I've participated in The Forge for awhile.

I enjoy Indie Gaming and RPG Theory especially, but I found myself shifted over to GNS Model Discussion when addressing the G/N/S model in terms of gamer community issues.

What I've noticed is that, after my perusing an ungodly number of posts, threads, and articles, I've found that people are still arguing over what is involved in Simulationist play in comparison with and contrast with Narrativist play. (Gamist play seems comparatively well understood.)

I've noticed a large number of heated arguments, anti-sim stereotypes, pro-nar defensiveness, and even uncharacteristically harsh (for The Forge -- mild for other Internet forums) comments from posters.

Ron Edwards in Sacrificing Character Integrity wrote: I think you fall into one of the two problem-audiences I identify in the essay (dunno which), and therefore are very, very likely to get all tangled up whenever you try to participate in my dialogue with someone else.

I really don't think it's valuable to try to disentangle you. Past experience shows me that you seem to like staying tangled.

Ron Edwards in How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism wrote: Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

Hiya Doc,

One of those decisions you'll have to make for yourself, I think. I'll discuss the contexts of both of those quotes with you privately, if you're interested.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya Doc,

One of those decisions you'll have to make for yourself, I think. I'll discuss the contexts of both of those quotes with you privately, if you're interested.

Best,
Ron

It strikes me there are three primary reasons why the model is still under such constant development.

1. It's not that old yet, it's not that surprising that fundamental work is still being done.

2. Enabling clear communication between gamers with strong preferences for particular creative agendas (the type most likely to post here) just plain isn't easy. I regularly struggle to follow some of the nar issues being discussed (because they're hung up on things I don't much care about) and in my view many who prefer a nar focussed game experience struggle to understand the sim perspective. Still, we all try and hopefully in time it will get easier. Certainly in my opinion the communication between gamers preferring a nar CA and those preferring a gam CA is much better here than I think it once was, because the attempt was made to understand the different perspectives and find a common language. Sim is just behind the curve, but it needn't stay that way.

3. New guys or old guys who left the site pop up all the time, often with an incomplete or out of date understanding of the theory. That leads to confusion and to people retreading old ground. For example, Contracycle pointed out to me in the introducing nar gamers to sim thread that I had missed that we were discussing High Concept Sim, I hadn't but I think my understanding of that idea was out of date which led me into getting needlessly confused. Not sure that's the forum's fault.

I've often criticised the Forge for marginalising sim orientated gamers, but if we stop posting because it doesn't cater to us it never will. If there's a problem, it's as much ours as it is the Forum's. The only way the Forge can better address sim priorities is if those who prefer sim CAs post here and seek to explain how those priorities are addressed in actual play and what is rewarding about those experiences.

Having said that, finding a sim game in the wider world is I think easier than finding a nar game. That being so, there are more nar players out there looking to understand why the game they're in doesn't fit right and the Forge is naturally of more initial help to them than it would be to either of us.

Does any of that help?

[crossposted]

I find your premise here queer. You seem to have some kind of an unspoken idea of how people should act in a forum like this, and that idea apparently doesn't jive with how we act here. Can you shed light on what you'd expect?

Let me take on particulars: If somebody starts a thread about an aspect of GNS, could it be because they find that aspect hard to understand or disagree with it? And if this is so, why should we not discuss the matter? What exactly are you thinking we should do instead? Bury the theory? Enshrine it? Do you have some goal in mind, something we're working towards, and which is now reached? Or why do you think that GNS is just now no more (implying that it once was) worthy of discussion?

I'm not going to touch your Ron-neurosis, but let me say that apparently the same applies to your relationship to him. You have some preconception about what he is and does, but that conception has not opened to me at all. Consider: what is the secret etiquette Ron breaks in those quotes, and what it tells about your post that I'm totally lost as to why you find those quotes quotable? They don't IMO seem to touch your actual query at all.

