinrich post again, the thread starts back up. But other than that, if I understand the protocol correctly, we're done for the day.

Christopher

[M. J. Young]

I read this a couple hours ago and started to reply; my wife interrupted, seeking information on the new Harry Potter book, and the system froze, and then I had real world things to do, so I lost all of that. I've overall had a bad day, so please forgive me if I rant a bit. I think there's going to be some good stuff here.

I do recall that I thought we might be getting somewhere; I hope I can recreate what I lost.

On one hand it has to be admitted that testing you or your character against the game or against other players is often done within an abstract framework of 'points' or some other symbolic marker or token that symbolizes or quantifies success.

Granted; but the fact that points are useful in gamism does not mean they are definitive thereof. Points are neither a necessary nor a certain indicator of gamist play or design.

As an aside, in discussing the early party model of many role playing games you observed that the players worked together, not against each other. This misses a nuance in Forge usage: the referee is one of the players. In early D&D games, many people saw it as a game against the DM, an effort to beat his scenario (and many DM's saw it thus as well). This is magnified in Hackmaster, in which the rules make it very clear that the players are playing against the referee. Whether this is a parody of OAD&D or not, it is gamist design which illustrates the concept that players playing "against each other" includes teamwork against the referee. There are other ways the players can pit themselves against something, including playing competition modules, playing in tournament play in which the team that overcomes the challenges most easily wins, and playing in puzzle-based games.

If I make any sense of this proposed definition, it's that while gamists play to win, simulationists don't care whether they win or lose. That's all well and good, but has little to do with the nature of the game itself other than those 'meta-game' elements that allow for strategy and the perceived measurement of success are lacking. This is not some preference-laden statement on simulationism. It has only to do with the formal aspects. What is the distinctive trait? That it is exploration without any other traits?

It was long thought that simulationism lacked a metagame priority, and that this distinguished it from gamism and narrativism, which are both defined by their metagame priorities. Recently, someone observed that this was not correct. The metagame priority of simulationism is to preserve the in-world consistency.

To clarify, let's contrast this to the others.

Gamists have a player priority, to beat the game or win or overcome the obstacles--to meet the challenge posed by the game. Thus as character players they will have their characters do things specifically with those concerns in view. Any player whose character did something for the experience points was acting on metagame concerns. Experience points don't exist within the game world; they're an artifice used to control aspects of the game. The player can't possibly do anything to get the experience points (whether he can do it for the experience itself is a separate question). Thus when the player has the character do something specifically to advance his position on this artificial track, that's a gamist metagame decision. Even without the track, if the player has the character do something to help him achieve some kind of game victory independent of what the character might or might not do (not that it is necessarily against what the character would do, but that this is not the player's reason for doing it), that's gamist metagame. On the other side of the screen, a referee who adjusts the challenge level to match that of the player characters is acting on a gamist metagame priority.

The narrativist similarly has a metagame priority: he wants to tell a good story (in a rather narrow sense), which deals with a theme or issue. A player who has his character do something which addresses or advances the theme is acting based on narrativist metagame concerns.

The simulationist has as his metagame concern the desire to keep all decisions and events as true to the reality portrayed as possible, by preventing them from being influenced by any concerns that are not those of the characters or factors native to the game world. That's as much a metagame agenda as the other two; it's just a different sort of agenda (as the others are different from each other). Faced with a choice between what the character would probably do and what he might do that could beat the game, the simulationist will go with what the character is most likely to do and the gamist with what beats the game. Faced with a choice between what the character would probably do and what he might do which makes for the better story, the simulationist goes with the more likely and the narrativist with the better story.

A good example would be how you determine when a character enters a scene. The player wants his character to go to a certain place where other characters are currently involved in something. For the narrativist, the decision of when or whether he arrives is based on what would be the best moment for him to walk into this. For the gamist, there's probably going to be some sort of checks to determine whether he can get there fast enough, and if he succeeds in beating the odds he arrives in time. The simulationist will work out whether the character actually has reason to go there, and how long it would take, and whether he knows to hurry, and then time that against the events taking place at the target location, to determine when he enters. It's a clear metagame agenda: I want to know what would happen in this situation.

That's all well and good, but has little to do with the nature of the game itself other than those 'meta-game' elements that allow for strategy and the perceived measurement of success are lacking.

Ah, but that is exactly the point. GNS is not about categorizing games; it's about categorizing play. It's primarily about recognizing that players play for different reasons. When we say that a game is gamist, we mean that it is a game which provides specific support for gamist play, and either implicitly or additionally impedes simulationist and narrativist play.

