Hello,

Here's the state of things: the first draft has been finished for over a month. It's been awaiting formatting, and now that's hit a snag in terms of others' time.

So here's the link to the extremely not-formatted-right-yet version: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

This is the thread for comments, questions, inquiries, and so on. Please save me a lot of grief and read the guidelines for posting in the beginning of the document.

Best,
Ron

I thought Beeg Horseshoe proposed Nar and Gam to be on the tips of the horseshoe, with Sim residing on the bar of the horseshoe at a centerpoint between the two ends. Have I been wrong all this time? I think that would be funny. Looking at the original thread, it's a little ambiguous.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=617

Hi, Ron -

- In the entry for Creative Agenda, you identify System as the component of Exploration which most crucially expresses it. I thought I remembered you picking out Situation as an 'eight hundred pound gorilla' elsewhere. My memory may be confused here though - possibly you were saying Situation was important for something else. Question: is it important to pick out an element as 'the important one' at this point in the definition process? Does the potential for confusion outweigh the benefit of saying 'hey, look here'?

- In the definition of Bang you seem to have Narrativist bangs in mind. Is that intentional? If you intend 'Bang' to have broader relevance, maybe you should drop 'thematically' and go with the vaguer 'significant'.

- The technical terms for the fallacies committed by an argument which employs what you call synecdoche are Division (whole for part) and Composition (part for whole). Since these terms aren't used here they probably don't need to be in the glossary, but it always kind of amuses me that we use litspeak here to deal with logical errors.

Best,

Sean

Ethan is correct as to the theoretical shape on Beeg Horseshoe.

I think Lasersharking should go in. From this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7072

Mike

Hello,

Lasersharking goes in, for sure. And I just realized I forgot to give thread & name credit for "tells" to Storn and his group. Probably a few more of that sort of thing to be ferreted out.

As for the horseshoe, yeah - I confused myself during reviewing those threads because it still seems reasonable that the "empty" space of the horseshoe corresponds to what Jared says "doesn't exist." Check that to be fixed.

Ummm ... and for Bangs, I've decided to stick with the logic I presented in Confused about Bangs ..., which should probably go in as a reference link.

Situation is the 800-pound gorilla when figuring out how all the components are linked. If you describe the situation, then you can point to any of the other components with very little difficulty, and also point out how they are connected, imaginatively speaking. But System is what makes the Situation "move," or as I like to say, it introduces fictional time into the shared imaginary space. So if we're talking about play-procedures, System is the "vehicle" (although not isolated to itself, as it must emerge from Situation) for the Creative Agenda, or to whatever might pass for one/more in a given group.

All the above aside, I'm probably not going to reply very much on this thread, which as you might imagine would become a serious source of stress for me if I let it. So anyway, post away, I'm reading with care, and will chime in pretty rarely.

Best,
Ron

Overall, this is a very good thing. Since I don't keep up with all the terminology threads, it was a excellent chance to compare my existing comprehension of the vocabulary with the current state of the art.

My only major comment is regarding the definition of the Lumpley principle. It's entirely possible that the concept has moved out from under me, but for me, the most succinct and evocative description of it has always been:

"Nothing happens in the shared imagined space unless the participants agree it does."

...followed with the corollary that "System is how agreement is reached". Certainly the way it is currently defined in the glossary left me scratching my head.

It seemed like the Crunch and the Gamble could each stand to have another sentence defining what is meant by predicability vs. risk.

And the definition of Drama seemed quite confusing, especially compared to the very clear definitions of Karma and Fortune. If asked to produce an alternate proposal, I might try something like this:

"Resolving imaginary events by the fiat of some pre-established authority, without recourse to numerical values or other components of character effectiveness."

But then my understanding may be flawed.

Finally, a few minor typos I noted:

Illusionism - the phrase "story creation" appears twice

Paying to Suck - sentence gets wonky in the middle "nets him with an low"

Oh, and I'd suggest a pronunciation key for Synecdoche ;)

Now, my understanding of the Lumpley Principle is that it arose in response to the idea that rules exist to model the game's reality -- when they only exist to determine among the participants what is accepted as happening.

