Topic: Method and setting
Started by: Tomas HVM
Started on: 3/21/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 3/21/2004 at 1:38am, Tomas HVM wrote:
Method and setting
In another thread I have stated that I do not find the words "system" and "rules" adequate as descriptions of the way we play roleplaying games. They are used in ways which conceal and distort serious insights for many thinkers on roleplaying games.
M.J. Young was kind enough to explain the "Forge usage" of these words to me, and that made me even more depressed. The Forge-definition, as outlined by mr. Young, is contrary to the normal way these words are used amongst roleplayers. This constitutes an additional problem with the use of these words, on the Forge. I, for one, do not find it easy to change definitions of words from one RPG-forum to another, wether on the net or elsewhere.
I would prefer Forgerites to find more suitable words for the elements they wish to discuss, and preferrably words with a meaning more closely related to the actual elements. To this end, I propose this scetchy outline of a "model of definitions":
Top layer:
The setting is a word that encompasses the fictional foundations of the game, as given in descriptions of the gameworld and the scenario. The descriptions may be given in the form of maps, handouts, written paragraphs, sound, animations, or any other media chosen to convey the time, place and feeling of the game world, and the underlying conflicts, agents and machinations of the scenario.
The method describes the way we play, including the system, the storytelling, and the organization of the game. The method is meant to be the top descriptive layer on the prosess of making the game happen. I have found it to be both an effective layer of thinking, and a good word to use.
The character is a mixed element, both an important part of the setting, and a necessary part of the method. To keep our thinking and theories on roleplaying games clear, it is important that we understand the mixed position and functionality of the character.
Some reflections on words used in the underlying layers:
Tools is used as a general term for the various tools we may use to make the method happen; wether it is within the sphere of the system, the storytelling, or the organization of the game. Tools may vary from the way we use our voices, to the rules adhered to when rolling the dice and interpreting the result. To view singular actions in the game as tools, enable us to focus on what these "tools" are meant to accomplish. That is an important change of focus in gamesmiths today, and a necessary one.
System is generally used as a word for the conflict-resolution model used in a game. It should be limited to this use, implicating that there is more to the method of a game, than it's conflict system. As such "system" will come to describe part of the method.
Rules may be used to describe the formal parts of a conflict resolution system, the particular routines described in the game as part of it's system, and meant to be adhered to by all players. This is in fact the most normal usage of that word, anyhow.
This is a proposal, of course, made in an informal forum, so it will be up to you to accept the use of it. I have used this model in my thinking on roleplaying games, and found it to be very effective in keeping my thoughts clear on the subject. I have also applied it in discussions on roleplaying games. Even though it has been strange for some participants in these debates to relate to these words, I have found them useful and communicative.
So, in earnest, I think we should try to implement these words in our discussions and thinking on roleplaying games. They will clarify things, and help us develop a better understanding of roleplaying games.
On 3/21/2004 at 6:21am, BPetroff93 wrote:
What?
Umm...sorry maybe I don't understand your post. What about the usage of the words "rules" and "system" as commonly applied to RPG's is incorrect? Furthermore how does the Forge further incorrectly use these words? We often use a number of discriptors in addition to "rules" or "system," such as "gamist" or "high contact," but we still seem to use fairly conventional definitions of "rules" and "system".
Have you read the articles where these terms are first described? i don't remember the words "rules" and "system" being covered explicitly but the other relevant "forgisms" can be found here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
For further clarification:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html
As far as I understand it your point is that A) Rules and system are inadequte and B) the forge uses different definitions. Please ellaborate.
Forge Reference Links:
On 3/21/2004 at 7:34am, Tomas HVM wrote:
Re: What?
M.J. Young (in another thread) wrote: "Rules" are the written structure, including the books chosen to define the game (e.g., D20, WoD, Multiverser) along with any agreed codified statements of rules, usually called "house rules", to which anyone can refer as an authority defining how play outcomes are to be adjudicated.When used as the general terms on the highest level of thinking on roleplaying games, these words and definitions conceal too much of the matter relating to roleplaying games. It colours our thinking in ways that is not sound. The same is not true for "setting", which is commonly used, and fully adequate to it's purpose.
"System" is the actual way play progresses, generally regarded as fundamentally about the distribution of credibility: who is empowered to make what decisions regarding the content of the shared imaginary space.
Rules become part of play through system; that is, someone with credibility under the system can thereby apply the rules when he believes they should apply.
