Let me state up front, I think GNS is an interesting attempt to define Player behavior...but WAY too rigid. And too complex. If you cannot tell me a definition in a paragraph, it isn't a definition anymore... it is an intellectual exercise. The fact that there are pages and pages for each section, G, N, S, points this problem out to me. As well as the constant negotiation of folk who are not as far down the process (like me!) to understand what the old guard understand.

But that isn't the biggest flaw, again, in my opinion. The biggest flaw was revealed to me while I was trying to get the word, Create, into the discussion.

If Exploration happens in every mode, so does Creation. That is pretty obvious, but hang on. Creation happens well before the campaign does. Creation of the rules, Creation of the game group.

When I put "Create" in front of GNS, it started me down a path away from GNS. And I added one more element, Proxy. Let me demonstrate.

Create Game
Create Narrative
Create Simulation
Create Proxies (i.e. characters, for GM, the world stage)

Every campaign across the land has those 4 Creations in there as well as many others.... ,Create rules (often done by a 3rd party), Create Social Situation, Create practice of the craft (lets actively get better at this), Create a physical space to game in.... etc. etc. Certainly there are campaigns that ask for more of the modes than the other... LARPs are fairly rules light... but they have rules. Dungeon crawls *can* be story-lite...but there is enough story to hang a hat on.

No Game: Well, no rules, no game. Might as well go write stories or draw pictures.

No Narrative. Might as well play a wargame.

No Simulation. No context to roleplay against or with. Again, might has well go and write stories.

No Proxies: It ain't happening... even if it is illusion, it is the principle illusion that matters. Without a proxy, the role playing exploration is moot. No world, no characters. Saying it doesn't matter is just so much angels on pinhead to me.

You cannot roleplay with any of those elements missing. You can "play" and you can "create" but it ain't roleplaying.

Once I established that in my mind, I understood this next nugget. Every Player, including the GM, has to have all FOUR things going on at the same time in order to ROLE PLAY at all. If you cannot wear those 4 hats, you aren't role playing as we understand it.

And therein lies the flaw in all the arguements I'm hearing. Every player is Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist at the same time. The GNS model says that isn't possible. I say not only is it possible, it HAS to be that way... or you aren't roleplaying.

Because a player cannot ROLEplay without creating a Narrative, understanding and utilizing the Rules to some fashion (granted, there are folks who barely get the rules..but they still abide by them). A player cannot HELP but EXPLORE the Simulation put before him.

Sure, GNS can point out tendencies. Sure, every player can exhibit stronger leanings towards a G or N or S. But y'know what... Aaron Allston's catagories do a better, more workable, more succinct job w/o all the intellectual wrangling. And I did a better job of wrapping it all up into "watch a player's tells"... which is the same exact thing Allston or Robin Law's (Laws of Roleplaying) suggests by saying "learn to cater to the player's needs". These models ALLOW for a mixture of definitions of player types... you can be a Power Gamer-Plumber, for example.

Then GNS isolates the GM and says "its only about the players reaction for the sake of this definition.' Bullpucky. The GM is a player at the table. The GM is defining tower of Simulation. What rules to use, parameters, decision making between competing players. The player's reaction can and will affect the GM, altering the simulation, the game, the story... and then the GM modifies and adds to the simulation... and it gets relected or acted upon back... and so on and so on. So any model that doesn't include the GM is simply wrong... again, in my book.

I don't think the gist of what GNS is trying to get to is wrong. But I think the definitions of G and N and S are problematic, confusing and create more obsfucation than clarity. I also think that the statement of GNS "are seperate entities" doesn't make sense to me.

So. That's it. I think GNS is interesting, but bloated in its terms. I'm going to use another art analogy. There is something wonderfully rough here... but it is like Logo design... it doesn't need iteration after iteration of adding complexity... it needs iteration after iteration of simplify, simplify, simplfy at the same time, getting more accurate. Logos go thru a hundered, 2 hundred iterations to get to that succinct image that can represent such a complex organization.

Hi Storn,

You've talked yourself into a circle. I think you're all tied up in knots that make little sense, mainly through some kind of obsession with the term "create," but it's not a big deal. Suffice to say that you're not presenting any sort of refutation of the Big Model or Creative Agenda in particular.

Let me know when you want to come up for air.

Best,
Ron

You'll forgive my healthy dose of skepticism that you've hit upon some magic RPG formula in a matter of a couple weeks and on that basis dismiss what 100s of intelligent folks have spent years working on.

I don't see anything in what you've written that isn't already well accounted for in the model...The WHOLE model.