Your typical experience point system does this. A player who kills and steals at every opportunity is going to advance through the system rapidly. One who gives time to consider the morality of those actions, another who considers whether it's at all realistic for his character to do this and get away with it, do not advance through the game as quickly. Thus the game supports gamist decisions in a way which tends to penalize narrativist and simulationist ones--you get the points if you kill the kobolds, not if you decide that killing unarmed kobolds is immoral or if you decide that your character would consider that unnecessary. By contrast, Legends of Alyria supports narrativist decisions and not gamist ones. You can build a character with superhuman powers and supernatural gifts, but when it comes to winning the conflict, those things don't make you more likely to win than anyone else at the table. Creating good story drives play in that game; there isn't any such thing as "character advancement" or even really "character improvement"; there is only character development, becoming good or evil through choices.

Part of the lack of mental self-discipline that I gather from what I have been reading here is due to the predominant belief in today's ideology that definitions don't really refer to anything and have just a provisional value.

I'm sorry, what were your credentials? Here are some of mine:

[*]LSAT 48 (out of 48--99.8th percentile)[*]Mensa Qualifying Test One 99th percentile[*]Mensa Qualifying Test Two 99th Percentile[*]GRE Analytical 800 (out of 800)[*]Phi Delta Phi legal honors fraternity[*]Who's Who Among American Law Students 8th and 9th editions[*]American Jurisprudence Award for Jurisprudence[*]Juris Doctore[*]Co-author, Multiverser role playing game and supplements[/list:u]All I know about you is that you think you're smart. Maybe that was all you knew about me. Now you know more, and can stop being flippantly offensive. I argued about these things for months when the first appeared, and I believe that the theory was modified to some degree from my arguments--but I also came to recognize that the theory is a lot more solid than most people recognize.

Now, maybe you're actually a chess grand master or heir apparent to Stephen Hawking or Marilyn Vos Savant. Assuming you're only an ordinary genius, let me clue you here: these people are, in the main, your peers. Many are every bit as smart as or smarter than you, and they've been thinking about this for a long time. Now, maybe we missed something; but coming in here to tell us that we're all wrong about everything is a bit like dropping by the Manhattan Project to announce that Relativity is wrong.

Maybe I'm overreacting. At least a couple times a year I get e-mail from people who want to tell me that Einstein was wrong about relativity, who think they're smarter than all the people who believed he was right. Now, someone is eventually going to go beyond Einstein in a big way, by as much as Einstein took us past Newton--but it's not likely to be someone who doesn't even know that time dilation has been demonstrated. In much the same way, GNS is eventually going to be supplanted; but the person who supplants it is going to understand it quite thoroughly, and most likely is going to find a theory that incorporates everything GNS already explains by putting it in a greater context (as Einstein did with Newton).

I am certainly not saying that words don't have meaning. I'm saying that phrases are not always the sum of their parts. What are "war games"? are they the sort of strategy layouts Mike Holmes enjoys? Are they the field practices used by various militias to train troops? Are they the combat simulations run by computers such as WOPR in the movie Wargames? Not all of those things are "games" by your definition; not all of them are "war" by anyone's definition. When we bring words together into phrases, we accept that sometimes the phrases come to take meaning of their own, independent of the labels originally chosen to attempt to express that meaning. As that previously cited Gygax article suggests, a "computer role playing game" contains no role playing whatsoever; but even without the "computer" qualifier, the vast majority of people in this country think of Final Fantasy before Dungeons & Dragons when the phrase "role playing game" is mentioned. I've had to explain to my relatives a dozen times that Multiverser is not a computer game, because "role playing game" to them means a computer game. Are they wrong, or am I? Or do phrases come to have meaning independent of the words of which they are constructed?

Funny that given this ground has been so covered, nothing essential from my first post has even been addressed....I fully expect that in that very reasoned deliberation on those matters considered before that in typical fashion the concept of 'game' was thrown out the window as 'too subjective' and that one mustn't be 'exclusionary'.

I'm not certain there was anything "essential" in your first post. Sorry if we missed it. It read to me something like this:

You guys are all idiots for thinking this is true when it's obvious to me that it can't be true;

Let me tell set up this strawman and pretend that it's this theory, because really I don't understand the theory at all but if I pretend I do then I can knock it down;

Now that I've shown why my understanding of your theory is totally inadequate, let me force you all to accept my idea of what "game" means and why anything that doesn't fit with my idea isn't a game and should be classed as an abortive attempt, even though some of you are very successful authors and publishers of such award-winning and commercially successful things that dare to call themselves roleplaying games but can't be.[/list:u]
Now, what did I miss? What was essential in that?

