Just this morning, I heard about some thread on RPG.net about the Forge. (It's actually about GNS.) I went and read it, and have some thoughts I'd like to share:

- I don't fucking get the animosity. It's mainly directed from people there against posters here, but I see a little bit leaking from posters here towards RPG.net. It's as if I really liked steak, so I hated corn farmers. One is food, and the other is some people that help put food out there, but not even the same food. It doesn't make sense to me. If someone can explain it, that'd be great.

- If someone denigrates the Forge somewhere, defend it if you must, but in all honesty, I'd prefer it if you didn't. I can't tell anyone what to think or say, but just ignore negativity if you can. I saw posts over there this morning that didn't even make sense - arguing with them would be futile. Anyone who reads the Forge knows they're wrong, and anyone who believes them - well, do we want people who are either liars or deficient here? We've got over 500 users, and get an average of 60+ posts a day. This sounds odd, but I don't see the need for additional growth, at least not exponentially.

- The one problem with all the lies I saw posted is that they all have about 5% of truth in their core. I have seen people use GNS to put down games - not even necessarily here, but referencing here. I see it inadvertantly all the time - people new to the theory have about a three month period where they only half-way get it, and start trying all these new games that they've never tried before, usually narrativist in scope. Then they assume their old way of playing (often gamist) is bad, and they start using Gamist or Simulationist with this tone of self-deprecation and shame. I've heard people do it in real life - it's one of the reasons I pretty much ban all talk of the theory from my weekly game. (The other: talk about a way to derail a game.) Stop it, people. If you enjoy it, it's not necessarily intellectually inferior.

- Some of the lies came from people I know are not idiots. I'll go ahead and use names: two of the most virulent things I saw posted there were from Peter Seckler and Kyle Marquis, both brilliant guys, and guys I respect as RPG-type people. (Check out their websites: http://www.the-never.net and http://www.angelfire.com/ma/rpg/index.html.) They're not saying baseless things. I highly recommend going to read the thread and listen to what they're saying and make sure you don't act like that.

- Anyway, this breaks my rule of not talking about other gaming websites here. That rule is still in effect - I can't stop anyone from doing it, but just be careful what you say. Any baseless slamming of another site here will result in me coming down on the thread.

- Lastly, I should thank Christopher Kubasik and Joshua Neff for both being upstanding examples of Forge members on that thread. They both rocked the house, and I appreciate it more than they'll ever know.

---
Clinton R. Nixon
Webmaster, The Forge

Clinton, I only half agree. You’re never going to win against the close minded die-hards – but if their version of the truth is the only version heard – what then?

Maybe a guerrilla war might be a better way to go. Back away from nonsensical flamewars, but where we see someone who seems reasonable, but misinformed - send in special forces to pinpoint and eliminate inaccuracies.

I also think that peeps have to be careful with language outside the forge. We may know what “Gamist”, “Narrativist” and “Simulationist” are here – but to the uninitiated GNS can come across as an aggressive taxonomy of players. I speak from experience. It was only when Ron took the time to talk to the peeps over at GO that the veil was lifted. I know that may require the patience of angels sometimes – but I’m glad Ron took thetime. It’s what brought me over here!

Alan

Clinton,

I have to ask, did I present myself badly, or otherwise talk out of my ass on the thread?

I did my best to ignore the animosity, as far as I can tell, though I did veer off the GNS topic and into a description of some Narrativism and so on. So I've left that thread for now.

Honestly, I would very much like to know if I talked out of my ass. It is very difficult presenting 'these topics' in other forums.

Best,

Joe.

Nah, Joe you were great. I just read the thread for the first time, what a lot of sound and fury which signifies nothing.

The problem with "defending GNS" is simply that people think that if you have a theory, it has to be 100% complete and 100% accurate and 100% understood. We can try to explain it to them as best as we are able, but if they can find a chink in your armor they can say "a-ha, it is a bunch of nonsense after all" and dismiss the whole thing.

It becomes an impossible situation. They have an infinite number of bullets, and if you get hit by one of them they're right and you're wrong.

It all boils down to that most insidious of evils "opinion". Certain people have an opinion about what x-ism means. Since they've been taught since childhood that everyone is entitled to an opinion they assume that means that theres is just as valid as anyone elses. Never mind that someone else may have spent years of analysis, strenuous debate among dozens of people, and lots of introspection to determine a definition, and they've spent all of 5 minutes thinking about it...their opinion is just as valid because its all "just opinion".

There's no discussion possible with people like that. There were some folks who seemed interested in at least listening, maybe some of them will do their own investigation and decide for themselves if its something they wish to learn more about.

