I’ve been thinking about this topic for a little while now, actually since I had a nice chat with Alan McVey at a conference a month back, and when I briefly come back to the world of fast internet connections I find that James (jdrakeh) has restarted the Forge Hubris thread. I read along through three pages, see it slide horribly into a discussion of who’s got the most brains, and finally a very tolerant Ron closes the thing. So I’m starting again on a slightly different basis. I think this also makes more sense in RPG Theory rather than Site Discussion, because what interests me is how we theorize and use terms, rather than what others think of us. But I'll start where the other thread left off.

The problem at hand, if it is a problem, is that some folks perceive The Forge as elitist. That doesn’t bother me, as such, since I don’t think of elitism as necessarily a bad thing. But the various criticisms really focus on the use and abuse of jargon, which is something that interests me a lot. The question, as I see it, is how to evaluate jargon and decide when and whether it is useful.

We seem mostly to agree that jargon as shorthand is useful. Instead of explaining the whole GNS theory for several paragraphs, it’s handy to be able to say “GNS” and figure that the audience knows what I’m talking about. Obviously I have to pick my audience, but that’s the point of the Forge glossary and the search engine: I can check and see whether a given term really is in general use here, without guessing.

Now granted that, the point of these jargon-terms is that each refers to a specific, relatively complex concept, one not easily expressed in just a few words. In addition, it is assumed that everyone in the discussion can make the translation from term to concept.

My first criticism, which I’ve made before, is that I don’t think this is always true.

1. Some terms refer to quite simple concepts that could be expressed quickly.
2. Some posters could not, if asked point-blank, translate the terms they use.

The second problem here leads to the difficulty mentioned in the previous thread, where someone asks for a definition and gets several contradictory answers. At the same time, as noted before, terms that are in flux cannot be defined simply and rigidly, because they aren’t rigid. Here it would be helpful to make clear that the term is indeed in flux.

But all of this is really secondary. To me, the great problem with jargon as it is used here (and some other places) is that the words or acronyms are used like pins with butterflies: they nail down concepts rather than opening them up for discussion. This leads to a lot of sterile debate about what X term “really means,” or rather “should” mean.

Those debates are, if you ask me (which you didn’t, I realize), pointless. Unless someone has proprietary rights to a term, as in a sense Ron does with some GNS terms, there isn’t any “really” to the meanings. And by focusing on terms, we lose track of concepts.

Let me put it like this. At present, much of the theoretical discussion here is about classification. Folks see RPGs as a kind of elaborate machine, and they want to tally up the different parts and describe how they work. Once a particular piece of the machine has been identified, explained, and labeled, it’s taken as read that the piece exists as known.

But who says RPGs are machines in the first place? Who says there can ever be a single cohesive description of how RPGs work and what they do?

Take literature, which gets a lot of play here. There are lots of completely different ways of looking at literary works, not all compatible. If the purpose of analysis is to help people write their own literature, the methods and structures of analysis, as well as the terms, will be quite different from those used if the purpose is to understand how a given piece of literature affected and was affected by its historical and social context. It’s not a question of which is right; the point is that you have to analyze differently for different purposes.

To my mind, a lot of the “Forge hubris” problem comes down to a continuous, low-level clash of purposes. Almost everyone here wants to analyze games in order to design new ones. But designing one kind of game may require different methods than does designing another kind; this would seem implied by the GNS model’s success. It is at least possible, then, that analysis for Narrativist purposes must run on somewhat different lines from analysis for Gamist purposes. In that case, no single set of terms is going to cover everything effectively. And, a fortiori, if your purposes do not entirely align with GNS classifications, your methods and terms and concepts will have to be quite different again.

I’m not saying that Forge terminology is useless, unhelpful, or (god help us) elitist. What I’m saying is that there is an overemphasis on classification and labeling. What is needed is new concepts, not reification of the ones we’ve already got, with cute labels to help out.

As an example, I find most of the GNS Forum discussion rather dull. Most of it seems to fall into a few well-defined categories:

• I don’t understand X term, can you explain?
• I don’t like X concept, can’t it change?
• I don’t like X term, and want to substitute Y.
• Is my game G, N, or S?
• I think we should add another subdivision within X part of the Model.

Some of this is exceptionally valuable, especially for those new to the theory. Eventually, I expect that much of what is gained in terms of conceptual clarity will be reflected in revised GNS essays by Ron, as already happened with the move from the old essays to the three new ones, and as is presumably happening with the Glossary project. But there’s very little room for something new here: it’s all a matter of cleaning up and polishing an established cluster of concepts.

I think that this is the inevitable fate of terminological discussion. You start with a great set of concepts, clarify and debate it, and eventually formulate it all cleanly and concisely; after that, it’s all a question of application, or else of hammering fruitlessly at terms to produce some mythical “perfect” version. What I see now is a lot of fruitless hammering, and not a lot of generating totally new concepts.

