This is an issue that invite all the Forge-posters to contribute.

This issue pertains to my experiences on the GNS boards, so I am uncertain how it would relate to the other boards.

A couple of times I have tried posting a new idea that I was having trouble working through. In my difficulties I thought it would be useful to tap into the vast throbbing grey matter things of the posters on the boards to provide me with some additional computing power. (I am not speaking of threads where I am trying to prove an idea, but threads where I am attempting to "brainstorm" or explore an idea to see if it leads anywhere fruitful.) In stead I got a fair amount of you're wasting your time thinking this way. I've seen this happen a couple of other posters as well.

Here are my questions/issues -

Given that these are an open and public fora, should I just accept that given human nature this will always happen and that I should just resign myself to this as inevitable?

Should I expect, as a matter of human nature and public arenas, that such large scale "brainstorming" or raw idea exploration threads don't work. IOW in such circumstances is everyone, including myself, better served exploring novel ideas via PM and leaving the public boards more for the "testing of ideas and/or theories"?

Is there any mileage to be had in designating a thread not for criticism (which is a vital and necessary process) but for, almost but not quite, free association or the raw exploring (not testing or proving) of an idea?

I know there have been times when I have sorely needed fresh input when working on a train of thought and what I needed was help, not people telling me the idea can't work. That will come later when or IF the idea bears some fruit. I know recently via PMs, I have made more strides in playing with my basic, raw ideas than in the public forums. Is that just the nature of the beast? Are public forums doomed to be poor places to toy with ideas to see if they flower or grow before they are buried under the weight of inertia?

This is not meant to be a complaint on any level, nor is this a veiled attempt to condemn anyone at all - I am looking for guidance for those times when anyone is attempting to present novel ideas for shared examination (not criticism) and perhaps to spark a little debate.

Thank you everyone for your considered responses!

I think (and I don't know but just a thought) that maybe you phrasing your questions poorly. If you end something with "What do you think?" you will get responses like "I think this is a bad idea that won't work." If you instead say "I am going to do this; what do you think is the best way to do it?" you will still get bad responses (just the nature of the beast) but hopefully folks will have a better idea of what you're looking for and better be able to provide useful help.

You may, of course, already do this in which case nevermind. :)

To amplify a bit, perhaps, there is a degree to which it is inevitable on an open forum that you're going to get some discouraging responses. You just have to take them as "this person doesn't think this idea is going to go anywhere" and focus on such responses as entertain possibilities.

After all, sometimes someone will post something that you've already turned over in your head with no results and so abandoned as a useless direction. If someone were to bring it up, you would think that it's useless to pursue that, as it got you nowhere. You might be wrong, but if they asked your opinion (which they did), that's your opinion--and it's not really a worthless opinion, because you have thought about that very aspect before, and got nowhere with it. So you say, "I can't see this going anywhere." Someone else comes along and tries to bring things out of it, and maybe you've already covered that ground, too, or maybe you haven't--but in any case, you can only respond from what you know, and sometimes what you know is "I've been down that road, and was lost for days before I realized it didn't go anywhere." And sometimes that's wrong--you just didn't find where it goes.

So it's something to accept as inevitable, and to work around.

As they say, your mileage may vary.

--M. J. Young

I think Greedo has it right (poor Greedo, murdered by the dastardly Han Solo and now the world will never know the truth)

If you're looking for free association brainstorming, then ask for free association brainstorming. Or, even better, ask specifically for the sort of angle you are looking for feedback on.

I think this board can step up to the plate for you if they know exactly what you want out of a thread.

Stick to the RPG Theory forum.
When you throw out an idea there people are really supportive, tend to offer really thought out opinions and ideas, point out aspects you might not have considered, and generally are really helpful even if they disagree with you. Discussions tend to be really freewheeling, and engaging. ( There are of course exceptions...)

The GNS forum is a sharktank.
No, really. I'm not sure why, but the discussions on the GNS forum seem to get really heated really quickly. Which is sort of a shame, because the whole gns/big model thingie is really sort of interesting. But I swear, discussing it is like getting into a conversation with a stranger about politics or religion...

k-Bob

I think that may be due to two factors:

First, the GNS forum has a large amount of terminology which has been hashed out over a long period of time. These terms are the tools that people use to extend the model further. If you misuse the terms you are (for all intents and purposes) coming into their workshop and banging on nails with a screwdriver. They're going to tell you "NO! That is not what a screwdriver is for!" rather than trying to help you explore the potential of hammering with that particular tool.