I hope you'll forgive me for saying this but quite honestly...I'm left decidedly disinterested these days with defending the same things over and over and over and over. You may find this difficult to believe, but these points have been raised many times by many people over the course of the years these discussions have continued. Yes I understand that you can't read all of the 100,000 odd posts that are found here. But I hope you can understand that many of us have (or very nearly so).

That's not to detract anything from you, your ideas, or your ability to analyse RPGs. But seriously if we collected a dollar from everyone who joins the Forge and in a matter of months thinks they've come up with "a better model", Clinton would have our hosting fees paid for for a good long time (and a few of my dollars as well).

So its not that I want to dismiss your views out of hand. But please understand that the mission of the Forge goes well beyond simply being a place to discuss theory. And I think we've been too long distracted from pursuing that mission by constantly having to cover the same ground again and again with every new batch of members.

The theory has accomplished what its needs to. We now have a common lexicon of terms to use to discuss design and actual play without everyone talking past each other with their own ideas of what words mean.

Discussions of theory going forward, IMO, should be constrained to explaining that lexicon and its useage to new participants. Spending time on debating the theory's merits or accuracy (i.e. is GNS "true") should IMO no longer be a priority. Its central tenets have stood up to every counter argument thrown at it for 3 years. Its finer points have evolved and grown to encompass the input of 100s of folks over that time. It has proven its merits and its accuracy through numerous past challenges. That's more than enough for me to say, "GNS is exactly as accurate as it needs to be to serve the purpose we need it for".

I'm sorry you weren't here then to participate in those debates, your input would have been valued. Rest assured there were several folks of similiar bent as yourself making much the same arguements (many of which were incorporated into the model) so your point of view was not un represented. But at some point we have to say "enough is enough" its time to move on. IMO that time is upon us.

IMO its well past time to leave the rehashing of old ground behind and start tackling our other priorities more thoroughly.

NOTE: I have no official capacity in this regard. Its just my view as a member that the mission of the Forge is not being advanced by continued rehashing of theory.

I haven't come up with a better model. I didn't try to come up with a model at all... If I stumbled into one, well that wasn't my intent. What I DID do was point out the logic that I used to come the conclusion that I did.

My conclusion: That GNS theory is flawed because is preposes that Players are one way or another. It is flawed because it does NOT account for GM. It barely speaks of the Creative Process and relugates it as the Creative Agenda...which, quoting Valamir "only addresses part of the model"... yes, exactly. I don't think GNS comes anywhere close to understanding that EVERY campaign is a simulation. Period. It is an attempt to create story and game in "another world".

What I AM saying is that I think that the current definitions of GNS and Creative Agenda (thank you for mentioning that) SHOULD be better. I shouldn't HAVE to read thru 10,000 posts. The struggle to come to terms with the differences between Narrative play and Simulationist play go on and on and on. The more I read, the less I think GNS works. Because the more that Narr and Sim play blur together.

And the mere fact that these discussions keep popping up points to THE situation that I feel that you (the supporters of the theory) are avoiding. The fact that GNS cannot be explained in three paragraphs.

My conclusion: GNS definition needs better clarity and accuracy... or it fails as a theory. Not endless defense and pages and pages of clarification, which don't clarify much for me at all.

And yes, I'm challenging the bigger brains on this forum to clean up the theory. So, Val, if you are tired of defending, I ask you to re-examine what you are defending... perhaps there is a flaw...

I don't think what you propose really gets into the meat of the Creative Agenda portion of GNS theory. To translate from your proposal to GNS theory terms is pretty easy.

Create Game = Explore System
Create Narrative = Explore Story
Create Simulation = Explore Setting, Color
Create Proxy = Explore Character

You're up in the Exploration layer of the theory. All five elements are required to be happening in order for Creative Agenda to be addressed. This reads to me more like a rewording than a refutation.

Some other minor points:

GNS doesn't say "fuck you, GM" (at least as far as I can tell). It says "the GM is just as much a player as anyone else; he might have slightly different duties, a different interface with the system, but he is still a player." In other words, it does account for the GM - it calls the GM a player, and treats him the same as any other player.

GNS doesn't say "a player is X" (where X corresponds to G, N, or S), like the "player types" of Robin Laws or Aaron Allston. It says "a play instance is X", and possibly "this game session/campaign leaned in X direction." From there, you can look at "this game/rule/etc. is meant to encourage X decisions". You can also look at "this player seems to prefer X decisions over Y decisions" (but this can be misleading, and a person's preferences and priorities can change from moment to moment, or from game to game). In other words, GNS doesn't presuppose anything about players - it assumes that play itself can only prioritize one of these creative agendae at any one moment (but that which one is prioritized can change from moment to moment).