Rules thus are what's in the book or on paper or otherwise codified; system is what we actually do in play.
It is no coincidence that almost no debate are given to techniques of storytelling within roleplaying games. Debates on combat rules, on the other hand, are so many and strong. A neutral reader of RPG-forums may think RPGs are all about combat, with no dramatic potential outside of this. And this is only two very obvious examples of how our understanding of roleplaying games, are tainted by inadequate terms.
I say "tainted" because it is quite clear that debates on combat and "rules" are going to be present anyhow. It is also quite clear that debates on storytelling never will be as common as the "system" debates. However; I think the picture need a little adjustment, and I think the use of better terms will help us do this.
I know that my description is somewhat unfair in relation to the Forge, as this is a forum where debates are more diversified than most other places relating to roleplaying games. That is in fact my reason for posting these thoughts here. The members of the Forge, as I know them, are compassionate about roleplaying games, and dedicated to the understanding of them. The discussions here constitutes a serious and positive movement in the understanding of roleplaying games. This makes the forge the right place to start (first we convert the Forgerites, then we save the world... ;)
So; to a certain degree we discuss within the realm of the terms we know. These terms are our theoretical tools, so we need to look closely at them. And we need to invent new tools, when the old ones are found to be inadequate.
On 3/21/2004 at 11:19pm, M. J. Young wrote:
Re: Method and setting
Tomas was kind enough to call my attention to this thread, although I don't expect I'd have missed it otherwise. Thank you for the heads-up.
I don't have much to say about most of your terms; however, I think there is some clarification appropriate for some of this.
Tomas HVM wrote: System is generally used as a word for the conflict-resolution model used in a game. It should be limited to this use, implicating that there is more to the method of a game, than it's conflict system. As such "system" will come to describe part of the method.
System is indeed the conflict-resolution model used in a game; but it's not the one in the book--it's the one actually used. Also, through many hours over years of discussions, it's become axiomatic at The Forge that system doesn't actually work the way people think it does--it isn't that the game engine dictates a result, but that the system provides a means of establishing events in the shared imaginary space. Let me see if I can deconstruct this a bit.
Joe says, "I'm going to attempt to jump the gap."
Bill, acting as referee, says, "You make it."
In this instance, the system appears to be that the referee decided whether Joe's character could successfully jump the gap.
Joe says, "I'm going to jump the gap."
Bill says, "Roll a percentage."
Joe rolls the dice and says, "35."
Bill says, "You made it."
In this case, it appears that Joe had to roll the dice to make it across the gap, and that the game engine decided that he was successful.
Joe says, "I leap across the gap and run into the next room where I hear the screaming."
Bill says, "As you enter the next room, you see Mary cornered by a giant spider."
In this case, it appears that Joe decided on his own that he successfully leapt over the gap.
Yet all three cases are at one level the same: Joe announced that his character was going to make the jump, system stepped in, and everyone then imagined Joe having successfully made the jump.
What system does is tell us how that decision is made. Can Joe say he succeeded, can Bill just decide it, do the dice have to be rolled, are there charts to consult? In the end, how do we know whether Joe successfully leapt across the gap?
The answer is that someone has the right to declare that he did (or that he failed), and that right is given to that person by the system. We call the right to declare what is real within the shared imaginary space credibility, and we call the assignment of that right apportionment (indicating that it is always divided between the participants to some degree). Thus the system apportions credibility in that it determines who has the right to say whether the action was successful or failed.
What about the dice? The dice don't actually speak into the shared imaginary space. The characters are usually unaware of the existence of the dice or their impact on play. Dice are interpreted by participants, who then are given the credibility to declare the outcome based on the dice. Like rules, dice have authority--participants can appeal to them if they disagree with a statement that has been proposed (such as, "You missed;" "No, I rolled a 17, and with my +2 for strength and my +4 sword, that has to be a hit"). Authority is not credibility; it is a foundation which supports credibility. The only thing that directly affects the shared imaginary space is statements made by the participants. Only participants have credibility; anything to which they appeal to support that credibility has authority. System is the means by which credibility is apportioned among the participants, telling who gets to define what within that shared imaginary space.
Thus if someone falls, system determines who can say what the consequences are; if someone attacks, system dictates who declares the results of that attack; if someone travels to a destination, system establishes who says when he arrives.