Second, the GNS forum has a specific goal of exploring the model and trying to create new tools and techniques of exploration. When you post there people have (IMHO) a right to expect that you're addressing that goal. If they can't see how you're addressing that goal they will ask that you clarify. If you had no intention of addressing that goal then they're request for clarification can easily come across as an attack.

First, the GNS forum has a large amount of terminology which has been hashed out over a long period of time. These terms are the tools that people use to extend the model further. If you misuse the terms you are (for all intents and purposes) coming into their workshop and banging on nails with a screwdriver. They're going to tell you "NO! That is not what a screwdriver is for!" rather than trying to help you explore the potential of hammering with that particular tool.

Hi Jay,

The issue is simple and specific to you. The well-meaning replies you've received are overlooking it, which is annoying to me because it is a feature in the recent GNS sticky. And it's a key feature.

Here's the issue: we do not know anything about your role-playing. No one knows what games you have played in the past. No one knows what games you play now, if any. No one knows with whom, what their age range is, or in what context. You are a cipher, posting about ideas rooted in no concrete context.

I've advised you about this a couple of times, to post in Actual Play or at least to disclose experiences and concrete real-life examples as a context for your GNS posts. To date, you haven't acted on this advice. I speak from great and thorough experience across seven years of constant interactions in this medium: by not doing so, you reduce any abstract or concept-based contributions to trivia.

I'm pretty serious about this. I consider your reluctance to disclose this information to be a very strange and possibly disturbing thing. It might be only that you haven't seen its relevance and hence haven't made the effort, it might be fear that people might marginalize you based on your preferred mode or system of play, or it might be shame, perhaps, that you don't play. It could be something else. I don't know.

But I can tell you this: without this perspective on our parts, your posts might as well have "not important" stamped on them in red letters. No matter how good or potentially fruitful your thoughts seem to you, unless they are presented by a role-player to other role-players, with all of us sharing in the knowledge of one another's experiences and situations of play, then they are not good thoughts. They are disconnected musings.

To everyone, it's very nice that you guys are posting helpful and general advice about posting. That's great. But this is not a "find your feet" situation from a new poster. This is someone who posts extensively and intensively, but who represents a specific, identifiable problem given the purposes of that forum and the site in general. This is not a time for gentle reassurance, but for tough love.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm....

Well, that was an enlightening post for me. (But now that I go back and reread the sticky I can see that it shouldn't have been...) I've had similiar issues, though not to the extent that I think Jay is trying to address.

I've been under the (false) impression that Actual Play is for diagnosing dysfunction or allowing players to share their more glorious adventures. While I read these posts, I thought that I fit neither category. My experiences are relatively functional and I don't usually share them unless it's with my gaming group. I had never before thought about using those experiences to "introduce" myself, so to speak.

That all being said, I'm heading over there right this instant....

Thanks Ron.

Cheers
Jonathan

Hello,

I've said it many times: Actual Play is the single most important forum on this website.

The goal of the Forge is one single thing: to facilitate the publication of creator-owned role-playing games.

The means for this goal are many, including (in the case of the GNS forum) clarifying our understanding of role-playing per se.

The material for these means, all of them, is actual play. Past or present, fun or not fun, glamorous or unglamorous, complicated or simple, long-term or short-term, anything at all.

Without the material, no means. Without the means, no fulfillment of the goal. No good.

Clinton and I are wholly dedicated to the ideas I'm presenting in this post.

Best,
Ron

I guess I'm confused and perhaps not getting it. I'm not sure why I'm not clicking with this site, but I've tried posting in Actual Play, and got not very helpful advice in one thread, and got told to take it to RPG Theory in another thread.

I know one of my troubles is forumulating the right questions. But if I don't have the foggiest idea of what questions to ask, how do I begin to formulate the right ones?

I see real useful theory and discussion here, but I just don't understand how to get into it.

Frank

ffilz wrote: I guess I'm confused and perhaps not getting it. I'm not sure why I'm not clicking with this site, but I've tried posting in Actual Play, and got not very helpful advice in one thread, and got told to take it to RPG Theory in another thread.

But I kind of get this feeling that you're supposed to get your feet wet in Actual Play before you can venture into GNS. I guess that's fine (if GNS is the research lab and Actual Play is the classroom from my earlier analogy). But when my posts in Actual Play don't help me move forward, I'm not sure how to get involved in the thought provoking discussion.

One problem I have right now is the lack of an active playgroup, so my only source of Actual Play examples is to dredge back in history (I have posted some from my few recent play examples). At this point, without an active play group, I'm looking for ways that I can get one of the things I get out of running a game, and that is the thought process that goes through setting up and resolving play situations. Maybe this isn't the right place for that kind of thought exercise, but it looks like a good place to me, but if I'm wrong, well, tell me so (and if so, if you have a suggestion for a place that is more viable, I'd appreciate the pointers).