I am not an old-timer on this site, and I sympathize with you Storn.

From my point of view, it seems you are looking for GNS to do things that it was not designed to do. It's easy to do that, I know. Unless I am mistaken, GNS is intended to describe the reason why a player participates in the game, and nothing else.

This biggest confusion that I see on these boards happens when people start confusing techniques with GNS. Ron is very clear in, IIRC, all of his essays on the subject that GNS does not equal techniques of play, or any of the myriad other aspects of social contract.

Here is my summary of the theory, flawed though it may be. Ron or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong:

1.) The parameters of all role-playing are defined by social contract. That is, the players involved have stated or unstated agreements on all aspects of how the game happens. Most problems arise when participants are not using the same contract.

2.) Each individual player brings a bunch of preferences, desires, and whatnot with him to the table. One of these things is the motivation for play, which consists of a combination of three core motivations:
* Desire to prove "skill" of some sort by meeting and overcoming challenges (Gamism)
* Desire to immersively explore the fictional space for the sake of exploration (Simulationism)
* Desire to ask questions about the human condition and make thematic statements (Narrativism)

3.) All Roleplaying:
Involves a "story"
Involves conflict
Involves exploration
Not one of these things is the exclusive domain of any particular creative agenda.

4.) Exploration (which happens in all roleplaying) involves five elements:
* Character (people in the imaginary space)
* System (rules used to govern action in the imaginary space)
* Setting (the embodiment of the imaginary space)
* Situation (the things that happen in the imaginary space)
* Color (details that establish tone, and mood in the imaginary space)
Things that happen during play often involve multiple elements (for example, assuming character voice often expresses character, situation, and color)
Each of the five elements can be broken down into more granular bits. The importance of granularity is ultimately established by social contract, though the system being used has a great deal to do with it.

***

I hope that is helpful in some way.

Storn wrote: And the mere fact that these discussions keep popping up points to THE situation that I feel that you (the supporters of the theory) are avoiding. The fact that GNS cannot be explained in three paragraphs.

My conclusion: GNS definition needs better clarity and accuracy... or it fails as a theory. Not endless defense and pages and pages of clarification, which don't clarify much for me at all.

And yes, I'm challenging the bigger brains on this forum to clean up the theory.

Storn wrote: My conclusion: That GNS theory is flawed because is
preposes that Players are one way or another. It is flawed because it does NOT account for GM. It barely speaks of the Creative Process and relugates it as the Creative Agenda...which, quoting Valamir "only addresses part of the model"... yes, exactly. I don't think GNS comes anywhere close to understanding that EVERY campaign is a simulation. Period. It is an attempt to create story and game in "another world".

Heya Storn,

Not to trash your thoughts, but you're not tackling any new ground here. You're saying "A game requires these items." And I'm saying, "Yeah, so...GNS already accounts for all of those elements as being required in a game, regardless of the mode being engaged in. So your points are really...irrelevant to your conclusion."

As well, your "definitions" of G, N & S are...limited, to say the least. So, yeah, a game requires rules...that's not Gamism. An RPG has a story...that's not Narrativism. Context, coherency and consistency are required in all modes...that's not Simulationism.

Honestly, this is like the first year physics student who tries to turn the world of physics on its head because they've found this basic problem with theory! (And the same one every other first year physics student found before him!)

However, the real problem is that the student's experience with and understanding of the material are too limited for him to draw studied conclusions from -- his premises are incorrect, so necessarily his conclusions are.

I mean, really, if I had a nickel for every individual who has ever argued against or for GNS theory with me based on the idea that the rules have something to do with Gamism, I'd be rich.

So, yeah, come up for air. Untie yourself. Light does not travel through an Etheric medium, and there are explanations for how it is translated across empty space. Take some time to ask questions and digest the material before trying to prove or disprove it.

And I just realized I was very rude to you, Storn. For which I apologize.

Everyone so far has provided important concepts about your points, which I think are valid and valuable. But the real point is to say, "It is OK to hash through the topic like this." The better we do it, the more valuable this particular thread might be for future participants.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Glossary posting, which has now been through two sets of review-readings and will include a diagram of the Big Model. To make it good, unfortunately, takes time - it's more than just a list of terms and memorizable phrases (which I think would, by itself, be counterproductive). My hope is that discussions like this one and the Glossary will make the discourse with interested new Forge members easier and better.

But it won't eliminate the need for such discourse. Everyone has to hash it out for himself and herself, and - with no judgment implied - some folks do this best by objecting and by proposing re-phrasings. We as a community shouldn't shut these kinds of discussions down.