Where I think we tend to go astray in finding new concepts, honestly, is in moving much too rapidly toward classification with respect to established (mostly GNS/Big Model) theory. When someone proposes something new, it’s worth considering whether it might be something that simply doesn’t belong in the Big Model at all. I have periodically battered at the Big Model because I don’t think its hierarchical structure is valuable, but in point of fact a non-hierarchical model simply isn’t the Big Model; there’s no point in de-hierarchizing the Big Model, and what would be more valuable is to formulate a model, for some particular purpose, without regard for it relation to the Big Model.

This brings me to my last point (finally!). Terms, models, concepts, and analytical methods must have a clear purpose and function. When we try to generate scientific-style models, we claim implicitly or explicitly that RPGs are like certain sorts of objects in the natural world. Okay, so why would we want to claim this? What is gained thereby? When I wrote my essay on ritual theory, the point was that RPGs can be understood as ritual behaviors—which are not parts of the natural, phenomenal world. In order to do that meaningfully, I had to explain (or try to) why it is valuable to think of RPGs as ritual as opposed to (for example) natural objects or systems.

At this stage of discussion, I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project, begun largely by Ron, without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be. I think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model. What this produces, as we’ve seen, is a tendency to generate increasingly arcane and narrow terms and to focus everything on Ron’s work. This, I think, more than anything, produces the criticism that The Forge is jargon-crazy and a cult of Ron. Neither is true, really, but our overemphasis on the scientific or engineering style of modeling and analysis does make it seem so.

I have, in other places such as this thread here suggested some other kinds of theory and some other styles of analysis. Others have been doing this too: Emily’s recent thing on psychology leaps to mind. We need to see a lot more of this, and we need to recognize that new insights and ideas may not fit into established models and structures. The more self-aware we are about this, the less we will be focused on terms and the more we will examine ideas. In the long run, at least, I think this will make our terminology increasingly helpful and specific, and will help convince new readers that The Forge is open, exciting, and full of ideas.

I think Chris is on the ball here.

I think that the attempt at scientific rigour has been largely negative in its impact largely because it's not been implemented properly.

Firstly, RPG theory is young and most scientific processes start with cataloguing before explaining and theorising. GNS jumpped straight to the theorising without making a serious try at accounting for all forms of RPG... this results in people popping up and saying that GNS doesn't account for their type of game. This is obviously most common with SIM.

Secondly, scientific or not, a theory exists within an academic tradition with its own criteria for rigour, truth and what constitutes a good analysis. By being part descriptive, part therapeutic and part aesthetic, GNS fails to have a coherent set of criteria. Instead there are social criteria as defined by the group... i.e. when a thread needs to be considered closed, when an issue needs to be split off into a separate topic and what constitutes a legitimate challenge to the theory.


I think the scientific language is understandable given Ron's day job but ultimately it's cosmetic, like post-modern philosophers using maths to back up their theories (affaire Sokal and all that). GNS has a therapeutic and an aestheitc element that is not scientific strictly speaking and it's not falsifiable in any way. There's scientific language there but frankly, not everyone here shares those scientific values.


so yeah... I agree Chris :-)

Chris, I'm not sure what to take away from you post. I have a few specific questions:

1. Some terms refer to quite simple concepts that could be expressed quickly.

2. Some posters could not, if asked point-blank, translate the terms they use.

At this stage of discussion, I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project, begun largely by Ron, without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be.

I think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model.

MR. Analytical wrote: RPG theory is young and most scientific processes start with cataloguing before explaining and theorising. GNS jumpped straight to the theorising without making a serious try at accounting for all forms of RPG.

Rev...

Your point about taxonomies is well made, a taxonomy is inherrently about imposing a conceptual grid on the world therefore there's some element of theorising in cataloguing. Fine.

Clearly theory-ladeness is a spectrum with sociology at one end and physics at the other. GNS models itself upon high-end natural sciences where there are observable and naturally clear and distinct categories of entity. Sociology has largely rejected such an approach because, if taken to its logical conclusion you're wasting your time.

Science is largely a matter of rules... conditions for what is a good argument, what constitutes proof, when is a theory verified. As you yourself say, RPG phenomena aren't easily separated from our perceptions. You seem to suggest that the response to this is to be less demanding. The other way is to say little at all or nothing because verification is so difficult. Sociology has gone the first way by opening the door to various ideologies that allow for the kind of special pleading you're doing. I have no real problem with this... Sociology knows its place. GNS doesn't... GNS talks about rigour and natural sciences. But then fails to live up to scientific ideals and methods. The inclusion of a therapeutic and aesthetic side of GNS is a living monument to this.


Clearly GNS has not lived up to Ron's hopes for it in terms of rigour. It's nobody's fault, a social scientist might say it was doomed to happen given the subject matter. So I agree with Chris' point.

