Toward a Name for the Theory

[M. J. Young]

Ron recently pointed out that it's a mistake to refer to his roleplaying model as "GNS", which is an accident of history and at this point a rather limited (if central) factor in the whole.

I can't say that I've been actively looking for something to fill the gap of "what do you call this", but it happens this morning as I was making reference to an old theory in theology the form of the theory title and the way it was ordinarily referenced in the field caught my attention, and I realized that it might provide some insight into how to appropriately name the theory so much under discussion here.

Thus I'd like to propose for consideration, particularly by Ron but also by anyone else who has thoughts on it, a name for what has to date been rather awkwardly called GNS.

Ron Edwards' Social Agenda Model of Role Playing

I think it captures the essential elements of the theory; I think it can easily be referenced as either the Edwards Model or the Social Agenda Model, and probably would be so referenced in the future if this name stuck.

Anyway, I think it needs a name, or we're going to wind up with that silliness espoused by Lewis Carroll: this is the name of the theory, this is what the theory is called, this is what the name of the theory is called, and this is what the theory is. I think this name works, but it's not mine to name, so it's just a suggestion.

I'm particularly interested in having a name attached to it, because I find myself referencing it periodically in articles elsewhere, and doing so as "the theory propounded by Ron Edwards popularly known as GNS" is at best awkward.

--M. J. Young

[Tim C Koppang]

I think an appropriate question would be one addressed to Ron.

What are you planning to call this "thing" when you publish your upcoming articles?  And, if you don't want to name it at this point (or ever), why not?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I was waiting for the right name to strike me between the eyes or to be offered (probably as a joke) by someone here, through the course of discussion.

If neither emerged by the time of getting the "readable version of the whole shootin' match" together, then I was leaning towards the Creative Agenda model. The "arrow" quality of that particular aspect of the model, and the way the human mind twists and wriggles and tries to slide away whenever it's brought up, seems to merit focusing on it, to me.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

I'm planning on referencing the model in the aesthetics paper I'm currently writing (my final paper for "Philosophy of Art," due next week).  So far, I've had to call it "the model describing the form roleplaying takes, put forward by Ron Edwards."  It does seem, to me, to be a model that focused on the form of play itself, not on the players' or designers' intent, which I think is an important and unusual distinction.  Sure, once you examine Creative Agenda and break it down into GNS, you talk a lot about intent, but even then, Ron seems focused on demonstrated behavior, not on what the player may think s/he is up to.  And the Venn diagram itself seems to be all about form, without addressing questions of "Why roleplay?"

[Mark Johnson]

How about Social Creative Agenda Theory?  Er... maybe not.

[xiombarg]

Ron recently pointed out that it's a mistake to refer to his roleplaying model as "GNS", which is an accident of history and at this point a rather limited (if central) factor in the whole.

What about GNS+ (pronounced gee en ess plus)? It preserves the historical core, and yet reminds the reader that there's more to it than the GNS portion of the theory.

How about the Big Boxes or Russian Doll theory, because of the "boxes within boxes" aspect of the theory?

How about simply the Social Decision theory? Isn't that what it's all about -- decisions made in a social situation, at whatever "level"?