..

I like "Chuck." It's easy to say, sounds manly and is acts as a noun, adjective and a verb...

Seriously, the point?

..

Hi Logan,

This thread pinpoints one of the serious differences between the Threefold (Gamism/Dramatism/Simulationism) and my construction of GNS (which might be best represented as an "E" for Exploration, a line under that, and "GNS" below that line).

I claim that there is no one "thing" represented by the term Dramatism. It does not need to be replaced, because it refers to nothing in particular. In my view, all of the separate and distinctive things that it refers to are accounted for as various and separate sub-sets across the range of GNS (mostly in Simulationism).

Hence, I don't see an issue. The term is not sitting there waiting to be explained; it has vaporized because its parts have all been accounted for, and they do not hold or form a unified thing.

Best,
Ron

P.S. For latecomers, I want to emphasize that when I first wrote about GNS, I was under the mistaken impression that I was discussing the Threefold, with a minor terminology change. Logan deserves the primary credit for helping me to see that I had really offered a novel theory instead. He also might be our resident expert regarding the history of the whole megillah back to around 1990.

..

Hi Logan,

I don't see the "stumbling around" part. I think that was the case back when the System Does Matter essay was the only reference, but now I think that The Window, for instance, is fully explained by GNS.

The mistake that some people might make is to think that GNS thinking demands that any game in existence must fall into one of the categories. This is emphatically not the case.

It is the case that I think The Window suffers from its design. I do not think it presents a coherent mode of play. Nor do I think it represents an egregiously incoherent mode. As we seem to agree, in application it must drift, not in order to accord with GNS as such, but in order that anyone enjoy playing it.

Ron describes The Window:
- One set of text with a degree of incoherence.
- Two modes of possible interpretation/drift in actual play.
1) one leading to Narrativism with necessary rules tweaks,
2) one leading to Simulationism (Explore Situation) with necessary abandonment of some text.

No big deal. No gaping hole in the theory, no "unexplained item."

Furthermore, this design, if not widespread, does show up across some well-known examples. So what? That doesn't "strengthen" the design's claim (if any) to have a spot reserved for it in GNS, beyond my classification above. Nothing about coherence or incoherence necessarily affects the distribution or commonality of given designs.

To me, Dramatism is a non-issue. Games purporting to be Dramatist exist, but I think that my GNS essay explains what they are much better than the term Dramatism does.

Best,
Ron

..

Hi Logan,

I don't think I've cast out anyone. I think that the people who play The Window or similar games have performed that drifting that I've talked about. Hence, their play is coherent, and they are happy. What is so terrible about admitting that they are (probably) playing in a Simulationist fashion, of a particular sort?

ISSUE ONE
One problem is that the Threefold view of Simulationism, or at least one instance of it during the long history, places a very high emphasis on setting. My view doesn't care about setting as a defining feature of anything; it's just something that one might or might not Explore in detail.

As I've said many times, I do not care whether GNS is meaningful in Threefold terms. I think that GNS does not reject any act or design of the Threefold, just replaces its categories with a better-structured theory, accounting for more stuff. In rhetorical terms, it is more robust.

BACK TO THE WINDOW
Let us say we try to play it as written: everyone at the table accords with the Three Precepts, and we use the mainly-Drama mechanics (totally unstructured) and roll the dice occasionally. [I have tried this with great care and effort.]

I defy anyone to get those Three Precepts into existence without (1) giving total authority regarding them to one person at the table or (2) coming up with some organized way to establish, at the very least, some standards for intent + initiation + execution + completion (ie, more rules).

No one has provided me with an example of actual play of this kind, regarding The Window or any other game, ie, without making these adjustments. I do not think it is possible. The play of Theatrix that I've had contact with, for example, stumbled continually over the same issue.

Unless and until I get such an example of actual play, and it's backed up by more evidence than merely a hand in the air ("I did it!" etc), I think my case that The Window is (mildly) incoherent stands. I also think that applies to most of the games that have been tagged as "Dramatist."