Beyond give a veneer of intellectual authority, it's not clear what the scientific posture actually does for GNS. Some might argue here that the result of this is to look for other methodologies... like sociology GNS might flourish under less of a commitment to reason and truth and more of an atmosphere of monography and subjective experience. As a social scientist though I'm less forgiving :-)

Thanks, Chris, for posting this particular discussion. I'm still chewing on aspects, so I'm not quite ready to give an intelligent response, nor am I entirely sure that I'm capable of an intelligent response.

Still, I want to pick the following out of the mass:

clehrich wrote: ...the great problem with jargon as it is used here (and some other places) is that the words or acronyms are used like pins with butterflies: they nail down concepts rather than opening them up for discussion.

Matt,

Thanks for that response. You clarified for me some places where I was not at all clear, and where I think I'm really failing to communicate.

Matt Snyder wrote: Which terms [could be expressed quickly]? If they are indeed problematic, then criticizing them without naming them isn't very helpful. If we can improve it, let's do it. If not, what's the problem?

[If posters can't always explain the terms they use,] Is this a problem with the terms or with the posters? Both? Seems to me to be a problem with posters, not with the terms. Are we blaming terminology for posters' ignorance?

I wrote: ... I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project ... without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be.

Are you saying that Ron has created this model without much thought as to its point or purpose? Or, are you saying that people who pick up Ron's writings don't have a point in mind? I'm earnestly asking; it can't tell what you're saying here.

When I wrote: I think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model.

Erick Wujcik wrote: Any chance you'd grace us with a specific example? Point at some discussion here where the concept in question was restrained instead of explored?

Chris,

Money Quote!!! wrote: My point is instead to criticize the way in which that Model and its axioms have become naturalized to the point that it is impeding the development of new theories.

Matt Snyder wrote: Second, it seems to me the style of a theory, as you use that term, isn't as important as the content within that style. If you went out, found a new, non-hierarchical theory that covered, oh, 90% (or, worse, 100%) of the same ground the Big Model does, I wouldn't be very interested in it, style or otherwise. I don't care overly much about the style; I care about what the theory tells me. I don't care so much how it tells me. I'm willing to learn to think in that "style" if there's merit in what it says.

Far out. Total agreement here, Chris. That last issue you raise will be a touchy one -- that is, appropriating obvious terms from the Big Model for a new model of some kind. Good luck on the poor bastard who enters those waters!

I disagree.

One of the strong points of the Big Model, and really of the glossary in general, is that much of the vocabulary--while commonly understood in terms of how particular words relate to the Model--actually creates a common roleplayer’s vocabulary. I propose that, aside from the terms necessarily defined in relation to some aspect of the Model, lifting words like stance and creative agenda out of the Model is easier than we all think.

Tim, to my mind that is, at present, a collateral benefit, which has arisen as much out of the moderation and debating style of the Forge as the big model itself. Which isn't to say that it isn't valuable, or indeed that any common vocabulary doesn't also express the assumptions of the arena in which the vocabulary arose, but the creation of the vocabulary would have happened pretty much regardless of the form of the big model.

I'm also slightly threadjacking, in order to use the above to post a muted "me too". In my opinion, far too much effort has been spent (I'm tending to think wasted) on "classify my game" threads. For my purposes, when the big model classifies the thrust of games as, say Narrativist, it's not saying that other Creative agenda are excluded, it's not saying that all N games, frex, follow a precise pattern or form, it's saying that it shares a common, broad motivation for play that other N games do. No more, no less.

Furthermore, to expande on Chris Lerich's point, to a great extent classification of these games has been restricted to GNS classification. As Chris said, mounting them on pins, with the only debate being what colour of pin we're going to use. Which to me yields essentially dull results. It doesn't tell me what worked, what didn't, and what that tells us about enjoyable play and, indeed, about the big model itself.

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dyfunctional play, not worry about funcitonal play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

Excuse the rambling, but I'd like the model to be able to say something meaningful about good play as well as bad. At the moment, it seems ot be slipping into stamp collectors mode...

Chris,
Mostly I agree with what you've said. A few minor quibles.

First, you may well be right that the next theory will not classify. In fact, that sounds plausible for psychological reasons (need to differentiate clearly from the Big Model). But it is not, I think, necessary. The Big Model slices things one way; in something as complex as RPGs there have to be other ways to slice (think of slicing bread vertically or horizontally; are you eating "normal" sandwiches or a sub sandwich?).

As for the jargon recycling, I think there's two acceptable cases:

- The word means exactly the same thing in the Big Model (BM) and the New Theory (NT).

- The NT use of the word extends the BM use in a consistent way. (As in what happened when people started talking about electromagnetic energy, extending a concept previously applied only to things mechanical.)

Otherwise, come up with a new word. If you think your concept is really close to a BM concept, come up with a really similar word.