In this sense, you're absolutely right--system is the conflict resolution model in the game. However, the way conflicts are resolved in the game, no matter what the rules say is the way they are resolved, is through player negotiation and the assignment of credibility to someone ultimately enabled to declare the outcome.
Earlier in his post, he wrote: The method describes the way we play, including the system, the storytelling, and the organization of the game.
And then he wrote: Tools is used as a general term for the various tools we may use to make the method happen; wether it is within the sphere of the system, the storytelling, or the organization of the game.
You use the word "storytelling" quite a bit, I've noticed; I think that it is not often used by others here, and I think that's because it has some rather negative connotations in the minds of many here.
One reason for this is that White Wolf has coopted this as an identifier for its World of Darkness system. I don't play these games, but I do know that they call their referee the "Storyteller" and I'm sure I've heard it referenced as the "storytelling system" or close to that. Those games are very popular, but there is reportedly a lot of incoherence between what the text encourages and what the mechanics support; there's also a tendency for people to confuse that system with narrativism, and while it does appear to have some narrativist elements these are generally either overwhelmed or discarded in practice.
The word "story" also has been problematic here, largely due to debates about whether narrativism's emphasis on theme means that other kinds of games don't create stories. To some, a story is any sequence of events that have some loose connection from one to the next; to others, it isn't a story unless there is some overarching theme. I could tell you the "story" of my canoe trip down the Delaware, but that is a recounting of events, and does not fit into the definition of "story" demanded by some people (say, for instance, Aristotle). Most games are akin to my trip down the Delaware, a sequence of events loosely connected by the involvement of the central character but having no particular meaning outside themselves. When narrativists start talking about playing to produce stories, they mean something different by it, and this creates great arguments about whether accounts of other forms of play are themselves "stories". Thus we try to avoid "story" as a word that doesn't really have any useful meaning.
Finally, there is a degree to which the word "storytelling" implies (or perhaps it is only that I and many others infer) that someone is controling what happens, telling a story to which the others are audience. This is a big red flag for railroading, which means illusionism or participationism, the former dysfunctional and the latter somewhat marginalized (at least around here). Certainly trailblazing can be described as a type of storytelling and a legitimately interactive play style, as it is more cooperative yet follows the path created by one individual. The idea of storytelling could certainly go beyond the limits of these forms, but in more cases than not it becomes a matter of one person telling everyone else what is happening in the game world, while they become rapt (or not so rapt) audience.
So I don't think storytelling is going to catch on as a term around here.
Good post, overall. I hope this brings some things into focus.
--M. J. Young
On 3/22/2004 at 12:06am, BPetroff93 wrote:
Reply
I’m going to try to limit my response to what I feel is the main point of your argument, Tomas, although there are a number of other points that are open to debate. Because the main thrust of your arguement is spread throughout your posts and not in a single cohesive statement I have done alot of cutting and sniping. I have tried to be faithful to the original intent of your argument.
Tomas HVM wrote: System is generally used as a word for the conflict-resolution model used in a game. It should be limited to this use, implicating that there is more to the method of a game, than its conflict system. As such "system" will come to describe part of the method...
...The method describes the way we play, including the system, the storytelling, and the organization of the game...
...Rules may be used to describe the formal parts of a conflict resolution system, the particular routines described in the game as part of its system…
You are essentially saying that the system = the conflict resolution model. You are proposing that we use method = the game as played. Therefore by your definition rules = the parts of system, essentially system= Nrules. But all of this doesn’t really work. For example by your definition the character creation mechanic and reward mechanics cannot be considered system. It is somewhat unclear whether or not they can even be called rules! “House rules” could be considered a misnomer by your definition because you reference rules to the "formal parts" of the "conflict resolution system" and house rules are informal, nor do they always refer to conflict resolution. I do not feel that these proposed definitions are accurate of the terms in common parlance. I have never met a gamer who feels that character creation and reward mechanics are not part of the system of any given game. And house rules are most certainly rules. Their formality or informality does not determine there validity as rules.
M.J. Young wrote: "Rules" are the written structure, including the books chosen to define the game (e.g., D20, WoD, Multiverser) along with any agreed codified statements of rules, usually called "house rules", to which anyone can refer as an authority defining how play outcomes are to be adjudicated.
How is this not an accurate usage of the word? This is not “Forgism” it is common usage. If you wish to carry this discussion further please support your argument.