Joe,

I'll answer this one. You and Josh fell into the trap of being diverted from the main points, and contra Sun Tzu, you did not necessarily know your opponents. I'll discuss both.

1) The thread was "What is GNS?" That's it. However, people then raised all manner of specific questions regarding Narrativist play (the favored target of some folks). You can't debate (a) GNS is or isn't worthwhile simultaneously with (b) Narrativism is or isn't characterized by X or Y. Once the discussion hit that phase, no discussion occurred.

Both you and Josh found yourself in the position of discussing steering techniques at the same time someone else was hammering the very idea of transportation.

The key to success in that situation is to permit only one topic and to direct interested questions about something else to some other resource.

2) Several people literally hate what they call GNS, which I think means more that they resent the community here and have beefs with various individuals.

When such an individual enters the argument, it's not like that fellow Mant, who struck me as eminently reasonable (Illusionist to be sure, which is not a terrible thing). No, when phrases about "theorizing without play," or "Ron ignored me," or whatever start being flung about, there is no debate. They are torching the battlefield so that everyone must jump and hop about, because when such jumping and hopping is happening, no one may actually discuss anything.

The minor version of this is the person who just can't let go of the Threefold/GNS divide. "Yeah, I know," they say, "But ..." and continue with the resentment about that issue. (By the way, Gareth, I thought you handled that beautifully.) Wayne Rossi isn't going to budge about that. Neither was that Sangrolu person. It's not what the Threefold said. The Threefold says [what the Threefold says] better. That's that.

The major version is simply slander or lies. "They don't really play, they just theorize." False. "They kick out anyone who doesn't agree with Ron." False. "They delete posts." False. "GNS has nothing to do with game success." False.

Occasionally, you guys did say, "Hey, that's not true," in a kind of friendly, protesting way. The required tactic is much harsher: you say, "False. Back it up. Show me the thread, describe what happened, point me to it." And refuse to discuss anything else until that is resolved. Lies are lies; unchallenged, they stand.

Every one of these individuals knows, as fact, that I am happy to engage in discussion with anyone either by email or on-line here at the Forge. They don't do it.

Now, one might say, all right Ron, you have all this figured out, why don't you chime in at RPG.net when these threads get going?

Because it's silly. Much as I appreciate the effort spent by Christopher, Joe, Josh, and Gareth this time around, and I do, I think that one solid post of sensible welcome is sufficient, as well as a confirm from the original poster that they know where to check it out. All that's necessary is for the link to go up. Inevitably, people engaged in the debate will come by here. They'll like it, or they won't. That's all that's needed.

Best,
Ron

As most folks know, this happens, oh, every three months or so on RPG.net. 9-12 months back, I dove in a bit and tried the "defend" thing. I have no idea if it did any good (and there were some rather bizarre and unsettling consequences in personal email, which I thank Ron and Clinton for setting my mind at ease about), but I'm definitely in the "one post, and an invitation for further, serious discussion" camp nowadays. Realizing this has happened many times before, and will probably happen many times again, you have to figure out some way to stay sane . . .

Gordon

Since they've been taught since childhood that everyone is entitled to an opinion they assume that means that theres is just as valid as anyone elses.

Hi everybody,

Ron and Clinton -- yes. I'll go with the "link and invite" strategy from now on. As Ron has pointed out, with a click of the button, whoever is curious can simply come over and check it out.

It will invariable save a great deal of time and frustration on my part, at least. Trying to hunt down the counter-points in these matters is often like pursuing a pea-sized blob of intelligent mercury.

Take care,
Christopher

Realizing this has happened many times before, and will probably happen many times again...

You know you're saying something significant when again and again people find themselves needing to attack and discredit it, losing sleep because they harbor a restless psychological discomfort with what you've said.

Paul

Funnily enough, I rarely pay any attention to GNS threads on RPGNet, A) Because it's not really my concern B) I understand that everyone brings their own issues to any such discussion, I've got mine they've got theirs and until those issues overlap we're not really going to be examining things from anything resembling a similar view. (That's also why I'm mostly silent on it here as well)

Paul Czege wrote: You know you're saying something significant when again and again people find themselves needing to attack and discredit it, losing sleep because they harbor a restless psychological discomfort with what you've said.

As somebody who participated on that thread but doesn't participate here, I found the discussion enjoyable--I just filter out the nonsense from people who are, if you read the forums there, the usual suspects. And while the thread drifted, I think it's because the initial question got answered pretty quickly and that's how threads work on RPG.net. Threads work differently here.

I found myself able to get answers to questions and have a discussion there that I wouldn't try here, for various reasons--mainly because I had a captive audience who was willing to discuss matters (Josh, Joe and Christopher). It was an informal debate, rather than the kind of serious ones I see here.