But, prior to all that, there's got to be purpose to the exercise. To tell people to go forth and theorize is as pointless as ordering them to be funny. You come up with a new theory because you have this burr up your ass, not because there's this neat forum where you could post it. So, switching metaphors in mid-paragraph, what we're doing here is clearing the leaves, dirt and maybe the occasional fallen tree from the path. Cool. Worthwhile to do.

But it doesn't really get me on the edge of my seat. Not until I see somebody actually walking down that path. Which makes this into a really long-winded way of asking whether you started this thread in general or to facilitate a specific new theory?

SR
--

clehrich wrote: Do you see how that's going to be a difficult discussion? In fact, I think I've seen this happen several times, though quite possibly not consciously on the theorist's part.

Hello,

Chris, you asked,

I'm going to ask for a call from Ron on this one. Ron, what do you think? Would pointing to and remarking on a couple of other threads be a useful clarification or is it likely just to drag up old fights and probably start some new ones?

MR. Analytical wrote: Sociology has largely rejected such an approach because, if taken to its logical conclusion you're wasting your time.

Matt Snyder wrote: First, in the situation you posed, in which someone's thoughts are dismissed because GNS has "been there, done that." I actually think that's a pretty fair criticism of their theory. If we have something that works, we don't really need something new that works equally well. We need something better or different. So, I think theories that do cover the same ground on the Big Model will fail on the Forge. They are, of course, free to flourish anywhere, and I think they will if there's merit and dedication there.

Obviously, if the Forger who says "Been there, done that" is wrong, then there's something new or different in what the new theory says. Great! And, also obviously, any new theorist must have the gumption to stick with it when the Forgers are wrong or missing something.

I think that to be accepted at this community, the burden falls on the new theorist to show how they are different or better in approach. The burden falls on the new theorist to show those points you're raising (What is this new model supposed to do? Etc.), not necessarily on the Forge to ask them. That's my take on it, anyway.

John, it's merely my take. (shrug) We're just seeing the verb "fails" in different light. You consider a minority view to be "flourishing" among a few Forge members. I do not consider such thought to be flourishing on the Forge as a community (for example, RGFA stuff, or GDS -- they fail, in my view, to gain any credibility or support on the Forge. Such is life.). Simple as that, and not terribly stunning either way, but that's just me.

Lots of things to respond to here.

First off, a follow-up to the question of using Big Model vocabulary in new theorizing. I think that after all, maybe this really isn’t nearly so hard as I’d been thinking, but my reasons are something that hasn’t been brought up yet. If I may briefly and simplistically borrow the structural-linguistic concept of “motivation” of a sign, the idea there is that signs (words, etc.) can be more or less tightly embedded in a set of structures of other signs. The more motivated the sign, the more “baggage” it carries from the structures around it whenever it is used, in whatever context. You can probably think of other ways of describing this process, but this is the obvious one to me. What I’m thinking is that different categories within the Big Model are more and less motivated, partly because of the amount of discussion and/or emotional investment they have generated, but also partly because of the structuring of the Big Model itself. For example, Stance doesn’t appear terribly strongly motivated, and if it were used in a totally different theory, I think it would be relatively simple to avoid confusion, i.e. to treat it as "merely" a term. On the other hand, Creative Agenda and its three component parts (GNS) is exceedingly motivated, to the degree that I think it would be nearly impossible to use those terms in a different model and still keep it clear that you were neither challenging nor restructuring the Big Model itself. It would be interesting, I think, to examine how GNS retains this heavy motivation since the development of the Big Model, and also to think about whether the Big Model has moved to motivate and thus dominate a larger range of terms, and so forth.

On to other things:

Pete Darby wrote: [T]o my mind [the vocabulary of the Big Model] is, at present, a collateral benefit, which has arisen as much out of the moderation and debating style of the Forge as the big model itself. Which isn't to say that it isn't valuable, or indeed that any common vocabulary doesn't also express the assumptions of the arena in which the vocabulary arose, but the creation of the vocabulary would have happened pretty much regardless of the form of the big model. ... In my opinion, far too much effort has been spent (I'm tending to think wasted) on "classify my game" threads.

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dysfunctional play, not worry about functional play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

Rob Carriere wrote: First, you may well be right that the next theory will not classify. In fact, that sounds plausible .... But it is not, I think, necessary. The Big Model slices things one way; in something as complex as RPGs there have to be other ways to slice (think of slicing bread vertically or horizontally; are you eating "normal" sandwiches or a sub sandwich?).

But, prior to all that, there's got to be purpose to the exercise. To tell people to go forth and theorize is as pointless as ordering them to be funny. You come up with a new theory because you have this burr up your ass, not because there's this neat forum where you could post it. So, switching metaphors in mid-paragraph, what we're doing here is clearing the leaves, dirt and maybe the occasional fallen tree from the path. Cool. Worthwhile to do. But it doesn't really get me on the edge of my seat. Not until I see somebody actually walking down that path. Which makes this into a really long-winded way of asking whether you started this thread in general or to facilitate a specific new theory?