M.J. Young wrote: "System" is the actual way play progresses, generally regarded as fundamentally about the distribution of credibility: who is empowered to make what decisions regarding the content of the shared imaginary space.
This is certainly not common verbiage, but it is an accurate description of the way the word is commonly used. System is not the whole sum of play. It does not include storytelling or the organization of the game but only the rules in application.
M.J. Young wrote: Rules become part of play through system; that is, someone with credibility under the system can thereby apply the rules when he believes they should apply.
Rules thus are what's in the book or on paper or otherwise codified; system is what we actually do in play.
I think that last line is what is misleading you, “system is what we actually do in play.” M.J. is saying that in REFERENCE to the rules. He is not saying that system is the sum total of play, merely the rules in application, which amounts to an issue of control over the shared imaginative space.
The "Forge definintions" are not only more in keeping with both words as they are commonly used, they are also more in keeping with the textbook dictionary definition of both words. My friend Tomas, what about these definitions specifically is unacceptable? In what manner would your proposed changes to these definitions improve the hobby?
On 3/22/2004 at 4:20am, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Re: Method and setting
BPetroff93 wrote: For example by your definition the character creation mechanic and reward mechanics cannot be considered system.Indeed it can. And neither have I.
...
I have never met a gamer who feels that character creation and reward mechanics are not part of the system of any given game.
The character creation may be considered to be part of the system (creating the agent and the statistics necessary to function within the frames of the system), and at the same time it may be considered to be part of the way we organize the game (character creation being part of the preplanning of the game).
Any reward mechanics may be considered part of the system (enabling characters to have an increasing chance of desired impact on conflict resolution), and at the same time a part of the storytelling (enabling the gamemaster to reward the "right" way of playing, thus setting standards and directions for the drama).
BPetroff93 wrote: ... house rules are informalNo; this is not correct! All rules are, by their very nature, formal. "House rules" are formal procedures conceived by the participants of a game, to facilitate their specific game goals, or to fill gaps in the rules given by the gamebook. The moment the house rules are agreed upon, as the preferred procedure, they are as formal as anything else.
M. J. Young wrote: System is indeed the conflict-resolution model used in a game; but it's not the one in the book--it's the one actually used.Generally it is thought to be so, and not.
"System" is generally used synonymous with the game itself, as in "the D&D-system" or "which system are you playing?". Instead of using system this way, I prefer to call the game exactly that; "the game", as in "the D&D-game" (possibly the word "game" should have been included in my initial post).
"System" is also used as a word for the conflict-resolution, as it is explained in the book. Most people do not make any distinction between "system in book" and "system in play". In my view the conflict resolution, or system, is one of the tools proposed in gamebooks, to be used within the frame of the method. We may call it "system" as it appears in the book, and at the same time we may call it "system" as it is applied in play. I consider this to be quite unproblematic, as long as it is understood that the application of the system takes place as part of the method.
As it is, most methods roleplaying games are played by, are inherited by the individual player through childrens play. The skills and tricks necessary for the game to take place, and a central part of our method, are mostly taken for granted in the gamebooks. These skills are mostly taken for granted by roleplayers too, or given relevance through the skills of the gamemaster. The traditional gamebook hints on how to play, but gives little in the way of an actual method. The actual method is left for the gamemaster to work out. The traditional gamebook is focussed on presenting a conflict system, given by a collection of rules, mostly on combat. By this focus derives the use of "system" and "rules" as synonymous with the game itself.
I hold this to be a natural focus, as the games tend to focus on the field of game that is in most need of help. Conflict resolution in childrens play are at best scetchy (I shot you dead! No, you didn't!). It is an important part of the social learning presented in childrens play, and it is often the reason play is ended (often in quarrels). The focus on conflict resolution within traditional roleplaying games forestalls this, and makes for a more adult approach; the system being more formal and impartial, and less volatile. Even though this is a necessary focus, it is still a focus, and should not be treated as roleplaying games in itself.
The traditional roleplaying game always make use of a method more sophisticated and subtle than anything described in the book (most roleplaying games do), and most of the method is outside system. The method is to be used for other means than mere conflict resolution; mainly to propel and fill the drama, and to organize the game. To identify the conflict resolution with these other parts of the method is a misconception. The system is more of a "drama halter" than a "game engine". What really propels the game is methodical tools of another nature. What fills the drama of the game is the imagination of the participants (the gamesmith being a silent participant), as expressed with the tools of the method.