If no one can remember why it is worth discussing, perhaps we ought take a break from discussing it for awhile until we remember why we had used this model in the first place.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Max (Balbinus). Just switch around Sim and Nar in his #2.

Basically, I think the inclination to see Sim as being marginalized is because there is a push to bring Nar up to speed with Sim. Historically, play and most gaming products past and present have been supportive of Sim priorities. The Forge is definitely a place where an attempt is made to expand upon Nar design, play techniques, etc. I don't think that it's to the detriment of Sim, it's just that much of the Sim groundwork has been covered already.

-Chris

Hi Doc,

Is GNS worth discussing?

Well, the question only works if you change it to, "Is GNS worth discussing for you?" And the reasons why can only pertain to yourself as an individual.

I don't read or post as much to the GNS threads, because, as you've mentioned, there IS a lot of rehashing. But I don't take that as a bad thing either. When I first got into it, I had to take time to digest it, ask questions, and mull over it. What is different is that now there is a lot more material to draw upon, from the new essays and many referenced thread material.

In regards to arguments, its just something that happens between people all the time, anywhere you go. Sure, here at the Forge we try to keep the dick waving to a minimum, but it still happens. And even if you took GNS out of the picture, people will still find something to quibble over in order to make themselves feel smarter or superior to another.

Why should we discuss it? Why use it? Well, really, that's up to you individually. Opinion polling is basically the same thing as either looking to defend it or win converts. There's no real need to. Either it works for you and helps you understand something or it doesn't. Neither lives nor money is on the line.

Chris

Maybe seven years or so ago, the Threefold Model took a new form with new terminology, a form that was fundamentally different from what it had been at RGFA but was not immediately recognized as such.

The piece of it that got the most attention was called GNS; and the piece of GNS which got the most attention was N, narrativism, which appeared to be the most different element of the triplets. In fact, everyone pretty much knew what gamism and simulationism were; it was this narrativism thing that had people baffled. It proved to be very different from the dramatism of the Threefold on which it had been based, and it engendered a great deal of discussion, focus, and interest. It helped that the propounder of the new form of the theory had developed a game specifically to encourage narrativist play, and a lot of the excitement sprang from discovery of what this was.

With the much more recent publication of the Gamism article, Ron said that much of what we thought about gamism wasn't quite true. Gamism proved to be a lot different than we thought it was. It was fundamentally social in its drivers. Who knew? We thought it was about winning the game; it proved to be about winning the social admiration of your peers. This significantly advanced the gamism concept.

I think simulationism is in the same place right now. A lot of people think they understand it; a lot of people have "understood" it right out of existence. But if you'd asked Ron seven years ago to explain gamism, you would not have gotten Step On Up from him, nor anything at all, I expect, about the social interaction between the players as they prove themselves to each other.

I think there are aspects to simulationism that we have not yet grasped. That's one of the big issues that has dominated discussions here, thanks to several people including Jay (Silmenume) putting forward one thing and another, trying to bring focus to this thing. I usually find fault with most of his ideas (he seems to be attempting to narrow the agendum in places where I think it needs to be widened), but I appreciate the efforts to clarify this.

So I think it is worth discussing further, because I think there are things that have not yet been recognized, just as discussion led to the recognition of exploration as fundamental to role playing, and to many other aspects of the theory and related issues.

Of course, we have our good days and our bad days; it's hard to know when a discussion is going to help, or which ones will be linked from the future threads as valuable contributions to whatever understanding has been attained then.

--M. J. Young

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I find your premise here queer.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: You seem to have some kind of an unspoken idea of how people should act in a forum like this, and that idea apparently doesn't jive with how we act here.
---snip!--
Why do we need a communal decision on something that only touches individuals? If you want to stop discussing GNS, go right ahead. And if somebody else wants to continue, well, it's no skin off from my or your nose. Do you want Ron to close the GNS forum or what? If so, why?

Doctor Xero wrote: Homophobic comments are an ugly way to communicate, Eero.

Bankuei wrote: Hi Doc,

Is GNS worth discussing?