The whole big fat corpse in the middle of GNS' dining room is that all of its fine distinctions, with their considerable subtlety, are only possible by excluding any mention of other games, or games in general, from the outset.

I find it fascinating because I don't know where this idea originates.

I have frequently categorized other games and activities as gamist, simulationist, and narrativist. Most board games and many card games are gamist--people play to win. Civil war reenactments are definitely a simulationist entertainment activity--no one would seriously call them games, but what else are they? War games divide into gamist and simulationist players--those who pull out all the stops to win, versus those who try to set up the reality to see what would happen if one thing were changed (e.g., could the South have won Gettysburg were it not for Pickett's Charge?). There are narrativist card games and storytelling games, although these are rare and have not achieved much success in the main--however, improv borders on role playing so closely it might be construed as narrativist LARP.

GNS is a taxonomy with special application to role playing games.

And I was involved in these discussions quite a long time ago, and if the word "game" was ever dropped, I missed it. We still call them "role playing games" around here. You're tilting at someone else with this.

But it should be noted that nowhere are there any insults, or even direct address, other than the reply to jdagna....

O.K.

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing.

Perhaps I didn't know what "historical abortions and half concepts" were; I took it to be a reference to game designs that were not, by Heinrich's definition, games. I wrote one of those. Ron Edwards wrote several, and received the Diana Jones award  for his contribution to our understanding of games. Others here have written games that are not "games" by Heinrich's definition, and thus fall into the category of "historical abortions and half-concepts". That's an insult; it was in the original post, before any interaction.

If after a historically contingent set of compositions and much study, one lands upon the Sonata form, and it is agreed the world over that the sonata form has such-and-such parts and certain regularities, would a series of failed sonata compositions by music majors then disprove the rule?

That one was backhanded. It seems to say that those of us who have written things which we call role playing games which Heinrich does not have created failed compositions by amateurs. Heinrich feels no compunctions, apparently, about declaring that anything he does not consider a "game" should not be considered a "role playing game" because of his definitions, and that further trying to include such expansions within the definition (going back to his previous quote) is trying to include an amalgam of abortions and half-concepts into the theory. He even overlooks the possibility contained in his own words, "Would all discussion of it cease if a few inspired composers changed and expanded the form?" Then, rather presumptively:

The sonata form has had better minds working on it than those working on role playing games.

Being also a composer, I wonder how Heinrich manages to exalt one group of creative minds and denigrate another, particularly as I am aware that I'm not the only overlap between the groups. That's also backhanded. We're not as good as composers.

Perhaps I should use an expanded model of what a 'game' is to encompass all the other failed experiments made by amateurs out there.

Which both begs the question and insults the designers.

You've come to a game design site. You have to accept that anything you say which denigrates designers is insulting to a large number of people here. Sorcerer is not, by any stretch, a failed experiment; it's a remarkably successful game by several definitions of "success". It doesn't happen to fit your definition of "game". Ron Edwards might be classed an "amateur" by the purest definition (he does this for the love of it), but most professionals hold him a peer, and there are those here who make their living from games--which makes us professionals.

This tells of a neurotic denial to accept the truth.

This sprang from Heinrich's insistence on very narrow definitions of "game" and "play". I note that he did not respond to my comments regarding the definitions of those words, or the fact that words in combination may mean something other than the sum of their parts. I've got a degree in law; I understand parsing language, and also recognize that at times a specific combination of words means something you could not derive from the individual meanings of the incorporated terms.

I already hit this one.

Part of the lack of mental self-discipline that I gather from what I have been reading here is due to the predominant belief in today's ideology that definitions don't really refer to anything and have just a provisional value.

I'm insulted. Anyone else?

You're the kind that is so pathetically sensitive....

Gee, he's come to understand us so intimately already? No, this is another insult.

All of these precede Chris Edwards' suggestion that his passive aggressive insults are counter productive--and I've ignored some that were so buried in the commentary that it would be difficult to draw them out. The posts are laced with an arrogance and attitude of superiority that drips from them; and they offer nothing to suggest that the writer has any claim to those.

Civility is in act, not in word choice.

Civility is in the treatment of others, whether by word or deed. Calling people fools and stating that they don't know how to think are as rude as punching them in the face unprovoked. The Internet has its rules of etiquette, and this forum expects higher levels of civility than most.

In fact, in defense of this point, I challenge you to mention a gamist 'meta-game' element that does not appear in some sort of points/cumulative system. EVEN IF you find a feature, like a marker that only can be obtained once and no more indicating some kind of trait or characteristic or ability, inasmuch as it could be absent, it still fits into a system of accumulation. One has it or one doesn't.