The only way to keep the old guard from being driven crazy, though, is for newer members to pick it up too. I'm very grateful to Landon Darkwood, for instance, for diving into a recent Narrativist-Simulationist discussion and nailing the topic to the wall. I'm very grateful to Dev, Paul, Alexander, and coxcomb for their work in this one, all of which was spot-on or nearly so.

So again, my apologies to you, Storn. I don't think you've provided much meat for the general discourse, but this sort of posting and the resulting discussion is very important to keep the understanding of the material fresh for others, and to give them the opportunity to teach. And who knows? The next such post you make will smack someone in the eyes and we'll say, "Hey! That is a big deal."

Best,
Ron

ethan_greer wrote:

Create Game = Explore System
Create Narrative = Explore Story
Create Simulation = Explore Setting, Color
Create Proxy = Explore Character

You're up in the Exploration layer of the theory. All five elements are required to be happening in order for Creative Agenda to be addressed. This reads to me more like a rewording than a refutation.

Those who are more knowledgeable than I might correct me, but it is my understanding that Exploration, in terms of the creative agenda, is INCLUSIVE of creation - the creative agenda just speaks to the reason behind why things are being created, and then explored.

Exploration and Creation are thus intermingled.

That's far more clear a view of what you're getting at, Storn, but I would say: you're not talking about GNS modes, you're talking about another box (like Social is a box) when you're discussing Creation of Game Elements and where they lie in relation to the rest of the model, and what other sections of the model they encompass or are encompassed by.

So, yeah, let's discuss that...perhaps in another thread, because I'm thinking there's a topic split happening up ahead, here.

Storn wrote: As for the calls for the theory has stood for 3 years and therefore this doesn't need to be gone thru again.... Sorry, disagree. Theories can be challenged centuries after they are concieved...

But it doesn't invalidate the challenge. It doesn't invalidate the student. It doesn't invalidate the next person who comes along and challenges GNS. This is an opportunity to teach this "1st year physics student".

Yeah, what Lxndr said - Exploration (Captital 'E') has a specific meaning in GNS theory that (I believe) includes the creation process that you're talking about, Storn.

*Hunts through glossaries*

Yeah, here it is, from the Gamism: Step On Up article:

Exploration
social and personal imagination, creation of fictional events through communicating among one another.

Hi Storn,

Am I correct in thinking that you understand that the term "Exploration" includes creation/imagination, but that you don't like the term? That you consider it to be unclear or non-intuitive for what it's referring to? And that this dislike is pretty much the real point of the thread, at this time?

Best,
Ron

Hi Storn,

Exploration is indeed a term like "roleplaying" for which the dictionary definition doesn't match the way it's used by in Creative Agenda theory .

However, in support of the CA/GNS useage of exploration, let me point to two other specialty uses of the term. First, in psychotherapy, "exploration" is used to refer to developing a connected series of thoughts and emotions. Second, in creative circles, such as fiction and screen writers, "exploration" is used as a metaphore to indicate the process of cumulative creation a writer goes through to produce a story.

Also, to address your concern about Creative Agenda theory labelling players as this type or that type. If you look closely, you'll see that G, N, and S are specified as priorities during play. Individuals may or may not have habitual preferences, but the Creative Agenda theory does not require that they do. It only observes that each instant of actual play demonstrates a favored preference for one of the three.

By extension, an rpg design is most consistently successful if it takes one of the three Creative Agenda's as an explicit goal. This is another way to say that a game works best if its purposes are clearly defined.

Storn, I'm eager to hear your responses to Raven's (Greyorm's) and Ron's most recent posts to this thread.

From what I can discern, Ron has made a very important query. It seems to be the case that you have very much invested not only in the term "create" but also in the act of creation. You pride yourself on creating art, for which you should be commended. You also seem to define a large portion of your role-playing hobby, or at least put most stock into and derive most pleasure from the act of creation. Creativity is your lifeblood.

You're not alone. In fact, you're among thick company here. Again, that's great.

However, it seems to be the case that you're letting that passion, that thing that you love most about role-playing impede you from appreciating, learning, and examining other aspects of your own hobby.

The so-called "GNS" model (I personally prefer the term "Creative Agenda model") does indeed consider creation as a crucial and substantive part of the act of role-playing. However, GNS examines many other crucial aspects.

So far, I'm making observations and guesses based on info. in this thread, but not offering much service in return. So, I'll get to that.