The reason we need to shift the traditional focus, or the reason we need to realize this is a focus; is that by doing so we open up whole new avenues of thinking on roleplaying games, and whole new avenues of game design. In relation to the traditional roleplaying game, which I perceive to be the mainstream of tabletop RPGs, this may prove very important.
By introducing easy-to-understand and straightforward terms, like "method" and "tools"; I hope to facilitate a shift in focus. When able to focus more clearly on the parts of method outside system, our thoughts on how to play roleplaying games may alter in subtle ways. It may make it easier to introduce conflicts of another nature than the mere physical. It may facilitate social, economical, political and intimate conflicts in the roleplaying game. A lot of these conflicts are made easier by the methodic tools found outside the system. And the physical conflicts will benefit as much, given greater dramatical impact by methodic tools outside the realm of the conflict resolution.
Most innovative game design today actually explores the vast fields of possibilities found outside the old "system"-thinking. In my view this clearly shows that the exploration of this form has outgrown it's juvenile and clumsy terminology. My aim is to contribute to a renewal of this terminology, to cater for new thoughts, and to facilitate new focus in design.
M. J. Young wrote: Finally, there is a degree to which the word "storytelling" implies (or perhaps it is only that I and many others infer) that someone is controling what happens, telling a story to which the others are audience. This is a big red flag for railroading, ...I'm identifying one part of the method by the word "storytelling". I am aware that this is a laden word. I am a storyteller myself, and as such I know that storytelling and roleplaying is not the same. However; a lot of the tools and techniques used in storytelling, may be applied to roleplaying games too. Some of them do not function at all, some of them needs some adjustment to function, and some are directly transferrable between forms. So I do not use "storytelling" in reference to the form of storytelling, but as a word for the tools related to storytelling in roleplaying games. Neither do I use "storytelling" in reference to roleplaying games which prefer to call themselves "games of storytelling". I have no problem with these games myself, though, or their use of the term "storytelling", even though I consider them to be roleplaying games (I have a similar attitude towards the term "adventure game").
...
So I don't think storytelling is going to catch on as a term around here.
However; I do have a problem with the angst surfacing in the way "storytelling" are conceived amongst many roleplayers. It is, as mr. Young describes it, often associated with railroding, narrative control, audience-attitudes, etc. In my world these elements of the game is not all bad, and as such they should not be put in the dark bag of horrible things to do.
- Railroading may lead you places you never would visit without it. To be steered in a direction, to be forced by the gamemaster, the designer or other players into stances not willingly taken, to act within narrow frames, may enrichen your game. I'm not advocating railroading as a method of play, but it is certainly a viable tool.
- Narrative control is always present in some way. It may be identified with a conscious effort to make the game better, and such efforts are often a boon to the game. It may be illconceived and misused, of course. Negative narrative control will happen more often in a game with no effective tools on how to establish it in positive ways, how to share it, and how to make the game throw it off and fly.
- An audience in the ordinary meaning of the word, is not present in a roleplaying game. Still; we perform to eachother in the game, however shy we are to admit it. I will not discuss this point though, as I perceive a lot of roleplayers to be shy, and do not want to make unecessary challenges to this shyness.
The main point with "storytelling" and the angsty way it is conceived by a lot of players, is that it touches on the ideology of total freedom maintained by many players (No one shall tell me how to run/play my game!), carefully fed by wise gamesmiths ( The only limitation to this game is your imagination!). When elevated to the level of ideology, this perceived freedom is as much a prison as anything else. I do not like the way it impede the good use of effective tools, or the way it sometimes influence debates on roleplaying games.
On 3/23/2004 at 2:13am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: Method and setting
Tomas HVM wrote: Most people do not make any distinction between "system in book" and "system in play".
Ah--but we do. We consider that distinction to be crucial to understanding what is really happening in role play. Thus we call what is actually done in play "system" and what the book says "rules" to distinguish them.
It had to be one way or the other, I suppose; and since "system" was already established and integrated into Ron's five elements explored, it was quite reasonably recognized that the system being explored is not the one in the book but the one actually governing play.
For an extreme example, I corresponded for a while with a long-time gamer who commented that the mechanics in a game book didn't matter to him because whether he was playing D&D or Vampire or any other game he always used his own resolution mechanic for everything, because it worked well for him. Now, if we were playing in his game, we might be exploring system, but we're not exploring the system described in the book--that's only rules, and rules which are by and large being ignored by the referee, who is using his own techniques to run the game. We have no connection to the book at all; we're exploring his system.