Frank

ffilz wrote: But I kind of get this feeling that you're supposed to get your feet wet in Actual Play before you can venture into GNS. I guess that's fine (if GNS is the research lab and Actual Play is the classroom from my earlier analogy). But when my posts in Actual Play don't help me move forward, I'm not sure how to get involved in the thought provoking discussion.

One problem I have right now is the lack of an active playgroup, so my only source of Actual Play examples is to dredge back in history (I have posted some from my few recent play examples). At this point, without an active play group, I'm looking for ways that I can get one of the things I get out of running a game, and that is the thought process that goes through setting up and resolving play situations. Maybe this isn't the right place for that kind of thought exercise, but it looks like a good place to me, but if I'm wrong, well, tell me so (and if so, if you have a suggestion for a place that is more viable, I'd appreciate the pointers).

Hello,

Frank, work with me here for a minute.

1. It's slow. It's very slow. The site can't snap its fingers and provide A#1 perfect feedback for you or any one person. You have entered a community, and as with any real social community, it will take a while for you to find your "place" and the spheres of interest in which you function best.

Since the Forge is dramatically and deliberately separate from the widespread "internet dialogue culture," the new arrival is often surprised. He or she says, "I am me, I am here, here is my issue, what do you say," and gets exactly the same response as in one's first year in college: a scattered amount of tentative individual contacts in the middle of a certain frightening overall indifference.

It takes time for those individual contacts to grow into a support network. It takes time to decide which forums are one's favored sphere of activity, and with whom, and about what. It isn't a place where any and every thread is an opportunity to whip out an opinion. It's a community in which you build your social role, your intellectual role, and your own agenda about what you need to get out of it.

2. Actual Play is the touchpoint for all the interactions with others which help us all relate to one another as people and fellow practitioners. No one is condemned for "not playing the right game." No one's play-preferences are held as the "wrong ways." Whatever you present, whatever situation it's embedded in, we say, "OK, how did it go, what did you do, what worked and what didn't."

It is also dedicated to the idea that role-playing is not a shameful, fetish activity which is hidden in the closet, but rather an activity worth celebrating even at its most straightforward (Jonathan [Errath], this means you). Simply posting at all in this forum transforms the person into a public and no-shame practitioner, rather than an apologetic deviant.

3. The Forge represents not only the immediate interactions and services that you can see before your eyes, but also a history of these things.

Here's a neat exercise. You should pick a month from a couple of years ago, and read a bunch of posts across the forums for that month alone. Who was here? How did they interact? What got concluded? Can you see the impact of that month on the current postings of the people who were involved back then?

People who've been here for a while recognize this simply because they've lived through it. People who've just arrived don't necessarily understand that the community and the ideas and the recommendations evolve through this process, and that the instant question-answer of one piddly thread exchange is not actually where the real value comes in. I mean, I hope that some value is possible there, but in some cases, it isn't going to start strong.

The single most important touchstone for any kind of historical review at the Forge is represented by the threads called the Infamous Five, which is why they are sticky'd in this forum.

So, Frank, I'm saying that you're welcome here. You'll do fine. But your current measure of success (how many responses do I get? for instance) isn't really very meaningful.

You're in a difficult position, too - Actual Play, as I say, is the most powerful starting point, and you aren't engaged in any. You also seem to have a certain conundrum going on in terms of why you play (your thread of that title really flailed). So sure, of course you're feeling all at sea - you are all at sea. That's going to make all of the issues I'm posting about here even more tentative for you. It's going to take time.

Best,
Ron

It may be that GNS doesn't have anything for you.

Things that go on in there are pretty esoteric. If you're building a museum, you don't need to understand the nature of pi as a transcendental number, you just need to have a decent approximation when you lay out the circular rotunda.

I know that for my part, I haven't seen a thread in there for weeks that had anything useful for me. I'm just not operating on that level.

RPG theory gets me places sometimes. Actual Play has lots of nifty stuff, but I rarely reply to threads there, and I imagine that's true for lots of people.

I tihnk that might be true for a lot of people, Fred. But Jay is a pretty damned prominent poster in GNS. I think that if there's nothing there for him, he's spending a lot of time looking for it.

Frankly, Jay, I avoid your posts to an extent. Because, while I think your ideas are intelligent and insightful, I find the posts that put them out there to really wander. Defintitely do mark these as brainstorming right at the top. I think that would help a lot.