First, don't get offended. Ron and Ralph, especially have been at this with literally dozens, if not hundreds of people. That they may have come off abrasively does not mean that they do not care about you, your passion, or your take on the role-playing hobby. That's why you got an apology from Ron. He's a very, very nice guy; I've had beers with the man. We talk on the phone. He's not out to "AHA!" anyone, nor out to insult anyone's intelligence.

Second, take some time. If you are indeed interested in examining your hobby (if for no other reason than your fellow gamers -- like RDUNeil, correct? -- are participating here, too), then don't expect to "get it" over night. And, if you are interested in learning more about your hobby, don't get frustrated and dismissive if it's not clear overnight or in three paragraphs. What helps most people is reading, then discussion, followed by their own real-life gaming with pals, followed by more discussion (and reading), repeat, rinse until ... "Eureka! I get it!"

Third, really take a hard look at the Exploration level of the model and the next "box" or "arrow" inside exploration, Creative Agenda. The recent Narrativism essay went a long way toward explaining the model in full. I consider it the best available resource for understanding these "boxes" and the model in general.

Finally, I have to assume that you do indeed have some interest in this stuff. Whatever your reason for interest, I encourage you to stick with it. Too often, people come to the Forge, get frustrated, and walk away and tell all their friends that those Forge jerks are full of crap.

Actually, I think the people most full of themselves are those who don't have the patience and understanding to realize that this kind of discussion is indeed worthwhile for a great many people, and that it has gone a very long way toward both salvaging individuals' favorite hobby and toward the survivability of the hobby itself.

The theory may not be for you. You may not agree with every aspect of it (few do). I can only assure you there's something worth looking into. In a way, you have to take my assurances on faith. That's up to you. I hope it works out for you.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Storn,

Am I correct in thinking that you understand that the term "Exploration" includes creation/imagination, but that you don't like the term? That you consider it to be unclear or non-intuitive for what it's referring to? And that this dislike is pretty much the real point of the thread, at this time?

Best,
Ron

"exploration" is used to refer to developing a connected series of thoughts and emotions. Second, in creative circles, such as fiction and screen writers, "exploration" is used as a metaphore to indicate the process of cumulative creation a writer goes through to produce a story.

but I pointed out how your own definitions of these three aren't quite correct. (No offense, but I feel like your definitions on G, N and S are based on the words themselves, rather than the little snippet from the essay.)

GNS is about player motivation.

First, don't get offended.

Hi Storn,

First, I checked out your web site. Great work.

Second, please remember that G, N and S is about preferences. You wrote, "every player has to utilize all three modes... or [it's] not roleplaying" -- Now, what I'm about to say is apparently is going to shock you -- but everyone here agrees with you. All RPGs contain elements of G, N & S. What's at stake is, "Of the three, which does a player prefer?"

I offer a different analogy than the one you used (teaching about light and color), because GNS isn't about understanding a concept. It's about identifying when we gravitate toward enjoyment.

So... In Aristotle's Poetics, he writes that dramatic narrative requires Plot, Character, Diction, Thought and Spectacle.

We know that ALL movies have these these things to one degree or another (even if we allow a movie of mutes to communicate "diction" through facial expression.) Without all of these aspects, there is no movie -- just as without the elements that we normall tag as G, N & S there's no RPG. (I'll get back to my awkward phrasing of "normally tag" in a moment.)

However, different people will havea preference for different things from movies. Aristotle, for exaple, thought Spectacle was the lowest (if not cheapest) element of drama, and exhorted any dramatist for depending on it. One need not imagine too hard to think what his opinion would be of the Tim Burton Spectacle "Batman."

He also thought Plot mattered much more than Character. Thus, "Swingblade?" A peculiar failure.

Now, many people enjoy both to these movies. These are people who have very different taste than Aristostle. For him, Plot was the priority.

And it is the same with RPGs. Different people want a different emphasis on those things that a game gives, just as different people want different things from a movie.

(I'm going to insert GNS Boilerplate #7 here, and remind all that just as I might want to see Hellboy one night, I might want to go see Girl with a Pearl Earing a week later -- and enjoy both, as I most likely will have chosen each to fill a need that night. In the same way, my RPG preference might be different on a given night. GNS helps us understand there are these three broad desires for the elements of RPGs -- just as Aristotle lays out the broad elements of drama. By knowing what we want, we can pick the rules and players that will help deliver that system.)

I thought the Jurassic Park movies were boring as hell. But a guy on the stoop of an apartment building I lived in said the thought the dinosaurs were "beautiful." I would have said, "Accurate." The point is, the spectacle got to him. I thought all else was weak, and it didn't go anywhere for *me.*

That's just GNS. Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationsist -- three specifically, and relatively newly coined words (not all by Ron (boiler plate #32!)), that suggest the major elements of RPGs that players tend to get a jones about as a priority over the other two.