Best,
Ron

..

Ron Edwards wrote:
I defy anyone to get those Three Precepts into existence without (1) giving total authority regarding them to one person at the table or (2) coming up with some organized way to establish, at the very least, some standards for intent + initiation + execution + completion (ie, more rules).

..

..

..

Logan,

I cannot agree with the foundation of your last post. [Whoa, must edit. This was written simultaneously with other posts. I am referring to Logan's post about including or excluding people who self-identify as Dramatists.]

Wanting to be recognized as a group or thing does not, itself, justify being recognized if the category does not make sense. This is not discourtesy but a strict fact of reasoned discourse.

One cannot have it both ways. Either one agrees to try to make sense (which does not mean agreeing with me all the time on specific issues), or one seizes upon a group or thing to "be" without reference to making sense.

In the past, some people have arrived and filled the bandwidth with furious accusations or even insults ("Ron doesn't understand [fill-in-the-blank]"), and I have not replied to them, as there is no point. I have not ignored them; I have tried to cull such useful comments of theirs as I can from the dense mass of anger in their posts. None of these individuals have had the patience to see the result (the current essay). Some of them have simply been upset that the GNS notions do not accord with Threefold ones, and I can only shrug, as my notions are not intended to do any such thing.

"Debate" presupposes the standards of reasoning and of courtesy; I have demonstrated both, not the least by altering my views when presented with a valid argument on many occasions.

I'm not responsible for anything regarding other people who are (1) unwilling to discuss the issues here (ie are not present), (2) who cannot separate their emotional reactions from the point at hand, or (3) who need immediate posts in reply rather than accepting that people can digest and consider the points over time. If such individuals are avoiding the Forge, I do not consider this to be a loss of any kind.

Best,
Ron

Logan wrote:
-GM provides players with choices, or at least the illusion of choice.

Logan, Paganini,

The style of play you are describing is Simulationism with an emphasis on Exploring Situation.

That's it. I do not know what Logan mean when he says "true Simulationists," if we are using the terms of my essay.

If people with this style of play want to be called "Dramatists," I shan't stop them. It can be like "Illusionist," or other semi-formal specific styles of play nested deep within a GNS category.

The only sticky point is that some people might like to think that in playing this way, they are "not being Simulationist," which is not a correct claim. If they can get over this, then all is well.

Best,
Ron

..

I don't know how many times this has to be explained.

The GNS document is an opinion written by Ron (that several others agree with). This forum is here to discuss that opinion.

Having an opinion doesn't invalidate anyone else's. Having a classification system doesn't invalidate anyone else's.

(Since I always try to have an example, here's one:

Say I break down animals into the categories 'things that walk,' 'things that fly,' and 'things that swim.' You break down animals into 'birds,' 'reptiles,' 'mammals,' and 'fish'. You tell me "birds fly." I say, "Oh! So a bat is a bird, then? It's in my group 'things that fly.'" You say, "No, no. A bat's a mammal because (whyever things are mammals. Ask Ron. I'm no biologist.)" And I say, "But no! It flies."

Neither you or I am wrong. My categories are as valid as yours. I just can't start using your categories - a bat is not a bird, no matter how much I want it to be. It's a 'thing that flies.')

Point being - Dramatism does not fit in the GNS model. That's totally ok. It doesn't make Dramatism a bad thing, or something that people can't strive for. It does mean that you'd have to convince Ron that it does fit in the model for him to change his opinion.

Make sense?

..

We've crossed mini-threads, Logan. Typing too fast, both of us.

First of all, I think I've addressed your desire to see Dramatism find a "place" in GNS. Given yours and Paganini's description, it is Simulationism that Explores Situation. No problem; you and I were typing at the same time so you hadn't seen this yet.

Second, there is no need on my part to "catch flies." None. No one needs to be here; I am not a political activist and have no vested interest in anyone being here, beyond my stated goals for the Forge.