Then consider taking a more essay sort of approach when you have a point that you'd really like to debate.

Mike

To everyone who took the time to make a considered response, a hearty thank you.

Hey Ron,

Perhaps I had the wrong perspective, but I was under the impression that ideas stood or fell on their own merits, not by their association to or by the heritage of the person presenting them.

There is an interesting issue that has arisen in this thread. The thread title and the essence of my post don’t exactly match up. You’ve hung up on the idea that no one cares about my posts because no one knows me by my game “cred”. That is simply not the case. Everyone who has taken the time to respond to my threads automatically indicates that my threads were “important,” even when they don’t know my game history.

I was raising the issue that it can be difficult for embryonic ideas to be explored when they get buried under lots of “don’t waste your time” or “that’s a stoooopid idea – I can’t see it ever going anywhere.” I get lots of responses, I was looking for a way to increase the number that actually engage the idea rather than trying to bury it. The problems (and solutions) are pretty much as M. J. Young, Ralph and Mike Holmes have all pointed out. Inertia is going to exist and that I should be very explicit about that I seeking aid in brainstorming.

That you find my reluctance to disclose information about my gaming sinister is nearly laughable. First, I have included some information about my gaming in a few posts. Granted I have not been overflowing, but I have not been hoarding it away either.

So far, it is as your have postulated, been a matter that I don’t see the relevance – yet. I firmly believe that ideas will stand or fall on their own their own merits. In the GNS Theory Forum I think that should matter most. In the RPG Theory Forum I think it would be folly not to post actual game experiences.

The reason I don’t post in the Actual Games Forum is two fold. Effort and Result.

First. I personally have no interest in spending hours writing up the after action report on a 12 hour gaming session. Some people gather great satisfaction from sharing the results of their efforts and in all seriousness, hats off to them. I don’t know how they do it, because it’s not in me. I think I have maybe perused through there a handful of times in the year I’ve been posting at the Forge. Its not that the material isn’t important, rather I don’t relate to it effectively. Conversely I don’t see any value in me doing the same. My heart lies in theory and trying to figure out what it is that we are doing when we are roleplaying. Like you had indicated, second hand accounts don’t contain the data set one needs to understand what the players are doing; at least with regards to CA diagnosis. Well that is EXACTLY where my heart lies – figuring out Creative Agenda from a deconstructive point of view.

Given my view on Sim, there would be even less of a point in posting. Simply put, the Dream cannot be shared by anyone outside the ritual itself. It would be nearly meaningless. The best you would get is a recap on a story, but not the event.

In the GNS forums I’ve had no problems understanding other posters, and I’ve probably never read a single account of any of their games. I look at the ideas being discussed and respond. I considering the idea at hand, I don’t pay any attention to who is posting. I figured most people worked that way. In fact I find that personal accounts tend to get in the way of theory as people tend to get distracted by the story itself or as I’ve usually found, the story does not provide any additional insight to the ideas being discussed.

Second. Given the state of Sim at the moment, posting any account as support material would result in quick identification within the model and just as quick locking down of perceptions. Until Sim is illuminated properly I don’t see any benefit from making the effort. It has happened to me in the past and I simply recognize that until a new conceptual framework is up and running that posting any such accounts only makes the presentation of new ideas that much more difficult not easier.

To put it bluntly – it would be a big fucking pain in the ass with negligible return on investment.

No one, other than you, has ever had any issues with that in the past. People have asked for examples to illustrate ideas, but no one has ever questioned or hassled me on any level about my gaming credibility. What you see as sinister, I see as over bearing, unnecessarily intrusive and nearly insulting. However, if you feel it critical to the community at large, that I have somehow shirked my obligations then I will create some sort of gaming vitae and post it to buy me credibility. I do not say this glibly – if you say it is necessary then I will undertake this noisome task out of sheer duty to the community.

Its funny. I have absolutely no fear of being marginalized. The posters at the Forge, by their zeal to discuss ideas have proven to me that they are here to discuss ideas, not people. There is an incredible meritocracy based on ideas that is amazing. I have demonstrated more faith in being treated fairly at the Forge than you have. What’s even more ironic is that my faith is based purely on the discussion of ideas, not on some poster’s “game cred.” I can count literally only once or twice when I haven’t been treated fairly.

I have played and I do play as I have indicated in a number of my posts.

No one is dismissing me. No one is dismissing my ideas. What was I was discussing was the dismissal of the idea of exploring the idea. It has happened to other well-accounted posters here. It’s not just me.

OK – I’m done ranting. Back to the land of civility.