Now, you may not see these three being jockied for preference in play. I have. Others here have. If you haven't. Fine. But just try on my movie anology for a moment. There are great spectacle movies that leave me cold -- though I love, love, love spectacle in movies. But I need the character and plot to ride above the spectacle. If it's just spectacle, no matter how great, I check out. And that's not a knock on the movies. That's *my* preference.

Now: "normally tag as G, N &S." Please remember that G, N & S are not "rules," "story," or "versimilutude." All games have these. These terms are new. They mean specific things that in part need a bit of explaining because everyone knows what color is and in your class would only have to learn more. What Ron has proposed is something so alien to the thinking of people who play RPGs that its often a wearing down a rock by ocean waves before people go, "Oh, I get it."

The terms refer to a specific preference or priority during play for certain pleasures that RPGs offer -- often at the expense of the other two. This is how the horrible "Roleplaing" vs. "Rollplaying" wars got started. Both preferences (short of pathological effort), are fine... But so contrary that a person with either preference assumes those with the other preference is a schmuck. Why? Simply because of preference. Yes, both sets of games have rules, have story, have versimilitude. But the focus of the game -- howw much time is devoted to what preference, where the group is encouraged to place their mental efforts, how rewards (social and mechanical) are distributed , and more -- make the playing of the game very different depending on the preferences of those at the table.

And because you're stuck on the "terms" should be simple thing, I'll reiterate... if people came to you class on light, they would have arrived believing light exists. People often come to GNS saying, "As long as you've got a good GM, that's all that matters."

Well, not in my experience. (What is the GM's preference, right?)

So it's often an uphill battle to get people to see that they've even had preferences at all, that other people have different preferences, that all the preferences are vaild, and that one can make choices about how to play.

And it really just like the movies. When you wonder of someone, "How could he like that!?" or someone asks that of you, that's it right there. But how many people have read Aristotle? How many people know how to take apart a movie in terms of Plot, Character and Spectacle? Most people would say, "I just want to enjoy the movie!" Others say, "I just want to play my game!" And so the work of those coming and saying, "I know all about how RPGs work, and this GNS isn't it." I know for a fact, after talking the guy on the stoop, that he wouldn't know how a plot worked if it hit in the head. He just likes the pictures. Which is fine. But I wouldn't trust him to plick a movie for *me* to see.

Christopher

(No offense, but I feel like your definitions on G, N and S are based on the words themselves, rather than the little snippet from the essay.)

YES! That is true. And that is what I'm questioning here. Why does the vocabulary have to be stretched and redefined?

So may people have already responded that I am undoubtedly going to duplicate a lot of what's been said--I hope I don't do that unnecessarily, and that some of this proves helpful.

Storn, you've created a strawman. You've said that calculators must be computers because they can be used to compute, and in fact pencils may be used to compute, so they, too, must be computers. You've taken words that have very specific meanings within the discussion and ripped all the meaning out of them.

Gamism does not mean we're playing a game. Narrativism does not mean we're constructing a narrative. Simulationism does not mean we are running a simulation. Steam engines use water; early gasoline engines also used water. That doesn't mean that they are the same thing--the functional principles of a Watt Engine are entirely different from those of an internal combustion engine, even though both use fuel and both use water.

One reason there are so many pages of discussion is precisely because so many gamers think they already know how everything works. Often they don't even really understand what it is that they themselves are doing; those who do frequently assume either that everyone else is trying to do what they do, or that everyone else should be trying to do what they do. Surely you're aware that most people confronted with new ideas read into them what they already believe and understand, with the result that they don't grasp the new ideas? Again and again people appear on these forums (and on the Gaming Outpost forums before this) and explain why they don't agree with something they think is the theory, only to reveal that they have not understood the theory at all but rather have read into it either an explanation of what they already think or an attack on their own play style.

Thus the number of pages of discusson increases in large part to explain to people that they weren't really listening, or at least they did not actually hear what was being said. Some of them leave, disgruntled. Most of those who stay eventually realize that this is something really very simple, but contrary to nearly everything they had entrenched in their understanding of the hobby and thus difficult not in itself but for them.

Interestingly, people who don't play roleplaying games pick up the theory relatively easily. They don't have the baggage that tells them that this must be saying something entirely different than what it appears to say.

Storn wrote: If Exploration happens in every mode, so does Creation. That is pretty obvious, but hang on. Creation happens well before the campaign does. Creation of the rules, Creation of the game group.