That bit of history might do to be included in the description.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot - wicked cool. Thanks for stuff you do, Ron.

I've asked several of my players to read through the Glossary -- these are not Forge people, but they are people who've been exposed to Forge terms through my own assimilation of the material (I'm someone who learns by reading, then telling others about what I've read, which is a useful trait as a GM.)

This tactic of exposing Forge novices (who have encountered some of the terminology in play, as it were, through me) to the material was the best way I could think of getting you feedback from what would likely be the target audience.

They found the material opaque. Despite being gamers for years and dealing with all sorts of games and player types, they struggled with figuring out what the whole thing was about.

Now, largely, the problem seemed to be that the terminology is internal to the Forge and inward-turned. The biggest frustration by far was that none of the referenced thread names were links, so that when they were inclinded to see the context the words live in, they had no means of doing so (short of using the search function, which I personally couldn't recommend, as I find it entirely inadequate myself*).

One specific comment emailed to me:

When you mention Forge words, though, I get them immediately, because they come in as part of gaming, with examples or in a context: "he was deprotagonized when his marksman couldn't hit the broadside of a barn due to a bad roll."

I think that links an such are part of the 'waiting for formatting' that was mentioned.

This is the rough version.

Bob McNamee wrote: I think that links an such are part of the 'waiting for formatting' that was mentioned.

I haven't included the actual links to the indicated threads, mainly because that would delay this posting

They'll get added in the next iteration.

Hello,

I also want to emphasize that printing out the glossary and showing it to folks as a basic textbook is not consistent with the goals I brought to compiling it. Those goals begin and end with a person who wants to participate here, and who has already decided to get involved with discussions.

Best,
Ron

I do think that a very brief example sentence or short paragraph for each term would be helpful. While showing the thing cold to a newcomer may not be the primary purpose, it's quite a good test-case in its way. I mean, suppose I go away for the summer (as in fact, I probably will), and miss some new terminological invention. Fine, so I go and look at the glossary. If all I find is a general definition, without context, and some links to read, I'm not much farther forward than if I simply searched for the term on the search engine.

The glossary thus far looks very good; it's a major step forward. But I also think it needs a significant expansion to the explanations.

One possibility, within the formatting, would be cross-links of terms. So if I look up the Lumpley Principle and find that it mentions SIS, I would like to click on SIS and get to that definition. That's a formatting thing, I know, and a pretty optional one. But it would be nice.

A thing I don't quite understand is why the Big Model terms are all "key concepts." That does seem to suggest that the Big Model is established and known, and everything else then refers to it. I think this is a BIG mistake. I also think it could be solved simply by changing the phrase "key concept" to "Big-Model concept."

I see the glossary as a reference tool - someone new is tooling along, reading, absorbing, and sees the phrase, oh hell, I don't know, how about "Gamism-Simulationism Incoherence." Right now, they're a little stuck. But with the glossary available, and with the context of the thread to go along with a terse definition, the terminology will theoretically be less of a barrier to dialogue for newbies. You don't read the dictionary cold to learn a language, right? Context is the key.

Regarding the Big Model as separate thing, I think I agree with Chris on that - throw everything together, says I.

First, congrats to Ron and everyone who offered a hand on it in one way or another. It's a real boon to the site, and I'm glad its here.

My reactions are as follows:

My first impression: I loved it.

Then I read a couple of the posts here. I sifited it down to: a) yes, it's a reference for people already invested in figuring this place out, and in no way should it be designed as a text book for understanding everything; b) I think examples are actually a vital idea (and the moment they were mentioned I thought, "I'm amazed I didin't think of that," cause usually I think immediately of things like that; c) the formatting between glosary terms would be nice, but so low a priority against getting the examples, I couldn't in good faith push for it knowing it would take time away from the examples (and you know, life) cause really, it's a simple matter to scroll up and down at this point; and d) I do think if a thread is reference, it should be linked.

In no way, I should make clear, do I think that any of my suggestions "should" have been already implemented. The defintions are clean, the list is solid as is. Again, congrats, Ron, for getting it up.

Christopher

Hi Ron,

Intuitive continuity

A method of preparing role-playing sessions in which the GM uses the players' interests and actions during initial play to construct the back-story of the scenario retroactively. The term was first presented in the game Underworld.