Silmenume wrote: Perhaps I had the wrong perspective, but I was under the impression that ideas stood or fell on their own merits, not by their association to or by the heritage of the person presenting them.

Hiya,

"Cred" is not the issue, nor is judgment of you as a person. I really think you do not understand the issue at hand.

For example, posting a gaming vita as you describe, especially out of a sense of performing a chore, would be counter-productive. Again, it's not your credibility as a role-player, it's the information that you would be providing. At present, your posts are best described as echoes - we have to infer the sounds. A vita would not solve this problem. A brief account of a single scene from a recent game, with information about how the players interacted and what make the experience rewarding to you, would do so admirably.

The effort to write such a post, which is neither a vita nor a blow-by-blow account of twelve hours of play, cannot possibly be any more taxing than one of your posts in the GNS forum.

My advice is born from many, many experiences here at the Forge. It is good advice. You can decide whether to take it or not, but anything you post here saying why you won't is wasted effort, because this isn't a debate. If you want to be happier here, if you'd like to see your ideas and contributions better understood, then post about actual play. Spend some time in that forum and in some of the specialty forums to see what it's like.

Since you seem pretty determined about your point, then clearly, if you like, you can stick to your guns. However, I think that if you continue as you have, then your enjoyment of the Forge will be limited in an ever-increasing downward spiral, giving you cause again and again to complain how the discussions are going. If you aren't interested in trying my advice, then over time, there won't have to be any dismissal or oppression for the Forge to become less fun or valuable for you. Apparently that process has already started, which is no more nor less than I expected, back when I provided this advice for the first time.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to pop in here with a concurrence with Ron. Earlier in this thread, I was feeling similar frustration. I was about to pick up my toys and go home. But then I thought about it, and decided to just post a couple game writeups. I'm not good at them, but I could summarize events and feelings.

And guess what, I got some results. I was pointed to some terms to read up on. Now I haven't really explored them yet because of other things on my mind right now, but the stage is set. When I have time to delve into those terms, I can start a new thread in either RPG Theory or Actual Play depending on the angle I want to take, referencing the earlier thread.

Of course I also had re-inforcement of this in another venue. I had posted a writeup of the same game session as this thread: [Fudge] why I am reluctant to be a player on the Fudge mailing list (I had actually posted on the Fudge list first). That posting also got some good discussion going.

So I really suggest you give it a try.

And Ron, thanks for the response in that thread. I will get back to that sometime I hope.

Frank

I got some very good reinforcement of the validity of Ron's advice. Read my Star Wars thread and even though I only got two replies, you can see that at least one pesorn here was interested in my experience, and provided some valuable insight. Next time I have a conversation with Bill, we'll understand each other better... And it was about 6 hours worth of game play, crammed into an average size post.

May the Force be with you,
Jonathan

TonyLB wrote: Tools, physical or intellectual, stand or fall based on their function in the real world. They cannot be discussed without reference to that world. ... These forums, even (perhaps especially) GNS are for the crafting of intellectual tools for use in real gaming. Tools are defined by what you use them for, not how shiny and elegant you make them. If you were (in a hardware forum) to say "Let's explore the possibilities of making hammers with two heads", I don't think it would come as a shock when someone said "Okay... what situation led you to think you might need such a thing?" Same thing here.

Silmenume wrote: Given the state of Sim at the moment, posting any account as support material would result in quick identification within the model and just as quick locking down of perceptions. Until Sim is illuminated properly I don’t see any benefit from making the effort. It has happened to me in the past and I simply recognize that until a new conceptual framework is up and running that posting any such accounts only makes the presentation of new ideas that much more difficult not easier.

Nope, swing and a miss, Chris. Actually, as a response to Tony, you're correct, he is assailing the abstract. But the rest of us are not doing this. It's not the same old issue with regards to wanting to see some actual play.

We'd like to see actual play, as Ron has pointed out twice now, not because we can only apply theory to concrete examples, but because we're not getting Jay's dialect. He's speaking, largely, a different theoretical language. The Rosetta Stone of RPGs is Actual Play. Once we have a handle on Jay, the guy speaking the things he speaks, we'll be able to understand his abstractions and respond to them.

Think of it as ritual, Chris, if that helps. Once he's been through the fires of Actual Play, then he's a known quantity, and we can communicate as brothers of play. OK, that's just goofy, but does it help?

I think that Jay has said tons about what he wants the model to do in GNS. We're just not getting it. Well, I for one am not. And I'm not sure that an actual play post will help, truth be told. But I don't see how it can hurt.