Well, the question only works if you change it to, "Is GNS worth discussing for you?" And the reasons why can only pertain to yourself as an individual.

My entire motivation for this thread has been for us to remind ourselves why we post on this topic because I find far many angry posts and angry private mailings. I love vigorous discussions, but I am uncomfortable watching people yelling at each other, even in the minority.

Homophobic comments are an ugly way to communicate, Eero.
...
That you would choose to misrepresent my comments so defensively sheds far more light on you than it does on me or this topic, but either way

Doctor Xero wrote:
And kneejerk defensiveness does little to help anyone in anything.

That you would choose to misrepresent my comments so defensively sheds far more light on you than it does on me or this topic, but either way, it's needlessly insulting, Eero.

An internet community exists as an economy of information. Our currency is the degree of civility, honesty, and freindliness in our dealings with each other. Relationship connections are formed and broken on the basis of this exchange.

There's nothing of physical value here. We don't pay each other to critique our work. We can't punch each other out of we get on our nerves.

I am entertained by the Forge. I am educated by the Forge. My game designs and my game play is informed by the Forge. Some of the most heated threads I've been in have also been some of the most productive. I will continue to post here, and discuss what I find interesting and useful. I wil ignore threads that do not interest me. I will ignore posters who's interractions do not respect the dynamics of an electronic social environment.

Doc, if the Forge makes you uncomfortable, then leave. It's that simple. Your own standards of worth, behavior, integrity, and social interractions are the only ones that can inform your decisions.

I will also add that, in spite of my very serious reply to the original topic, this thread really smacks of being an elaborate troll. I may be wrong, but I am suspicious.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: If my above guess is right, and you really think that the GNS forum has to conform to some social ("be nice to each other or stop") or cultural ("produce this much of useful theory per annum") standards, I suggest you read the posting guidelines.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: What exactly are you thinking we should do instead? Bury the theory? Enshrine it?

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I'm not going to touch your Ron-neurosis,

C. Edwards wrote: Come on, Doc. If you really think that Eero meant "gay" and not "strange" when he used the word "queer", then you need to check your paranoia at the door.

Ravien wrote: No arena is safe from the human element, they merely show it in varying degrees and in various creative ways. I find the forge to be a nice balance between snide academia and the crude common discourse seen in everyday life and on other forums.
---snip!--
I feel that all ideas must be debated, discussed, and analysed until they are clearly understood and agreed upon, or a better solution is found.

Paganini wrote: Doc, if the Forge makes you uncomfortable, then leave. It's that simple. Your own standards of worth, behavior, integrity, and social interractions are the only ones that can inform your decisions.

Paganini wrote: I will also add that, in spite of my very serious reply to the original topic, this thread really smacks of being an elaborate troll. I may be wrong, but I am suspicious.

Paganini wrote:
I will also add that, in spite of my very serious reply to the original topic, this thread really smacks of being an elaborate troll. I may be wrong, but I am suspicious.

the good doctor wrote:
Is a simple thread courteously suggesting that we take a breath by remembering what we came here for really such a threatening idea?

I'm not really sure how helpful this thread can really be, but I'll try to answer the question. I find discussion of these particular topics to bring me to think about roleplaying theory in ways I wouldn't have come to on my own.

I really don't get your thesis, though -- I've never seen a more polite forum in my life, and we talk about issues that various members feel very strongly about. I think it's a personal issue as to whether one is comfortable with that. I know people who can engage in extremely heated conversations, then clap each other on the back and go have a beer. A lot of them are in academia, and as such, for instance, I never take Ron's more heated remarks as containing any actual rancor at all.)

(and as an aside, I think it'd be helpful to remember, as he stated, that Eero's not an American, and as such the actual meaning of "queer" doesn't have the primary usage that we're used to. I think that's a red herring to the discussion except that in a thread about perceived impoliteness, you seem by this outside observer to be perceiving it where it doesn't exist.)