Storn wrote: No Game: Well, no rules, no game. Might as well go write stories or draw pictures.

No Narrative. Might as well play a wargame.

No Simulation. No context to roleplay against or with. Again, might has well go and write stories.

Storn wrote: Because a player cannot ROLEplay without creating a Narrative, understanding and utilizing the Rules to some fashion (granted, there are folks who barely get the rules..but they still abide by them). A player cannot HELP but EXPLORE the Simulation put before him.

For some reason, he then wrote: Then GNS isolates the GM and says "its only about the players reaction for the sake of this definition.' Bullpucky. The GM is a player at the table.

Storn wrote:
y'know what? That is the first time I've read an Exploration definition(s) that makes more sense to ME (I admit, I'm dense, here folks) in RPG context. However, if I had my druthers, "cumalitive creation" gets closer to what role playing is than "Exploration". I like that term, "cumalitive creation"... the building upon elements... and it suggests a group effort. Exploration can be individualistic. My vote is for "cumalitive creation". I feel that is MORE accurate a term. But I'm digressing...

A simpler way of saying what MJ said (and perhaps less prone to argument by way of its simplicity, I hope) is that many words have multiple definitions.

For example, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word "space" has 11(!) different meanings, ranging from spatial to musical to temporal to psychological to mathematical.

For example, if you come into the end of a conversation where I am saying to someone, "I need space," you don't know right off whether that means I need more physical room (for an office, perhaps), or whether I need the other person to pack their bags and move back in with mom (or perhaps, even, I'm talking about blocks of time for television advertisements!).

Your current objection would be like objecting to my use of the word "space" in the statement simply because you've decided that I'm using it one way, or should be, according to your perceived definition of the word; that because you mistook the context of the word for one thing, that the term is "unclear."

Arguing that a term's meaning is "not intuitive" simply means you're not picking up the context, the definition being utilized; and that's what those pages of game theory help do: allow that context to be defined.

The other thing they help do is remove the preconceptions many individuals carry into the theory with them (again, as MJ noted), via thorough examination of the issue. Note that much of the text in the articles arises as a response to various "Yeah, buts..." heard over the years. So, rather than have to rehash the same points in conversation every time, the article has included them in its text in the hopes of heading such misconceptions off at the pass.

I hope that between MJ's post and my own, the discussion has helped you understand why the terms are the way they are, and why they aren't changing any time soon to something "more clear" (and why, invariably, the new terms will have their detractors who proclaim they, as well, are unclear). Mull it over, particularly the first sentence, and if you'd like me to expand on anything I've said, or have any questions, just ask!

greyorm wrote: Note that much of the text in the articles arises as a response to various "Yeah, buts..." heard over the years. So, rather than have to rehash the same points in conversation every time, the article has included them in its text in the hopes of heading such misconceptions off at the pass.

So, maybe this will help. Ron's Big Ol' Theory of Role-playing (which includes GNS, Creative Agenda, etc. etc.) is a very in depth scholarly piece of work. It contains concepts that are precise and technical. One of the reasons that GNS was needed in the role-playing field was that no previous vocabulary contains terms to identify and describe these concepts. That's one of the big points of GNS.

So, Storm, I kinda agree with you. Because of all the jargon, GNS is not really easily accessable to someone who hasn't spent a couple of months (or longer) figuring out what it all means.

At the same time, we're dealing with concepts that haven't been previously described. So, what *other* words will you associate with them? It comes down to preference in definition. Ron decided to call the concept of shared imagination "Exploration." You prefer a term related to creation. When I'm talking about it, I like to use terms like "meta-space" and "communal reality." But guess what? It's Ron's theory. So he gets to coin the jargon terms. The fact that you don't like his choices doesn't mean that the theory is broken or anything.

So, yeah. The jargon can cause confusion. Every couple of months a bunch of new people show up, read over the essays once, and think they're GNS experts. They assume that the terms mean what they're used to them meaning. "Hah! Exploration! I know what that means! Ah, Narrativism, I play like that!" So we get a bunch of variations of "GNS is all wrong! Here's why!"

So, like Ralph said, this seems completely ridiculous given the man-hours that have gone into developing GNS. At the same time, it seems like a stage that everyone has to go through before understanding how the model works. Like Ron said, nothing new, but personally required.

M. J. Young wrote: Interestingly, people who don't play roleplaying games pick up the theory relatively easily. They don't have the baggage that tells them that this must be saying something entirely different than what it appears to say.

Seth,

MJ isn't saying the folks being referred to believe the theory to be true, only that they don't confuse what it is saying with what they think it says. A rather important distinction.