These goals are: to make better sense of RPGing, through discourse; and to promote creator-ownership. The uber-goal, or doctrine if you will, is to help people enjoy their hobby more if they are currently dissatisfied. So far, I think these goals are being met tremendously well. I see no special reason to change the approach taken so far.

People can leave, too, with no questions asked or grudges held. I don't see that as a problem. Incidentally, one person you mention is in fact often at the Forge, without posting much, and he and I disagree on very little, if anything.

Best,
Ron

..

Sigh ... still crossing mini-threads.

I am not using rfga terminology. I have co-opted and adopted that terminology using an entirely different theoretical framework.

Historically, theorists of one stage of an idea's development often resent the permutations or differences introduce by theories derived from theirs. That cannot be avoided. One does not present a new theory + new terms + new foundations + new everything.

My ideas are derived from thinking about the issues raised by the Threefold Model. As long as I acknowledge that, and as long as I explain just what I mean by each term as we go, then the essence of my effort is that the terms' meaning has shifted and changed. That shift & change is the whole point.

This is what evolving ideas are like. The names change more slowly, if at all, then the concepts and their relationships. Resenting this process is a waste of time. Given that the new framework of ideas explains things better (which is an "if"), then the only obligation is to acknowledge those who have come before, with respect to their achievement.

Thus one simply has a choice: (1) use the Threefold as the basis, and be a happy Dramatist, distinct from Simulationists; or (2) use my GNS essay as the basis, and be a happy Dramatist, as a subset of a much broader definition of Simulationism. One cannot dance back and forth, or criticize one framework for not being the other. Nor is the similarity of terms an issue at all.

Best,
Ron

Paganini wrote:
The choices can even be real choices; the requirement is that the GM has control of the eventualities.

Hello,

After reading this thread I think I can shed some light on what is happening regarding the 'Dramatism' issue. I'm with Ron in that I think what people are refering to as Dramatism IS adequately covered by GNS. I think Dramatism is largely, if not wholely, covered by Simulationism [sub-class Character and/or Situation Exploration].

The REASON people are so desperate to have their own category is largely an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the word base of the terminology. Each of the three classes has a 'strereotype' associated with it and the irony is that the 'stereotypes' don't even fit in the right categories.

When you walk up to a person who is ignorant of the precise and clear definitions and try to explain it the knee-jerk emotional reaction to the word 'gamist' is, "Oh, yeah, munchkins." I laugh at this because, personally, I don't think munchkins fall within GNS because munchkins cheat. Power Gamers are a different story and there's nothing wrong with Power Gaming.

Similarly, when you say, 'Simulationist' the knee-jerk reaction is, "Oh, I know *those* people. They are those anoying people who sit there and nit pick every little detail about how that wouldn't *really* happen that way. And constantly badger the GM about the difference between short bow arrows and long bow arrows." So, when you point to functional Character Exploration [Most WW LARPS and Online Games like Castle Marrach] or Situation Exploration [Most Call of Cthulhu games] and say, "Wow, what great Simulationist play," people freak out.

The Charater and Situation Exploration based Simulationists want BADLY to be disassociated from that stereo-type. This was *MY* first reaction to hearing my old style of play being catagorized as Simulationist. "But... But.. I HATE when players bicker over what would *REALLY* have happend and so on." It was only after I calmed down and took a serious look at what was actually being said that realized I was acting on a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what leaps to mind when one says, 'Simulationist.'

Similarly, those who are not knowledgable about GNS look at Character Exploration and immediately think, "This must be Narrativist. Look at the depth of human emotion. Look at the purity of these characters. Feel the drama." or Situation Exploration and think, "This must be Narrativist. Look at the expertly crafted twists and turns in the plot. Look at the subtle use of foreshadowing and misdirection. Look at this great story."