Eero Tuovinen wrote: You could answer my questions.

Doctor Xero wrote: I think it might be useful in this thread to post why -- writing in particulars and not in abstract generalizations -- so that we remember and can use this recollection to guide our future posts.

Doctor Xero wrote: My entire motivation for this thread has been for us to remind ourselves why we post on this topic because I find far many angry posts and angry private mailings.
---snip!--
Should this forum continue? That's not for me to say.

But I think that remembering why we post on it may go a little bit towards reducing some of the hostility I have noticed.
---snip!--
I'm hoping this thread will help us remember our purposes and thereby help us have fewer hostile or defensive (as I've encountered from Eero and others) posts.

Andrew Norris wrote: I'm not really sure how helpful this thread can really be

Andrew Norris wrote: I've never seen a more polite forum in my life, and we talk about issues that various members feel very strongly about.

Andrew Norris wrote: A lot of them are in academia, and as such, for instance, I never take Ron's more heated remarks as containing any actual rancor at all.

Andrew Norris wrote: I'm not really sure how helpful this thread can really be, but I'll try to answer the question. I find discussion of these particular topics to bring me to think about roleplaying theory in ways I wouldn't have come to on my own.

Doctor Xero wrote:
I honestly find it beyond imagining that the following does not make it clear what I have been asking in this thread:

Doctor Xero wrote:
I think it might be useful in this thread to post why -- writing in particulars and not in abstract generalizations -- so that we remember and can use this recollection to guide our future posts.

I am posting a new topic : with all this confusion and vexation involved in discussing G/N/S, and with the seeming inability to arrive at an accepted definition, is this model still worth discussing?

If no one can remember why it is worth discussing, perhaps we ought take a break from discussing it for awhile until we remember why we had used this model in the first place.

Doctor Xero wrote: The more scholarly purpose of the thread is to give me a glimpse of how many people focus on G/N/S more as an academic model and how many focus on it more as a game design model and etc.

Eero wrote: Could it possibly be that those of us who have no major problems with the model do not post, so only the people who have active cerebral interest in it are seen in the forum? Would the fact that I'm content with the model for what it is indicate that it should be discarded? After all, only people who are discontent with it seem to man the forum.

clehrich wrote: The vast majority of what I've seen here that indicates GNS's utility has to do with either practical design or what you might call diagnostic work: why is my game sick?

As to whether GNS is worth discussing, and why, it rather depends on the issues at stake.

Some posters, notably Jay (Silmenume), continue to push forward in developing the model in new directions. So long as things are indeed moving forward, clearly discussion is valuable.

Some posters are primarily here for clarification. Having read the essays and a bunch of threads, perhaps, they are not entirely clear on the various bits of the GNS/Big Model. Since this forum is, like everything on the Forge, quite polite as a rule, these posters (I hope) go away with a clearer understanding. That's certainly valuable.

Some posters would like to make slight alterations to the model. Some of this is useful for those committed to the model, as evidenced by Ron's development from the early essays to the most recent three. Some of this is, if you'll pardon my putting it so, flogging a dead horse. I don't read everything here with total attention, but I think the latter type are often what prompts rancor.

Marco wrote: I think that the point that there are fundamental discussions ongoing now from people who not only read but developed the theory might convince people to put an end to the "you don't get it" reflex response.

I'd like to see that.

clehrich wrote: Beyond this stuff, as I have just posted in the RPG Theory forum on jargon, I do think that GNS is starting to become a kind of 800-pound gorilla that deflects or acts as an obstacle to new theoretical directions.

clehrich wrote: Doc, let me be blunt. I gather you've been kicked around in one of the periodic shouting-matches that happen around here, and I'm sorry that happened.

clehrich wrote: Come over and play in RPG Theory instead, since apparently what you've got to say doesn't work for more hard-core GNS folks.

Now that I have read RPG Theory forum on jargon, I must agree it makes a lot of the points I was considering.

Doctor Xero