No Myth

Intuitive Continuity which includes all Setting features (i.e. more than just Situation). An extreme version of the general principle that the Shared Imagined Space is established by people communicating with one another. Term coined by Fang Langford.

Actually, the problem there, Walt, is that IntCon is being defined incorrectly. If I remember form Underworld, the technique is to create on the spot to match player needs. It's not about prep. I'd have to check to be sure, or somebody can mail Skarka to be sure.

In any case, that matches it up with No Myth - that being just a complete assumpotion of nothing but IntCon all the time (normal IntCon assumes that the world is set, and some normal prep will occur including "hooks").

Mike

Hello,

Mike, I can't see the difference between what you just said about Intuitive Continuity and what I said. As GM, one matches "what's going on" to players' needs as they express through their character's actions ... the player says, "I follow that guy," so that guy becomes important, and you might even improvise how or about what. That's what I mean.

So yeah, in which case No Myth basically becomes hard-core Intuitive Continuity.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, everyone. As anticipated, nearly all of them (especially threads) are going to be incorporated in full.

Best,
Ron

Right, but you only mention session preparation in the text. Sounding like it's only done between sessions, and not at all during play on the fly. Which I believe it is.

Just how the sentence reads.

Mike

Ah, will fix. We are agreeing, but I didn't write it very well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I also want to emphasize that printing out the glossary and showing it to folks as a basic textbook is not consistent with the goals I brought to compiling it. Those goals begin and end with a person who wants to participate here, and who has already decided to get involved with discussions.

At the risk of a "me too!" post, err, Me Too!

However... there are examples of what's being discussed in the vast majority of threads being referred to in the glossary. I could certainly do with having them available in some version of the glossary, but since they are, for the most part already referred to, albeit indirectly, it's by no means priority atm.

In fact, it's a bit of an eye-opener: the useful threads have practical examples. Many threads without practical examples have ended up frustrating tarbabies, or disappeared in a cloud of hypothesis...

Keep it real.

I was kinda disappointed to see that "Through-Framing" didn't make it in there, but maybe I've haven't done a good enough job of establishing that term yet. I'll have to work on that...

More thoughts when I finish reading them...

In the interests of honing the text:

Story Now
[...] The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story.

sto·ry n.
An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious

Doyce

I'm kind of having this conversation with Ron and Eric over here. The ultimate problem is there is a standard english word that conveys exactly what Ron is trying to convey with "Story Now" or, of late, "narrative". It's in every day common use in the world, and it's in every day common use at the Forge. However, its Forge use has become jargonized - it's in the glossary meaning something other than it does out there on the street.

And the world would be blatantly obvious and easy to guess for anyone who doesn't have the Forge vocabulary embedded in their minds.

I mean, think about it, Egri didn't write "The Art of Narrative Writing" now did he?

But unfortunately because "drama" has a term has been co-opted in Tweets DKF triad - and also because historically one might wish to differentiate Ron's model from GDS - it's seemingly impossible to use the commonplace word for the commonplace thing.

Try it in a couple of sentences:

Narrativist techniques will reliable produce a dramatic narrative. Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.

Hey, Ron.

I'd like to have the Hairy Chest Gambit slipped in (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6255&highlight=).

It's not one of the jargon cornerstones, but I think it is a concise, useful, and catchy way of referencing a common issue - the "If I allow my players Director Power, all of my GM effort will go straight to hell" concern.

Christopher Kubasik (the coiner) defines it as "'accidentally' shattering the GM's reality with color," but it seems to me to be a bit broader than that: it's the clash of director-power strength between GM and Player. Balance of Director Power. This is an essential issue for any game apportioning director power across the GM screen, and a prime instance when social contract needs to be butressed by some meat in the rules.

-Matt



-as a p.s.: I'd like to second greyorm's suggestion for examples, whenever possible. It seems that the purpose of this document is to increase clarity and provide a strong reference for new and continuing Forgers to ensure they're on the same page. As I see it, brief examples can only aid with this. (referencing two games for vanilla vs pervy; an illustration of points of contact in action; an example of a weave).