Mr. Analytical wrote: Basically it strikes me that all you're really saying is that GNS dominates these boards far too much and that space should be allowed for alternative theories that compete with GNS either directly (by sharing its assumptions) or indirectly (by wanting to be the way people think about RPGs). So you're advocating stepping back from GNS and allowing other GNS-Independent theories to spawn without people trying to refute them from a GNS position, explain them away in GNS terms or reject them out of hand as failed attempts at understanding GNS.

And for the record, I don't think whether or not it's science is irrelevant at all.

pete_darby wrote: As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dyfunctional play, not worry about funcitonal play...

Okay, this is in reply to Erick’s request for an example thread.

Water-Uphill World: Virtuality Examined

If I understand the sequence of events correctly, this thread started as an earnest attempt to work out whether “character integrity” could be violated in order to address Premise in Nar play.

Over the course of the first two pages or so, the thread sought a lot of data about the specific game, leading eventually to the conclusion that since the game was “actually” not Nar, the whole question was moot. Having gotten that far, many posters apparently lost interest.

Next, the focus shifted to GNS and its value, with one argument being proposed that whether GNS can or cannot classify everything correctly does not determine the classification-system’s value. This moved rapidly to a defense of GNS on the grounds that since the game in question was not apparently dysfunctional, GNS cannot be tested against it (back to Pete’s concern about diagnosis of sickness only). One poster noted that this shift of grounds to discussing GNS meant that Virtuality as a topic had vanished.

Finally, the argument was made that GNS ought to allow better communication and improve games. The stakes became binary: either GNS classification of the game did or did not achieve these things, and on that basis GNS should either be eliminated or trumpeted. The thread ended.

An interesting point here is to track “Virtuality” through the thread. Never a dominant issue despite the title, it seems to have been taken for granted throughout that Virtuality must be part of GNS, integrated seamlessly into the whole. Thus the debate eventually concluded with a discussion of how examination of Virtuality should or should not effect change within GNS. But as one poster noted, there never really was any analysis or discussion of Virtuality per se, only a series of attempts to classify a Virtuality-based game in GNS terms. Ultimately, once the game had been pegged as not Narrativist, it was felt that a satisfactory conclusion had been reached.

As I read it, what happened here was an example of pinning butterflies instead of analyzing. What was taken for granted throughout was that classifying Virtuality with respect to GNS categories would accomplish something. But what? What we learned was that Virtuality does not readily accord with Narrativism, because of the nature of Premise-addressing in its resolution structure. One poster even threw up his hands and said that trying to work out these things with reference to actual play often doesn’t achieve anything anyway. So what did we actually learn here?

I would classify this thread as another example of the “Classify my game in GNS terms” type. What is unfortunate is that I do not think that was the initial point of it. Rather, the question about integrity and Premise got progressively transmuted into a purely classificatory issue, and when partial classification had been achieved it seemed as though something had been accomplished, when in actuality all that was achieved was a defense of GNS from a challenge never posed.

Does that help at all?

clehrich wrote: One interpretation here would hold that this model has not been received within dominant Forge discourse, and really only gets talked about at all as a direct result of John’s persistent efforts. By this reading, the relabeling of RGFA Sim as Virtuality would constitute an attempt to incorporate some of RGFA into the Big Model, thus eliminating the conflict by subscribing to the “there can be only one” notion.

Another interpretation would be that the RGFA Threefold model now has an established minority presence, and that the relabeling constitutes acceptance by the dominant discourse that the category in question is not only different but valuable in itself and on its own grounds.

I wonder what you two think about which is true, or rather where on the spectrum between them you think matters stand now, or whether there is some third position quite different from these.

clehrich wrote: I would classify this thread as another example of the “Classify my game in GNS terms” type. What is unfortunate is that I do not think that was the initial point of it. Rather, the question about integrity and Premise got progressively transmuted into a purely classificatory issue, and when partial classification had been achieved it seemed as though something had been accomplished, when in actuality all that was achieved was a defense of GNS from a challenge never posed.

Just a thought-

Perhaps some of the problem with GNS is related to the fact that it describes roleplaying games and related behavior, whether creative agendas, design aspects, or actual play.

However, the term "roleplaying game" itself is rather amorphous.

There are rather a broad spectrum of rpgs ( and here even my use of the term "spectrum" is suspect), not to mention a bunch of activities/games that share some characteristics of certain rpgs.

As for the perception of GNS Theory itself, well, it does have its own forum. That alone does tend to focus interest on it, for good or ill.