And when I point out that these are Simulationist style I get this weird look and they say, "But no one here is bickering over the difference between short bow arrows and long bow arrows." All I can say is, "They're not that *kind* of Simulationist."

So this desire to create a new category called 'Dramatism' is more an emotionally driven attempt for Charater and Situation Simulationists to disassociate themselves from that *OTHER* kind of Simulationist.

Jesse

Well, Jesse, there is a more valid reason why to create a name for the phenomena. How about because Simulationism that Explores Situation is a mouthful and hard to remember. I don't mind being called a Simulationist, and have refered to myself as such (heck, sometimes I am that guy trying to figure out the difference between the terminal velocities for arrows with different fletchings). But I would like to have a simpler term. As Ron pointed out, something like Illusionism that evokes the subset well.

I was toying with something like Story Experience, but that doesn't allow for an easy conversion to a -ism or -ist ending. Hmmm... Story Exploration is tempting, but might get it confused with Narrativism. Story Simulationism. Hmmm. That works. It's obviously a brand of Simulationism, and it obviously has to do with story. It is also like the phrase that was used for Feng Shui and Unknown Armies a lot, Simulation of Story.

Howzat?

Mike

jburneko wrote:
So this desire to create a new category called 'Dramatism' is more an emotionally driven attempt for Charater and Situation Simulationists to disassociate themselves from that *OTHER* kind of Simulationist.

Mike Holmes wrote:
I was toying with something like Story Experience, but that doesn't allow for an easy conversion to a -ism or -ist ending. Hmmm... Story Exploration is tempting, but might get it confused with Narrativism. Story Simulationism. Hmmm. That works. It's obviously a brand of Simulationism, and it obviously has to do with story. It is also like the phrase that was used for Feng Shui and Unknown Armies a lot, Simulation of Story.

Paganini,

Okay, I think I can see what's happening here. I think we're in agreement that under the current set of definitions Dramatism is covered by Simulationism -- [Character/Situation Exploration]. What I think you're striving for NOW is a term that at best perfectly provokes this meaning or at worst provokes nothing at all and so that further interest and curiosity will be taken to obtain more information and the stereotype isn't leapt to immediately.

It is my opinion that not only is this virtually impossible but it's not really a worth while effort. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth but it seems that your primary goal here is REALLY to develop terminology that is easly graspable by a general audience WITHOUT having to wade through tons of theory and explination. This is a fundamental problem of ALL academic subjects and simply it can't be done.

When something becomes the attention of academic study there becomes a need for concrete precise terms that describe various phenomenon. As Ron pointed out the problem is that usually the first set of terms ALONE do not fully or acurately describe the true phenomenon. But rather than change the TERM, the DEFINITION simply gets more and more refined for that specific field of study. I think this causes much headache for professors the world over. What happens is that they've been their field of study for so long and are so comfortable with using the terminology that when they start using them in their class room, students get confused because the students immediately attach their knee-jerk emotional definition of the word and can't figure out why the professor keeps using it the way he's using it.

The Forge is an example of how quickly this phenomenon takes hold and becomes a problem. I've read and reread the GNS essay and explained the concepts to people so many times that the adjective 'Simulationist' and the verb 'To Simulate' have little to do with each other in my mind. A Simulationist is a person who when faced with a role-playing decision tends to side with their desire to explore a given element of the game.

Remember that GNS is about modes of decision making and priorities of play for any single event. It's not about result and it's not about intent. It's about asking the question, 'Given a role-playing related choice what motivates your decision?' The fact that System Matters simply says that a given rule system can either help or hinder your method of decision making.

Finally, I'd like to say that I agree with you goal of wanting to reach a general audience that isn't Forge Term savy but you can't do it with just a term change. People are going to have to take an interest on their own. People are going to have to read and study and draw conclusions. [Side Rant: I also think that a lack of this motivation is what's wrong with education today. In an effort to make 'learning' easier there is this drive to break things down into easily memorizable and regurgitatable elements. Sadly, memorization is not learning. Nor can learning take place without a desire and most importantly the mindset to do so.] Currently, my personal goal is to try and isolate the three modes and explain each one individually to a general audience, outside of the more general GNS discussion. I've recently sent the second draft of my 'Narrativist Mindset' essay to Ron for feedback. It is my attempt to explain Narrativism without using Forge Terminology.