Jay, if you do an actual play post, fergodsake don't do a blow by blow. That's actually considered bad form in that forum (it's on the sticky). What we want is some basic analysis of the play. Not even neccessarily in GNS or theoretical terms, but, like, did you have fun, and why?

Mike

TonyLB wrote: There is an unbounded variety of possible tools that have no real-world function. They are of no use to me. I'm not going to waste my time helping you design them.

Mike and Tony,

Jonathan just said more or less what I would say, and more simply. I wanted to pry at the small bits and pieces, and Mike rightly seized on these. Jonathan has asserted the more fundamental point.

Yes, it's a "me too" post, but I think it's a valid one.

I wrote with far too much certainty about what the forums "are about". I don't know what the forums are about, and even if I did it wouldn't be my place to say.

So let me retract my earlier, mistaken, point. In its place, let me offer the humbler (and hopefully less controversial) personal opinion: I don't want to bother with abstractions. So if you don't see me (personally) posting on such threads, now you know why.

I'll also offer that Ron's excellent advice, right after my post, is much better reading than my post. I regret having accidentally written something that caused the thread to be hijacked from that far superior (but less provocative) post.

Reading through, I'd have to say the 'language' concept is more the heart of why Jay's not getting the hand he's deserving.
I get people at work ALL THE TIME who ONLY speak spanish and want a Cell Phone or possibly have a technical question about cell phones. All I can say is "No hablo espaniol, solemente inglese", bad spelling but "I don't speak spanish, only english." Thats what we're seeing here: Jay's like "I WANT HELP! Why doesn't somone get what it is I want to do?" And the response has been "Um...no hablo Jay..."
In such a situation one of us grabs a translator (For them mebbe one of their kids, for me its a guy in Electionics), which happen to be "Actual Play" here.

As to why everyone here "needs to learn Forge-speak", no its not a neccesity. I personally have no idea alot of the jargon being tossed around, but thats why I avoid the theory intensive stuff. I'm quite content to sit in my corner and play with the Legos and letting other people play with my cool little cars when I'm done. Someday I might go "Wow! How'd you build that one?!", but for now I'm content with my four wheels and body. Someone who's sitting over with the guys with the blueprints however needs to know whats going on in a way everyone can understand. It just so happens for the Forge the AP forums let people see

1) What they know, what systems they are familiar with (just D&D, WOD or is it some other stuff?)
2) What kind of experiances they've had (cool people to play with, overbearing GM, obnoxious players, been a GM with a crew so bad it all fell on the GM?)
3) What it is they might want to accomplish (My GMs sucked in the past becase...so I want to address that with this function, what do you think?)

In all my time with "communication", I know it should be as little of a hassle as possible. Its always a two way street, never truly a one way and never "just happens". Both sides do need to make an effort to be understood however.

Mike Holmes wrote: Think of it as ritual, Chris, if that helps. Once he's been through the fires of Actual Play, then he's a known quantity, and we can communicate as brothers of play. OK, that's just goofy, but does it help?

I think that Jay has said tons about what he wants the model to do in GNS. We're just not getting it. Well, I for one am not. And I'm not sure that an actual play post will help, truth be told. But I don't see how it can hurt.

Hi Chris -

I think another meta-issue here is that you are thinking about Jay's actual play posts as theoretically informed from the get-go, whereas I think Ron and Mike entertain the 'fantasy' (scarequotes because I would agree with them) that a 'straight' description of what Jay's play is like, 'prior to its being theorized' if you like, or at least in 'natural' language, or pick your favorite long-ago-deconstructed-phrase that recapitulates the myth of natural self-expression as against theoretically-driven discourse (and I'm not trying to be an ass by putting it this way, I've struggled with this stuff for years before the mountain once again became a mountain, and of course my struggle may or may not indicate the one true final choice of the right pair of spectacles, let alone that the spectacles are off, etc.) would give them a sense for what his play is like, a data point or two if you like, which would then give something 'concrete' against which the abstractions of Jay's posts (which I don't find particularly more abstract than most other people's but that's likewise besides the point here) could become intelligible - not so much the spirit made flesh as just a pound or two of flesh that might give a clue to the spirit that flesh imagines itself to always be approaching nearer, or somesuch.

In other words, I think you're overtheorizing what is being looked for in actual play posts and overcommiting yourself at least implicitly to the necessary theory-ladenness of such posts from the get-go. Your theory of cognition and expression, or even metaphysics, may vary.

Regards,

Sean

Sean,

I think that rather depends on what you mean by "theoretically informed."

Do I think that Jay knows a hell of a lot about different kinds of theory and is trying to do something with it to completely reformulate the Big Model on new grounds? No. I do have some vague leanings in that direction, as you probably know, but I rather doubt that's Jay's point.