Robert

komradebob wrote: Perhaps some of the problem with GNS is related to the fact that it describes roleplaying games and related behavior, whether creative agendas, design aspects, or actual play. ... However, the term "roleplaying game" itself is rather amorphous.

Chris,
In response to my slicing remark, you wrote:

clehrich wrote: I think we’re in agreement, but I’m not sure. To my mind, the Big Model already does basic classification quite well[...]. I don’t see the need for another classification theory.

What I think is dangerous is the notion that classification is somehow important in and of itself, because that leads to thinking that when we classify something, we achieve something, and blinds us from the fact that classifying is a usual preliminary to actual analysis.

clehrich wrote:

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dysfunctional play, not worry about functional play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

That’s a very interesting point which had certainly not occurred to me. Do you feel that a diagnostic (in the sense of finding dysfunction) model is intrinsically not worthwhile? I can see two possibilities: either the Big Model is founded upon diagnosis of dysfunction, in which case it actually needs some restructuring, or else the value of the Big Model lies elsewhere and the rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac. Do you have an opinion on which is true?

clehrich wrote:

Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

That?s a very interesting point which had certainly not occurred to me. Do you feel that a diagnostic (in the sense of finding dysfunction) model is intrinsically not worthwhile? I can see two possibilities: either the Big Model is founded upon diagnosis of dysfunction, in which case it actually needs some restructuring, or else the value of the Big Model lies elsewhere and the rhetoric should move away from this cul-de-sac. Do you have an opinion on which is true?

M. J. Young wrote: So having a model that defines functional play within specific major concepts works as a diagnostic tool, and for some people that is the primary use of such a model; but it works as many other things as well, because it is a model of what works.

MR. Analytical wrote:
Is it really though?

Doesn't GNS's game design elements essentially throw D&D up as a false negative? D&D is played by the vast majority of gamers quite happily and to the point where they don't particularly want to play any other games.

Regarding the "false negatives" of D&D and V:tM, I think that the problem lies in the distinction between incoherent design and incoherent play.

The argument would be that as writ both games (referring to earlier D&D versions) are incoherent, but that no one plays them as writ. In support of that, it is generally suggested that the text descriptive of the adventures possible in those games is not supported by the rules provided.

Whether that's correct or not, diagnosing games by how they are played versus how they are written is a major distinction that must be made for the theory to be applied. If your gaming group is using those rules which are consistent with its agendum and ignoring those which are not, you are playing a coherent game that is distinct from that which is in the books. GNS conflict does not have to arise in such a situation because your group has determined how to interpret the rules consistently. Such conflict does arise when players of these games move to different gaming groups, and discover that the game the new group is playing is very different from the one they know, but ostensibly based on the same rules.

--M. J. Young

Also: the prediction made by the model is that an incoherent published game will force either drift or incoherent play.

What happened mostly, IMHO, is drift, especially with early editions of Vampire. Early D&D I don't know as much about (but I can certainly say that the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks were incoherent in a non-jargon sense. They certainly weren't a unified, coherent whole). Ron's early essays, especially, note that the greatest problems in play would come when memebrs of established groups, with established drifts, mix and mingle, and the "you're playing it wrong" debates would flair. Which, I'll agree with Ron here, I saw more with Vampire groups than any previous game.

So the prediction isn't that play is impossible, or necessarily bad, or even necessarily incoherent, with an incoherent rulebook, just that during or before play a degree of effort will be spent / wasted drifting the game before paly is possible, whether through ditching rules or background or colour or theme or whatever.

Now, with a lot of my friends, the activity that we call drift is assumed to be a natural part of pre play. "Of course you've got to trim the system, or ignore the colour text, or whatever, no rpg is ever right for your group right away." But, having looked around focussed designs, and designs built for drift, you find that it's just not always true, and even where drift is necessary, it can be facilitated and the players informed. In designs like Vampire first, drift is necessary but not facilitated, except by the deeply unhelpful "golden Rule."

Hmmmm.... I think bringing analysis of play into an analysis of a game is dangerous for 2 reasons.

A) Actual games are only one contributing factor in the generation of played games. You also have to factor in egoes, existing styles of play, lack of comprehension of rules. Unless you can actually identify how much of incoherent play is due to the game as published then it's not clear how you can establish any kind of causality and diagnosis of problems is all about tracking the causal history.

B) Another danger of this line of attack is highlighted by Ron's D&D article. If you start allowing for play that's drifted in your analysis of the games themselves then the idea of there being an actual game becomes hard to maintain. OD&D, according to Ron wasn't an actual game but this weird patchwork of different drifted styles of play bolstered by house-rules and institutionalised group dynamics that was loosely referred to as "Dungeons and Dragons". Here be Dragons intellectually, if this is true of all games then there might be grounds for saying that the RPG author is dead and that games only exist in the playing, their characteristics determined by the interpretation of players... suggesting games aren't inherrently about anything.