This happens all the time in Multiverser. There is no point system; nothing you achieve in the game impacts your ability to achieve anything in the game. What happens is that players establish in-game goals for their characters to meet, and set about reaching them, making decisions which push the characters toward those player goals.

Let us suppose that the player decides that his character is going to attempt to rescue the princess from the evil wizard. It could well be that the character will take unreasonable risks, braving pain and death, merely for the sake of accomplishing this goal--something highly unrealistic, from a certain point of view. If he succeeds, he has met his goal, won his own game, as it were. He gets no points for it; there is no system that rewards this. Yet the decision to rescue the princess was made at the metagame level--the player wanted to accomplish that--and then written into the character, who otherwise might well have seen the effort as foolhardy.

There is nothing there that can be reduced to points. There is the respect of the other players, who might be very impressed that the player succeeded at so incredibly difficult a task--and that's a gamist reward.

Not all points are gamist, and not all gamist systems use points, or anything reducible to points.

I just published an article, http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=72867&publisherid=54849">Game Ideas Unlimited: Token (at Gaming Outpost; members only), in which I suggest dropping rewards along the path of the players. I suggest that one of the things that keeps players going in a game is achieving small victories. Maybe your ultimate goal is to overthrow the emperor. Destroying his Death Star really doesn't move you that much closer to bringing down the emperor--but it does represent a victory, something of a success. Gamists play for successes; that's what they're trying to get. If in the end you fail to bring down the emperor, but you did rescue the princess and destroy the Death Star and unify the rebellion, well, you may still feel it was a worthwhile game because you won a few victories along the way.

A lot of old fighter video games (various TMNT games, Street Fighter, many others) are set up such that you beat up the mooks and then get to the boss of the level. If you beat him, you go to the next level. If you beat all the levels, you get to "the big boss of the whole game". If  you beat him, you won. A lot of these games don't have points. Why do people play? There is a feeling of winning when you beat the bosses, and a greater feeling of winning when you beat the game. Sure, you could impose a point system on the game--but a lot of players don't play for points, they play for victories. I've never heard anyone say that they got so many points in one of those games--they always talk in terms of how many levels they've beaten.

Similarly, if you've got Windows, you've probably got Windows Solitaire. In the bottom right corner, there's a point system. I played probably thousands of hands of solitaire with real cards before anyone thought to add points to it, and when I play the Windows version (convenient--no card mess) I never look at the points. I play to see if I can win, not to see how many points I get. Points are irrelevant.

Your concern about reality in games being a simulationist concern (we would prefer to say verisimilitude--there's little realistic about a simulationist Lord of the Rings game) is a red herring. War games (as referenced) demonstrate that people have different levels of demand of the reality even in gamist play. I can set up a war game with very loose verisimilitude--Risk is probably a good example of this; how many troops starve and freeze trying to fight their way across the Ukraine in the game, as compared with the experiences of both Napoleon and Hitler? I can instead set up a war game which requires me to count the number of bullets each side has in its stockpiles. In either context, I can play with simulationist or gamist goals--that is, I can play to see how it turns out or I can play to defeat the opponent. The level of detail might appeal to a simulationist more than to a gamist, because at some point detail overly burdens a game and at some point lack of detail makes outcomes meaningless--but that's not the same point, and there will be a tremendous area of overlap between wargames favored by simulationists and those favored by gamists. Verisimilitude is a factor in everyone's play; it is not distinctive of simulationists, whom I have already shown have their own metagame concerns.

It is entirely possible that Heinrich has left the building; I think that would be a loss. If not, perhaps this will help in some way.

--M. J. Young

[ethan_greer]

Guys, I think Heinrich is a troll.  Ignore his bullshit and he'll either (a) get the picture and start to contribute in a positive way to the fora, or (b) he won't post anymore.

[talysman]

it's possible, but the appropriate way to treat trollish behavior is to always act rationally and ignore any obviously absurd statements... because you can never be sure that a "troll" is not really a serious participant in the discussion. it's best not to treat someone rudely.

anyways, the main thrust of the argument was that GNS fails because it fails to define "game" and "role-playing" in any rigorous way. I think the responses to this aren't quite accurate, because they overlook the obvious: "game" has never been defined rigorously. it's a flexible, fuzzy word in common speech and carries this fuzziness of definition over into the realm of rpgs.

this isn't rocket science. we can be a little more careful about our use of terms because we are discussing rpgs from the theoretical side, but we shouldn't pretend this is a scientific discipline, because it isn't. the closest the Forge discussions come to any existing discipline is philosophy, specifically aesthetics, with an occasional side argument about ethics. and it's not even as rigorous as *that*.