I'm a relative newbie and I hear a lot of grumbles from the other newbie's about GNS. Frankly I'm a big GNS fan. One of the reasons I probably post relativly infrequently is that I find I have little to add of subsequent value to the theory and explanations already posted.

GNS is NOT about classifying people. GNS is about play priorities. Certain people may prefer certain kinds of play but that is it. You are right that defining people as one or the other is too limited, GNS never does that.

I like to think of it this way: Ron's Theory, which includes GNS, consists of really two parts. One, an analysis of the way people play RPGs and the creation of a terminology to describe such action and Two, suggestions for reinventing games to create more satisfying play. You feel his "map" of the RPG mind is not accurate. However, your post indicates that you do not have an acurate understanding of what his map actually is. Essentially you are pointing to Australia and calling it China.

I feel that reading and understanding the main GNS articles is key for intelligent Forge discussion. This does not mean you have to agree with them, just understand them. If you haven't read them all the way through then do so. If you don't understand them, ask questions. Until you have done these things how can you debate the theory's worth?

I'll admit that it took multiple reading and alot of sink in time to feel like the GNS theory clicked for me, but that is true of anything worthwhile that you want to understand. It is not necessary that GNS be understood instantly by every newbie. Seriously, how long did it take you before you even understood the concept behind role-playing? GNS is theory for role-playing gamers, and is not intended to be a "how to book" for newbies.

greyorm wrote: MJ isn't saying the folks being referred to believe the theory to be true, only that they don't confuse what it is saying with what they think it says. A rather important distinction.

BPetroff93 wrote: I feel that reading and understanding the main GNS articles is key for intelligent Forge discussion. This does not mean you have to agree with them, just understand them.

Brendon: This is very true. I'm a fairly new poster to the forge, but before I posted anything, I read all of the articles and a lot of old threads, and then lurked a while on the current threads. Getting into the discourse on the Forge is definately not easy. In the Site Discussion Forum, there has been talk of an Introduction to the Forge page for newbies, but it would be a lot of somewhat boring work, so no one wants to do it.

When I first started reading GNS and other matters of RPG theory, I was skeptical. I've been a died-in-the-wool White Wolf fan for years. Over the years, I've heard a lot of "White Wolf sucks" arguments, since there are a lot of people who don't like White Wolf. But I always found these arguments fairly lame, and showed that the gamers just didn't get it, not that there was a problem with the games themselves. And I've had a lot of fun playing White Wolf games. Throughout the essay, Ron tracks an imaginary group of people who are setting out to play Vampire and uses his theory to explain all the things that go wrong. Eventually, I was convinced. With Ron's theory as a lense, it is easy to see the flaws in White Wolf's games. But I had to understand the theory first, and I was at first somewhat skeptical due to brand-loyalty. Ron's essays overturned so many of the ideas that I had about RPGs that it was really disorienting. Once I bought the theory, my immediate reaction was to try to put myself into one of the GNS bins, until I realized how antithetical to the whole GNS approach this is. Even then, I had a really hard time understanding Simulationism. I think this is the least intuitive to understand, especially since it focuses on Exploration, but all the CAs involve exploration. Also, the Simulation essay comes first, so I didn't understand it as well the first time I read it, whereas by the time I got to the Narativism essay I was in better shape. But then I put it aside for a while and then reread the Simulation essay and, as they say at the Forge, *Boink* I understood.

Like a lot of things, until you understand it, the GNS theory looks really complicated and confusing. Then you hit the *Boink* moment, and you kind of wonder how you failed to understand it. I definately agree, however, that our difficulty in understanding is caused primarily by strongly ingrained habitual thinking about rpgs. Like most things, once you understand it, its simple. ;)

Seth, I agree completely.

Henri, I really understand your experience. I played mostly White Wolf before my Forge descovery but I always found an aspect of the game unsatisfying. I really liked the essays because they didn't say "White Wolf sucks" but rather "White Wolf doesn't work and HERE'S WHY. Also, while the group is imaginary I have had those exact same experiences in playing WW games.

This thread seems to be one of the many "flavor breaks" that people have with GNS. They spawn over an incomplete reading of the theory and are reactionary responses based on uncomfortable feelings. In other words they react to the "flavor", or perhaps color ;), of the theory and not it's actual content.

Hey folks, lots of material here for Storn to digest. I suggest we back off on posting any more until he has a chance to read through and respond. His thread, after all.

greyorm wrote: Hey folks, lots of material here for Storn to digest. I suggest we back off on posting any more until he has a chance to read through and respond. His thread, after all.