So I think the whole play/game relationship needs to be considered quite carefully.

Hello,

Jonathan, in a word, "Yes." The Big Model is talking about play, and game texts are different things. Everything M.J. and Pete wrote is dead on, and it all relies on taking care with exactly the point you raise, from the beginning.

Just as "Gamist game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, provide a solid arena for Gamist play," the phrase "incoherent game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda, within or among participants."

System does matter; it's a feature of play. Rules "matter" only insofar as they are applied to System. Rules which (when followed) tend to result in Creative Agenda conflict are not, in my view, very fun to follow.

Note: not Creative Agenda differences or combinations, but conflict.

This is a big deal. If a person hasn't processed this, and persists in the notion that the Big Model is about how incoherent games make people play incoherently, then the person is doomed to futter around in a resentful circle.

This concept also took a long time to work out through essays, dialogues, multiple instances of play, and all kinds of disagreements. The current essays are an archive of that process, not a final and wonderful "hi! GNS for you, whoever you are!" manual. You'll find me grappling with rules vs. System all the way into the Narrativism essay.

Best,
Ron

I think there's a fundamental paradigm split based on what one expects rules to do that determines whether they appear incohernent or not. Reading the boards it's clear that some people consider mechanics that formalize relationships, for example, to be an improvement over leaving that to human-human iteraction whereas others consider those to be getting-in-the-way.

Clearly either POV is a spectrum (a person who expects mechanics to handle real-world representation of the character only and work relationships above that level might be swayed by a relationship-system that *really* works for them) but I think there's something fundamental about how a system is judged (and not just for incoherence, but for CA-facilitation) that depends on the inital expectation the player comes in with.

-Marco

Hello,

That's no surprise, Marco. That's why the Big Model puts System in its unique position as the "path" or specification of Social Contract, via Creative Agenda, down into Techniques. Of course people bring their expectations and standards into a play-situation.

If you're angling toward a criticism that, therefore, classifications of game texts as incoherent is therefore "in the eye of the beholder," then you've just entered a whole world of debate about this issue in regard to classificatory systems of any kind. I usually shrug at this point; if the issue of calling game designs incoherent seems invalid to you, then don't do it.

As I see it, since patterns of certain texts' use do appear, and do include extensive Drift of identifiable kinds, as well as bitter and acrimonious histories of working out the Drift (or encountering others' versions), then I'm happy with the utility of the term.

Let me anticipate another Marco-ism: "But it's pejorative!" Whatever. I'm now convinced that any term can be interpreted as a pejorative, and reacted to with great and angry resentment, and therefore, it's another shrug for me.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

That's no surprise, Marco. That's why the Big Model puts System in its unique position as the "path" or specification of Social Contract, via Creative Agenda, down into Techniques. Of course people bring their expectations and standards into a play-situation.

If you're angling toward a criticism that, therefore, classifications of game texts as incoherent is therefore "in the eye of the beholder," then you've just entered a whole world of debate about this issue in regard to classificatory systems of any kind. I usually shrug at this point; if the issue of calling game designs incoherent seems invalid to you, then don't do it.

As I see it, since patterns of certain texts' use do appear, and do include extensive Drift of identifiable kinds, as well as bitter and acrimonious histories of working out the Drift (or encountering others' versions), then I'm happy with the utility of the term.

Let me anticipate another Marco-ism: "But it's pejorative!" Whatever. I'm now convinced that any term can be interpreted as a pejorative, and reacted to with great and angry resentment, and therefore, it's another shrug for me.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Yeah... I understand your position and the terms.

I disagree though that either of those games are incoherent, largely because I think that you're then forced into murky theoretical waters that you don't need to in order to allow for the fact that an incoherent game can generate a widely recognised and much lamented style of play.

The A + B is a dichotomy you don't necessarily need to put up with theoretically if you ask me but as it stands you're kind of forced to put up with it. I think :-)

So I'm disagreeing and expressing myself poorly, not mis-comprehendifying :-) thanks though.

I'm not following your last post Jonathan.

when you say:

I disagree though that either of those games are incoherent,

the phrase "incoherent game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda, within or among participants."

I suspect that just about any traditional RPG (no end-conditions, a variety of goals in in-game context, and a GM) will show as incoherent to some degree. It's a matter of where you draw the line.

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

Clearly even "within" GNS CA's there's no real standard: different groups of Gamists are going to say others are "playing wrong." Same, especially, for Sim (Dramatists vs. Virtuality).

I think that test is far more of an examination of whether the two groups have different priorities on a social level (as GNS supposes, I'd say) than on a system-level.

Or to put this another way, how do you factor out for system apart from social? One might look for "tells" or certain language--but what exactly would those signposts be?

-Marco

Marco,

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

I think that test is far more of an examination of whether the two groups have different priorities on a social level (as GNS supposes, I'd say) than on a system-level.