Hope this was interesting.

Jesse

..

..

Oops, sorry, Logan, I wasn't being clear. I was not suggesting Illusionism as a term for what we're describing, but something that (as Ron pointed out) was indicative of a subset of Simulationism, just as Illusionism is.

Apollogies for any confusion,
Mike

jburneko wrote:
Okay, I think I can see what's happening here. I think we're in agreement that under the current set of definitions Dramatism is covered by Simulationism -- [Character/Situation Exploration]. What I think you're striving for NOW is a term that at best perfectly provokes this meaning or at worst provokes nothing at all and so that further interest and curiosity will be taken to obtain more information and the stereotype isn't leapt to immediately.

It is my opinion that not only is this virtually impossible but it's not really a worth while effort. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth but it seems that your primary goal here is REALLY to develop terminology that is easly graspable by a general audience WITHOUT having to wade through tons of theory and explination. This is a fundamental problem of ALL academic subjects and simply it can't be done.

From Ron and his articles, I have learned the GNS model which has marvelous applications and is very thought-provoking. I love being at the Forge and this particular forum and learning.

From Larry Hols, who was around when Threefold was formed and has his own discussion group RPG-Create, I learn about "classical" Threefold and what the original intent was. I love being around Larry and learning.

I don't ask Ron to teach me classical Threefold; I don't ask Larry to define concepts or situations along the GNS model. I find both Threefold and GNS ~useful~ for RPG theory and game design. Neither "cancells" the other any more than an apple is invalid because an orange exists.

I don't ask either one to make their work the end-all, be-all of RPG Theory. That's like asking one scientist to discuss every possible application a particular piece of data could have in both the fields of chemistry and the fields of biology and telling him he's wrong because he doesn't do it to my satisfaction when I want him to.

Factionalizing into camps and flag-waving disrupts the learning and explorative processes of discussion. Its no longer about discovery and application; it becomes about being right and having that acknowledged.

Can this thread be reframed or else tabled into the "agree to disagree" category por favor?

Laurel

I'm with Laurel, mostly. I mean, I do think the "what GNS/Ron should/could do, and how" discussion is valuable, and I commend everyone for their general maturity in tackling it here, but . . . it's a seperate thing from the theory itself. I understand Ron, and I understand Logan, and if we could get everyone communicating the way they communicate, I think there's plenty of room for "I'm not a great fit for Ron's theory, but don't exclude me" to work.

But I'd rather focus on some of the interesting issues here. Player-derived Illusionism. That fuzzy Sim-Nar area where Dramatism (under whatever name) lives. Tackling those things WITHOUT bringing in the rest of it unless absolutely needed - I guess I'll take those to another thread.

Here . . . let's see, I think all I want to say can be said in response in this bit from Logan:

The problem with continuing to use RGFA terms is that the RGFA doesn't acknowledge the new definitions. In essence, GNS and RGFA become exclusive camps. The same thing happened with Jester's GEN model. Now, we have at least 3 different versions of Gamism, 2 versions of Simulationism, and 2 versions of Narrativism. We have contested use of Exploration (Jester doesn't agree with Ron's use of the term), and we have a sort of adversarial situation where RGFA ignores Narrativism and GNS ignores Dramatism. Looking at all of it as a whole, it gives me a headache.

This is especially true when you consider that all 3 models are just swizzling a lot of the same shit around in the bowl and stacking the pieces just a little bit differently. I haven't reached a definitive conclusion about this, but I'm definitely beginning to see Jared's point at the beginning of this discussion.

..

..