Since you can only explore through play what the book says to do if that is in fact what's being done, the system being explored is the one in use, not the one in the book. They might be very close to each other, or they might be very disparate, but the one actually in use is almost never the one in the book in all particulars. As a game author, I am quite aware that few people run the game the way I think the book says. In fact, my co-author and I run it very differently, despite having collaborated on putting how to do it into writing (although that is in large part due to the fact that we included multiple tools for many situations, and we have different preferences in when to use which tools). I understand that Gary Gygax did not use all the rules in the core OAD&D books (he didn't use weapon factors for armor class, I am told) despite having written them. Whatever the books say, even we as authors fill the gaps with our own understanding of what we meant, and others fill those gaps differently. It is not what's in the book that governs the outcomes; it's what the real system in use dictates.
Also, you keep referring to conflict resolution as if it were the whole of all systems. I think this is too narrow. I see what you mean, but I'm also aware that books include task resolution, outcome resolution, event resolution--not all situations are resolved as if there were conflict involved. Also, there are examples of role playing games with no combat and very little apparent conflict--Vincent Baker's Matchmaker is fascinating in this regard, as the players are trying to manipulate two of them into "falling in love" without knowing either the key to success or the hazards in the way.
In the end, though, I think my problem is elsewhere.
You object to our very narrow, very focused use of the word "system", which is sufficiently related to the ordinary use of the word by most gamers that they can quickly grasp the distinctive way in which we use it, because you think that they won't get the meaning. I know that there are a lot of words used here in very narrow ways; narrow definitions facilitate understanding, because they reduce confusion. Everyone is on the same page.
At the same time, you want us to adopt your word "method", a word which, as far as I am aware, no one uses but you. That in itself is not problematic; but the way you want it to be used seems to be so encompassing that it loses meaning. It seems to include agenda, system, techniques, and ephemeral, all rather indiscriminately tossed together into some sort of salad in which they are quite indistinguishable. Method includes stance; method includes resolution mechanics; method includes credibility distribution; method includes communications techniques, referee style, scene framing, and a host of other things--things which we already would compartmentalize significantly. At the same time, you contrast "method" against "setting"--and one thing I've learned for certain is that setting is inextricably integrated with system. Even in Multiverser, the overall "setting" is "everywhere you can imagine", and that is integrated into the system; and whenever it becomes "right here for now", wherever "here" is alters the system. I'm not saying that it's inappropriate to distinguish setting from system (or from method), but I am saying that your use of "method" includes a lot of things that are less integrated with system than setting is.
Or perhaps I just don't see what the focus of the term really is.
--M. J. Young
On 3/23/2004 at 3:27am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: Method and setting
M. J. Young wrote:
At the same time, you want us to adopt your word "method", a word which, as far as I am aware, no one uses but you.
I wouldn't come in with this kind of a short comment, but this is the point here isn't it? A classical terminology discussion, where the point is to simply choose the lexicon easiest to use and most corresponding to the theoretical bias.
Anyway, my point: while 'method' and other terms Tomas proposes might look like awkward to many here, I see the rote in them. I myself actually commonly use the word 'metodi' when discussing roleplaying in Finnish. I propose that this is true of Tomas as well, and he didn't just invent the word. It's in common use at least in Finland. So from his viewpoint there is nothing strange in the choice of words here. The same holds for his other choices, they are possible from where I'm standing, just not useful without the accompanying theory.
Concerning your discussion in a larger sense, what I'm seeing is theoretical break. Tomas's terminology make sense to him because his personal theory of roleplaying delineates things along these lines. Likewise mr. Young defends Forge terminology because that's the theory he's applying the terminology to.
What I'm trying to say is that you really cannot sensibly claim any supremacy for any terminology without commenting on the accompanying theory. So Tomas really cannot ask us to start talking about method if there's even a slight difference in meaning compared to Forge 'system' - and if there is no difference, there is hardly any pressing reason to switch over, both being quite handy words in and of themselves.
This is the reason they have so many overlaying terminologies in human sciences. If one theory divides a phenomenon into two parts and another in three, you cannot use the same words to refer to those different mappings without undue fuzziness.
P.S: seems my brother went and bought Multiverser when I hinted about it. I'm waiting expectantly for it to get here from Germany...