If you ask me, I think Jay is convinced that there is a serious structural flaw in the definition of Sim, and that this flaw will have major repercussions up and down the Big Model. I think he believes there is long-term value in the Big Model, and would like to fix it. I think he would like to discuss this with other people on the Forge who care about the Big Model. And I think he's frustrated at the moment, because some of those he thinks should be most receptive appear uninterested in even the notion of the kind of project he's doing.

Could Jay be a lot clearer in his writing and his posts? Yes. Will Actual Play necessarily help? No, though it might. Is Jay right to be frustrated? I'm not entirely sure, but this thread is sure shaking out some reasons he might feel that way.

All I meant about an Actual Play post was this: if the point of Jay's project with Sim is to examine how the model works, then posting some Actual Play isn't going to help him. It may, however, help others. But there seems to be this notion around here that if Jay posts some Actual Play he is going to learn something about his theoretical project. I think this is almost by definition not going to happen. This is much less complicated than you seem to think.

I know sometimes I just want to dish. That's a welcome secondary benefit to posting on a forum: a feeling of community.

But let me not be a Jay apologist. We all have that moment of development in membership, regardless of the group, where we reckon our motives to the group's purpose. It's appropriate that direction be provided to members who are out of sync.

There's been some noise in the GNS forum, lately, that's caused me to steer clear of it. It's kind of weird, actually. While Gencon was going on, there were a flurry of threads that re-interpreted GNS; I thought they were all somewhat interesting and rather sweeping. And it's no secret that some members are more constructive in their theorizing, whereas others are happily . . . fiddly. Still others wrongly personalize and make manic forays, seeking contention. (IMO.)

Anyway, when Ron turned his eye back, he seemed to clap his hands and all the broomstick men stopped their bucket brigade. And I haven't heard mention of terms like Participationism or Verisimilitude or What If Play since then; you also don't see thread titles like Defining Sim (Really, This Time).

If re-defining GNS or its emphasis outside Big Model context are not welcome, restructuring the forum may be appropriate. The Big Model is a big draw to the Forge and underpins its value in many ways; there'll always be newcomers who will want to share their reactions and request support for their learning process. (I do not suggest that Jay is in this category.) But once advancement cannot rise above staring at one's navel, you could say it's time to call it finished. Or at least, plateaued.

Speaking as someone who's read the essays and made an effort to play a wider variety of systems according to design intent, I know I got what I came for. At some point, you stop worrying if your focus or what your system supports is G, N or S (whatever S really means), and what (if anything) that says about you, as a person (or gamers or the world, in general), and you're carried away by the pleasure of invested play your new awareness affords.

clehrich wrote: All I meant about an Actual Play post was this: if the point of Jay's project with Sim is to examine how the model works, then posting some Actual Play isn't going to help him. It may, however, help others.

Thanks everyone,

This has been both a frustrating and fascinating thread to both read and participate in.

There are a number of issues going on, but clearly the person who has very ably represented my issues here has been Chris in his postings. He has effectively labeled both what I am trying to do, and my failings.

clehrich wrote: Currently, the onus is on Jay to explain what he wants the tool to do. But I think what he's asking in this thread is whether others are willing to help him clarify this through relatively abstract discussion. The point being that he's pretty sure there's a problem, but he's having some trouble working out exactly what it is, and he wants our assistance in thinking it through.

Ron Edwards wrote: I consider your reluctance to disclose this information to be a very strange and possibly disturbing thing.

Italicizing mine.

Ron Edwards wrote: But I can tell you this: without this perspective on our parts, your posts might as well have "not important" stamped on them in red letters. No matter how good or potentially fruitful your thoughts seem to you, unless they are presented by a role-player to other role-players, with all of us sharing in the knowledge of one another's experiences and situations of play, then they are not good thoughts. They are disconnected musings.

Italicizing mine.

Ron Edwards wrote: However, I think that if you continue as you have, then your enjoyment of the Forge will be limited in an ever-increasing downward spiral, giving you cause again and again to complain how the discussions are going. If you aren't interested in trying my advice, then over time, there won't have to be any dismissal or oppression for the Forge to become less fun or valuable for you. Apparently that process has already started, which is no more nor less than I expected, back when I provided this advice for the first time.

Italicizing mine.

Jay wrote:

"It is only because there is a conceptual framework and a common vocabulary that we can make sense of Actual Play."