Hey Logan,

Why not do up a GNS/GDS "rosetta stone"...something intended to enable RGFA folks to communicate over here and people familiar with the GDS model to understand Forge discussions, as well as the reverse, something that enables Forge folks to explore GDS discussions? You could present it on the Forge as an article, or independent of the Forge, perhaps as some kind of graphic with annotations, and link to it through the Forge library (which probably needs a "theory" category anyway).

Paul

..

It's good PR, Ron. You catch more flies with honey than with salt. Why is it, do you think, that we hardly ever see Supplanter or Mytholder around here any more? You defended your concept, won the battle. But you lost the war.

Mytholder wrote:
exists for Gamism - it might, but the stricter balance required means this is iffy (the only example I can come up with is players in a board game coming up with new rules on the fly, by consensus.)

contracycle wrote:
Then players interacting with their holding, in a game manner, make decisions that in effect author elements of the game world. It';s more than just drawing the map - it;s employing it in a a resource management game withing an RP game.

Paul’s Rosetta suggestion - what a cool idea!

Logan – I want to reach out to your position. What I’m getting at the moment is that Dramatism
games are broadly simulationist but may use some techniques generally associated with the Narativist part of the tool box.

“Illusionism” seems to be rapidly becoming an emotive term, but I don’t get any sense that players have more than a toe-hold into story development in the Dramatism scheme of things.

Isn’t that what Ron has been emphasising? – Games may use tools from any part of the toolbox to achieve their respective implicit or explicit GNS goals. Styles of play may have techniques loosely associated with them but it is the goals themselves that drive the style of play?

The way I see it Dramatism would need to have its own unique goal to be a GNS category in its own right. Maybe you could persuade me on these terms or do I need a paradigm switch entirely?

Alan.

Hello,

Alan is correct. Techniques are not automatically tagged as G, N, or S.

To all - people are switching issues freely between (1) classifying a mode of play, and (2) talking about The Window. This has frustrated the clarity of the discussion.

GNS does not classify games. I'll say it again. GNS does not classify games. Thus, what The Window as text is or isn't, or does or does not do, cannot and never will falsify or confirm any element of the theory.

GNS is all about modes of play, what real people do. It is not a stretch of any kind to look at RPG design to see whether their guidelines/rules/text help or hinder that process.

If we are talking about modes of play (real GNS stuff), then the mode of play Logan and others have described is Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It fits. There is no ambiguity or discomfort or looseness of any kind, and no one has refuted my statement as much earlier in the thread.

If we are talking about a particular game design (The Window), then I can say with some authority that its design facilitates the above mode of play if you adjust the text. Hence it is, in design terms, mildly incoherent relative to what it can help to achieve.

I see absolutely no evidence or argument that leads to "problems" with GNS due to the existence of The Window. I do see a lot of poor argumentation, including attributing claims to me that are not true ("The Window is horribly dysfunctional") ("GNS conflates player goals with system design").

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
GNS does not classify games. I'll say it again. GNS does not classify games. Thus, what The Window as text is or isn't, or does or does not do, cannot and never will falsify or confirm any element of the theory.

GNS is all about modes of play, what real people do. It is not a stretch of any kind to look at RPG design to see whether their guidelines/rules/text help or hinder that process.

If we are talking about modes of play (real GNS stuff), then the mode of play Logan and others have described is Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It fits. There is no ambiguity or discomfort or looseness of any kind, and no one has refuted my statement as much earlier in the thread.

If we are talking about a particular game design (The Window), then I can say with some authority that its design facilitates the above mode of play if you adjust the text. Hence it is, in design terms, mildly incoherent relative to what it can help to achieve.

..

Hello,

Paganini wrote,
"... the claim being made here is that the Window facilitiates a specific mode of play without needing to adjust the text at all. In other words, the Window is not designed to facilitate Simulationism with Exploration of Situation. It's designed to facilitate a mode that is similar, but is not an exact match. Whether or not that mode fits into GNS I'm not prepared to argue, but it seems that others are."