Ian Charvill wrote: But unfortunately because "drama" has a term has been co-opted in Tweets DKF triad - and also because historically one might wish to differentiate Ron's model from GDS - it's seemingly impossible to use the commonplace word for the commonplace thing.

Ian Charvill wrote: Try it in a couple of sentences:

Narrativist techniques will reliable [sic] produce a dramatic narrative. Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.

See how straightforward it is, how intuitively right it feels?

Narrativist techniques will reliably produce a story that focuses on and 'answers' the game's Premise. Simulationist and Gamist techniques will produce a story focused on other significant elements of play.

Ian Charvill wrote: Narrativist techniques will reliable produce a dramatic narrative. Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.

See how straightforward it is, how intuitively right it feels? See how the apparatus of jargon prevents this clear formulation and use?

Not to be curt or argumentative, but... no. It feels alienating, off-putting, and superior -- or, more to the point, I believe it will seem that way to people coming into the Forge, which is not (I think) what the aim is.

"Oh, so you're saying only Narrativists reliably produce dramatic narrative? Let me tell you something, bub... [insert impassioned retelling of dramatic Sim moment here]."

[Begin flame-war. Repeat.]

We'd be eating that stuff for months.

Well, I'm on record challenging the definition of Social Contact - I don't consider this challenge refuted as of yet.

I've been using Fidelity from Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited.

I've also challenged the validity of IIEE, Search Time, and Handling Time - though I don't think that should in any way affect the definitions of those terms. However, I do think you should include CPVI from that same thread.

I love the inclusion of a big model picture!

Doyce, Raven, Ralph

You're all phrasing your posts as if your arguing with me but on the whole your not. You're arguing against the underlying assumptions of Ron's model. Under Ron's model only narrativism will reliably produce narratives with literary qualities (protagonist, antagonist, theme emerging from the narrative not predetermined, rising action to a climax).

He's says it plain and simple in the thread I linked above "Creative Agendas, Aesthetic Purism, and 'the' Social Mode" second page, eighth post down or thereabouts. It's the one where Ron straight out states only narrativism will reliably produce a narrative. If you think newbies will react badly against those assertions, then that's just you thinking newbies will react badly to Ron's assertion about Narrativism.

The language I'm suggesting merely puts those assertions front and centre.

Doyce

Not to be curt or argumentative, but... no. It feels alienating, off-putting, and superior -- or, more to the point, I believe it will seem that way to people coming into the Forge, which is not (I think) what the aim is.

Oh, maybe it has fallen out of vogue but: The Ball?. Also, the jazz band analogy (I'm sure Ron can find a thread for that one).

Hi Jason,

The Ball is somewhat in a nebulous state. I'm trying to nail down what it means for me, and Ron has his own notions of it. I've given him permission to use the term, since he seems far better at giving solid definitions to things that I am. Plus, I think the concept needs to be examined more in play, before it can become an actually useful concept, instead of a nifty idea, which is what I see it as at this point.

Chris

Hell yeah, the ball. I like that. I like that a lot. I don't know if references to the game Four Square would help much since in a thread were the Ball is discussed, the rules of four square were brought up and beaten to dead when the rules for Four Square were beside the point.

Ian Charvill wrote: Under Ron's model only narrativism will reliably produce narratives with literary qualities (protagonist, antagonist, theme emerging from the narrative not predetermined, rising action to a climax).

You're saying drama - or more specifically dramatic narrative - means something to me that it doesn't to you: how would you define dramatic narrative? What about your definition of drama doesn't match with Ron's definitions of narrative in the thread cited above?

Raven, you're right that we're at an impasse. If you don't see any difference in meaning between "dramatic narrative" and "narrative", if you feels that adjectives have no semantic weight, then what more is there to say?

(This is just a glib comment of praise, unrelated to discussions that have arisen in this thread.)

The glossary is handy dandy! I'm already using it as a reference to my posts.

Pastiche is a technique as well as a product, to define it purely as the latter is synecdoche. Sorcerer & Sword is a good example of something that's full of great advice about pastiche as a technique (i.e. producing a roleplaying session in the style of 20s-30s pulp fantasy) but not as a product.