Or to put this another way, how do you factor out for system apart from social?

Tim C Koppang wrote: Marco,

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

I’d call this drift--not necessarily incoherent play, but drift nonetheless. If you’re going to play TRoS without spiritual attributes (Just an example. I have no idea how you would change things.), you can get something more comfortably Simulationist, but that still changes things from the way the game was designed. It’s drift, unless I’m missing a nuance of your argument.

Marco, I don't know TRoS well enough to go too far with this as an example, but it seems to be the example at hand.

Let's suppose that you and Ralph and I were playing in the same game. You say that your view of the game is such that SAs won't matter very often, and Ralph's is that they should matter most of the time. Since I'm unfamiliar with the game, I don't know how I would handle them. However, imagine the game with each of us as referee.

• If you are the referee, is there some way in which you are going to prevent Ralph from using his SAs when he thinks they're relevant?• If Ralph is the referee, is he going to force you to use them more than you would expect?• If I am the referee, what's going to prevent you from using them sparsely and Ralph from using them frequently, within the same game? How much would you impact each other in this, and would it be problematic in play?

I'm inclined to suspect that neither of you would actually see the other as "playing wrong" in this regard, although you each might be surprised by the other's mode of play in some respects.

If that's correct, then it's not incoherent; you could play together, each in your own way, without significantly interfering with each other.

That's a far cry from the arguments between V:tM players or D&D players about what "playing right" was.

--M. J. Young

I don't want to derail this into a discussion on TROS. But I would direct interested parties to this thread on emergent vs. explicit rules and my comments to Tony in it.

TROS rules are very emergent, in that you don't know where they lead you up front in the rules. Having experience with them, I've seen pretty clearly where they lead, but the text does not force the situation. There is no rule in TROS that says you can't fight someone unless an SA applies. There is, however, a statement that clearly says if you do, be prepared to have your character killed.

Marco, what I submit will happen if you play TROS with frequent combats in which no SAs apply or in which the SAs are just enough to make the combatants equal is that you will wind up with lots of dead PCs over the course of the campaign.

I hestitate to make too specific predictions about what you will do about that but I suspect you will either 1) embrace the fatality rate, justifying it as being a realistic portrayal of a gritty world, or "tough breaks" to players who screw up the combat; OR 2) you will stop throwing out combats where SAs don't apply, and players will begin rabidly avoiding combats where SAs don't apply.

From choice #1 its an easy matter to drift the game to support a Gamist or Simumlationist agenda. From choice #2 the increased reliance on SA and the players ability to choose the same will put you on the road to narrativism.

That road is an emergent one, in that the system didn't tell you what to do. It taught you what to do by killing your characters off until you start playing the way the game was designed...or until you start drifting in some other direction.

Does that make the TROS text and incoherent one? I've already stated numerous times that there are places where it is a bit schizophrenic. But no, on a relative scale it is far less incoherent than most other games out there. But, like Sorcerer, you have to actually play the game and listen to what the system is telling you to do because the rules don't explicitly lay it all out in neat black and white.

Yes, I'm a fan of laying it all out in neat black and white. I wish both TROS and Sorcerer did a better job of that. I'm a big fan of rules sets that come with training wheels. But the lack of training wheels does not incoherence make.

M. J. Young wrote:
That's a far cry from the arguments between V:tM players or D&D players about what "playing right" was.

--M. J. Young

Marco,

I kind of got the impression from your last post [edit due to cross-post: your second to last post] that you don’t really accept the theory that certain games necessarily encourage one of G, N, or S creative agendas. Are you arguing that the group defines the creative agenda first and then plugs it into whatever game they want to play--drifting the rules, if only gently, as needed? Or put another way, that one man reading a game text will map whatever creative agenda onto the rules he happens to prefer? If that’s the case, we have a fundamental difference separating our viewpoints. Not that it isn’t worth talking about though.

Valamir wrote: then it looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that those game texts are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda.

Tim C Koppang wrote: Marco,

I kind of got the impression from your last post [edit due to cross-post: your second to last post] that you don’t really accept the theory that certain games necessarily encourage one of G, N, or S creative agendas. Are you arguing that the group defines the creative agenda first and then plugs it into whatever game they want to play--drifting the rules, if only gently, as needed? Or put another way, that one man reading a game text will map whatever creative agenda onto the rules he happens to prefer? If that’s the case, we have a fundamental difference separating our viewpoints. Not that it isn’t worth talking about though.

Hey Marco,

I wasn't going to post here again, as I think we've gone slightly off topic, but I wanted to clarify my viewpoint on at least one point that you brought up.

I think in order to argue that system matters more than preference, I think you have to account for the extreme differences in what we'd do with the game (and it's appeal to each vision) while also understanding that there are probably aspects on *for each of us* that *could* interfere with what we want...