I have yet to see a post from anyone who (unlike me) has actually played The Window. I see a lot of claims from people who "just know" that it's some special form of play, or who assume that it's coherent-to-play for some unspecified reason.

Some of my comments to Gareth (contracycle), in a nearby thread, about how a play group need not be a uniform little conclave of GNS-focused robots, definitely apply to this discussion as well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
I have yet to see a post from anyone who (unlike me) has actually played The Window. I see a lot of claims from people who "just know" that it's some special form of play, or who assume that it's coherent-to-play for some unspecified reason.

Logan (if you're still here),

You might comb these threads and previous emails or essays all you want, and you'll never find that I refer to the GNS theory stuff as "opinion."

It's an argument. I find it convincing, as I see it and have tried to explain it. Ultimately, it will stand or fall not due to my approval but in the eyes of people in the role-playing community who care about such things. Like any reasoned argument, that's its fate.

Therefore railing about my commitment to it is irrelevant.

What you are railing about, it seems to me, is some sort of personal stake in getting Dramatism recognized.

I have recognized it, as it has been described. It can be given that name and popped into the "boxes in boxes" diagram of GNS theory.

Big box = Exploration.
Three boxes in there: G, N, and S. Bunch of little boxes in each.
In the S box, "Explore Situation" is one of the little boxes, with a few little boxes inside it. Dramatism is the name of one of them, as is Illusionism.

All done. Why is that not satisfying? Because of some people's previous emotional commitment to Dramatism being a big box. Never mind any other consideration (specifically my statement that "story-oriented" is a lousy classifier); because they care so much, it has to be a big box.

I don't recognize emotional commitment to an argument as any kind of support for it. Not for one moment, in any case.

Evidently you share that emotional commitment, and I think it's too bad, because any disagreement on my part now must be tagged by you as pigheadedness. I just must not "care," and that makes me mean and (somehow) unreasonable.

I don't think you're arguing any more, Logan. You're shouting in order to get your way. I've demonstrated many times that I can be convinced to an alternate view, but shouting (via keyboard or any other way) is not going to do it.

Best,
Ron

..

Hi there,

I'm glad to hear we aren't in a shouting match, and I'll work hard to keep it that way.

I'll stand behind my claim regarding the opinion issue. "What Ron thinks" is not an opinion. That would be "What Ron feels," or "What he wants people to like him for," or "What he wants to be identified with."

"What Ron thinks" is an argument, in the rhetorical not belligerent sense, presented for the purposes of the goals of the Forge (described above). The remainder of the section you quote carries this information.

Best,
Ron

Re: Dramatism

Ya know, I thought of this last night ...

I think the story-oriented mode of play that fits garden-variet Dramatism pretty well (especially under The Window) is Vanillia Narrativism. I don't have the link handy. Just last night I was saying I felt VN was really a Simulationist mode--that would place it on the GNS/GDS split line--where it *really* falls might as well be up to Ron.

But anyway, if I recall it right, your play is in Actor Stance all the time and you're working towards story facilitation. That would be the "Actors" in The Window (or any other story-oriented play that's not specifically Narrativist by mechanics).

I'm not sure how VN addresses "whose story is getting told" but I'd guess that if the GM isn't working with the Players the same way the players are working with the GM the VN play mode won't work (i.e. it's a social contract thing). If I recall correctly, then that would fit just about perfectly--the Window (and, say Dead Lands 'Dramatist Play') would work out under that contract as well.

-Marco

Ron Edwards wrote: What you are railing about, it seems to me, is some sort of personal stake in getting Dramatism recognized.

I have recognized it, as it has been described. It can be given that name and popped into the "boxes in boxes" diagram of GNS theory.

Big box = Exploration.
Three boxes in there: G, N, and S. Bunch of little boxes in each.
In the S box, "Explore Situation" is one of the little boxes, with a few little boxes inside it. Dramatism is the name of one of them, as is Illusionism.