Jay, with respect, I think this is nonsense. We have a shared language in which we can describe things as they strike us. Theoretical terms can inform that or not insofar as they are adequate to our experience and we understand the theory. Especially if you are trying to break the established paradigm, it's important to try to show what moments seem to occur in a regular or systematic way in your play that make you think the current paradigm isn't working. I'd recommend avoiding theory as long as possible in that process - show the pattern first, without recourse to theory as far as possible, and then we can discuss what it means.

There's no requirement that you do this, theoretically speaking. But it could be invaluable in helping people understand you.

But then I agree with Mike that Actual Play is the rosetta stone, and that the theory has to be adequate to that. That's a different metatheoretical paradigm. Kuhn was wrong about incommensurability across scientific paradigm shifts, but maybe his problem rreally does arise between committed metatheorists. I hope not though, being a fan of old-school rationality and all that.


Chris -

In light of Jay's post, I have to say that you nailed the problem on the head. My disagreement is therefore with him and not you. I take it that the point of those who'd like to see some actual play with Jay is to help (a) their own understanding of what Jay's up to and (b) to facilitate better dialogue with one of the most interesting posters on these boards (that being Jay).

That's my guess anyway.

bcook1971 wrote:

clehrich wrote: All I meant about an Actual Play post was this: if the point of Jay's project with Sim is to examine how the model works, then posting some Actual Play isn't going to help him. It may, however, help others.

Exactly. Then they'll be in a better position to help. So it can, ultimately, help him.

I guess it's a process of getting on the same page. Then he can cleanly cite any purported Big Model fissure, and his issue and purpose will be unmistakable.

Also, responding to Mike's comments, aren't there concrete benefits to be gained from pluralism and non-monolithic understandings of roleplaying? If we always demand that people learn the Forge language and speak it all the time that they're here, we never get to learn from outsider perspectives.

First, a correction of a point of fact.

Jay wrote: The very existence of this site is testament to the difficulties in breaking an existing paradigm. Unless I am mistaken GNS was meeting huge amounts of resistance at another discussion site where the prevailing paradigm was the three-fold model. IOW the new GNS paradigm could not properly flourish in the presence of those who were deeply committed to the old three-fold paradigm. Better to start afresh than to waste huge bloodying amounts of effort trying to convince others that their previous models are wrong. I did not think I would run into the very same problem here that I heard echoes about from the previous site.

Hey M. J.,

Thanks for that interesting bit of history! I should have known to come to for information about the site’s history. Interesting how history is understood at a distance (in my case – not at all) and how it is understood by those who were more proximal…

Hey Sean,

Let me ask you this – If Actual Play is the Rosetta Stone, what then what original source is being translated? Does not the existence of the Model and the growing Glossary of unique-to-this-topic-jargon suggest that there existed a need for a Rosetta stone that was not found when people were originally discussing their role-play experiences?

Hey Mike,

Mike Holmes wrote: Jay, if you go fishing, and people say, "Well, I don't get how what you're saying improves on the current model," it's not that you're wrong, neccessarily, or that we're not giving reasonable consideration to what you're saying. It's just that we don't get it.

Hi Jay!

You win the metaphor battle. English is the Rosetta Stone, then. The point is just that we can communicate our play-experiences to each other in a fairly straightforward way without being utterly dependent on theory in so doing, AND that knowing things about the way each other play can help us to understand the theoretical impulses that other people on the board might have. It's really not that complex.

The argument against doing this would be that all communication is always already theoretically informed and interpreted. (And in terms of RPG theory, no less.) You seem to suggest this, and your main worry about actual play is that you're going to be theoretically pigeonholed. Well, I can't promise that no-one will pigeonhole you, but I really honestly don't think that's what Ron and Mike were asking you for examples in order to get. I think they just want to, you know, have a better sense of what your play-experience is like, what kinds of things you like in your games, how you interact with your players, etc.

By the way, I do want to commend you on how well you've handled this thread. I couldn't have been nearly so forthright and non-defensive in a three page thread primarily about my posting style!

Best,

Sean

Jay, why does the actual play post have to be about simulationism? Why does it have to be about GNS at all. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. There are other things to talk about than GNS. The point of going to Actual Play is not to have another venue to discuss precisely the same problems, but instead to discuss something entirely different for a while so that when we come back to the original problem that it's fresh.

Not all posts in actual play, in fact probably few of them, are about analyzing GNS mode of play. They're about the 99% of other stuff that is important to RPGs. The point is to get to know you outside of GNS.

Post about your favorite method of intoducing flavor text or something. Post about how you conduct fishing contests using D&D. Post about the really cool thing that player did last session that you really didn't expect him to do. Post about actual play.

Mike