Because of some people's previous emotional commitment to Dramatism being a big box. Never mind any other consideration (specifically my statement that "story-oriented" is a lousy classifier); because they care so much, it has to be a big box.

Hi Marco,

I think that Vanilla Narrativism is the other way that play of The Window might drift, as opposed toward the Sim/Expl/Situ mode that's been described above.

To do that, some kind of way must be established, even tacitly, that players may exert story power. Story must be something that anyone involved can do, as opposed to facilitating someone else's story.

The nice thing is that I'm not talking about a set of feverishly driven young William Faulkners sweating over the profundity of their work, with Author stance being this constant and loudly-defended thing, but rather the group-accepted contract of being able to bring one's own "story-making" notion to play when you want to.

The Window as written makes no provision for such play. The Vanilla Narrativist will find himself or herself hitting a brick wall or two, because any input has to pass the GM's filter before it even enters in-game character Intent, much less Initiation.

Thus my argument about The Window regarding functional Dramatist play (as it's been described here, which is Sim/Expl/Situ) applies in full to The Window regarding Vanilla Narrativist play. The game as written cannot be seen to facilitate either without some amendment to its content, whether explicitly or "just how we play it."

Furthermore (he said, tired), that amendment toward either mode of play is rather easy with The Window, particularly toward the Simulationist mode. Thus it is not "horribly dysfunctional" but rather "mandatory-driftable."

Best,
Ron

Hey Marco,

I think the story-oriented mode of play that fits garden-variet Dramatism pretty well (especially under The Window) is Vanillia Narrativism....your play is in Actor Stance all the time and you're working towards story facilitation.

Players make use of Author stance in Vanilla Narrativism. The relevant post is the very first one on this thread.

Your comments on the Narrativism thread about Author stance as a key determiner of Narrativism are applicable as well to Vanilla Narrativism.

Paul

..

Hello,

Since Fang, Logan, and I seem to have arrived at similar conclusions ... holy shit. Let's think about that briefly - it says to me that something fairly robust has been established.

Logan wrote,
"Frankly, Ron, I did not expect you to come down from the mountain with intent to mercilessly squash my query. ...In fact, I think you are often too heavy-handed as a moderator ..."

What you infer does not correspond to the speaker's intent - ever. Not without confirmation. Please distinguish between what I am saying, and what I "must mean" when you attempt to read between the lines, because I only take responsibility for the former. I provided commentary on your query, and my statement, I don't see an issue, is meat for debate, not a euphemism for "Shut up," unless you insist on reading it as such.

When you really do feel threatened or marginalized, you know the solution - contact me personally, private email or otherwise, or bring up the issue in Site Discussion if you want it to be public. Simply flaming up in the replies as we attempt to continue the current discussion serves no purpose. As a general principle, there is no merit to the notion, "I wouldn't be so rude if he hadn't made me so mad."

The above statement is not appropriate for further discussion on this thread, but may be addressed at the Site Discussion forum or privately.

Best,
Ron

..

Logan wrote: Therefore, I think any new theory with more than 3 poles must begin on a clean sheet of paper with new terminology.

Logan wrote: conscious effort in backing off of Fang’s recent “More Boxes” thread.

A general comment, on a lesson reinforced for me by the more heated bits of this thread:

Always, ALWAYS remember that only the narrowest sample of what someone "means" (particularly emotionally) get's communicated in forums like these. Everyone really has to be resposnsible for that - and for understanding when others jump to the wrong/incomplete conclusion.

And to Fang, on

Le Joueur wrote:

Logan wrote: Therefore, I think any new theory with more than 3 poles must begin on a clean sheet of paper with new terminology.

I tried that, but it was eclipsed by I don't know what.

Logan wrote: conscious effort in backing off of Fang’s recent “More Boxes” thread.

Really? I thought this one would be just ignored too.