(And I hope no one got the impression that I was slamming the Forge at any point in the thread--I tried to go out of my way to not do that., since I have no beef with it--I mean, why should I?)

By the way, Christopher Kubasick, if you're able to email me, please do so at lesinvisible@hotmail.com I absolutely /hate/ the private messaging service these boards use, and I'd like to answer your question.

--Eric

Well, I just clicked over there and I was quickly reminded why I decided a long time ago not to read RPGnet. But to each their own.

I'm a little surprised at Peter Seckler's comments though...I met him at GenCon last year, even had a drink with him, and he seemed perfectly personable then. From later comments I do suspect he was attempting to be over-the-top and figuring everyone was getting it.

I really wish Pete would come over to The Forge and post sometimes, despite his distaste for the jargon and theory. His experience at GMing and his general philosphy (as I can surmise it) about playing would really help a lot of the discussions here. I urge people to check out his website (www.the-never.net) -- lots of cool stuff as well as in-depth character logs of his current game (which sounds like a helluva lotta fun).

- J

As most folks know, this happens, oh, every three months or so on RPG.net.

In that case I guess this marks a coming-full-circle milestone for me, as I washed up here in the flotsam from the last RPGNet GNS thread about three months ago.

What brought me here was not the information that the place existed or where to find it. On the other side of the coin, it also wasn't that either side's arguments won me over. For better or worse, what brought me here was the fact, evident over many posts, that the people representing The Forge were saying interesting and challenging things in an intelligent and rational manner. For better or worse, I don't believe the one solid post of sensible welcome approach would have done it.

Speaking as one of the barbarians at the gate from the last time around (I hope people here remember my blistering attacks at what I thought GNS was all about either with amusement, or not at all), there are a few things about GNS that I believe invite animosity. We can take these to other threads if anyone's interested.

- It's hard to understand. I won't say "too hard" because I'm aware that reality is under no onus to align itself in easy to understand configurations for our benefit. But the difficulty means that promoting GNS as a diagnostic tool for the average suffering role player may be unwise. There are good reasons why nobody sells home brain surgery kits.

- Its diagnostic advice is unpalatable for many, and may also be unclear. On the one hand it says the social contract is the key. On the other hand it says that certain popular game systems are incoherent. This appears to imply, though it's not stated or meant, that if you're using such a system, the social contract advice isn't going to help unless you also change systems. People don't want to change systems, because people are invested in the systems they currently play.

- Saying "if your game is functional then you don't need GNS; just ignore it if you don't need it" is unconvincing. People with what they believe are functional styles of play, who (rightly or wrongly) perceive GNS as recommending that others not play that way, are going to be annoyed. It's human nature, backed up by that "investment" thing again. If I like DeWalt power tools (naturally) and you like Makita power tools, should I care? Nah. But if I see you at the hardware store advising other customers that DeWalt power tools don't work, I'll get annoyed. Probably not annoyed enough to say anything, but annoyed. Why? Because if too many people believe you, DeWalt tools won't sell, stores will stop stocking them, fewer accessories will be developed, parts and service will become harder to find; my investment in my DeWalt tools will be devalued. Telling me, "well if DeWalt tools work for you, then there's no problem, my advice is for these other nice people over here" doesn't decrease my annoyance. If you're right and I know you're right I wouldn't be annoyed, but it's impossible to perceive that you're right when my only data point says you're wrong. In other words people have a reason, however logically thin (though emotionally powerful), to resent people being advised not to play the way they do, even if the advice isn't directed at them.

None of this is a fault of GNS itself, nor of any of its proponents. I think it's regretful that the hostility arises, but while some of its causes may be fixed by better communication, much of it arises from what the model itself does and is designed to do and there may be no getting around that. In any case, though, there's no need for the hostility to be mystifying.

- Walt

I just went over there and read the first five pages or so before I got bored with the whole thing. I think that the whole discussion is futile. What it really comes down to, IMO, is that the great majority of posters over there are not game designers. They do not understand the value of GNS in providing a baseline from which to analyze games. They want to play whatever game carried by the LGS happens to be kewel. Here at the forge we upset the status quo. People here question the traditional methods and assumptions and try to improve them. The Forge stands for change in many ways, and change is frightening to the Estabilshment, of which many gamers at RPG.net are a part.

At the same time, the level of ignorance and misinformation there is staggering. Many of the posters seem to be at about the same stage of understanding as I was a year ago... they have some interesting terms to throw around, and they think they know what they mean. (The difference is that, as a designer, I was excited by the prospect, and extremely interested to learn more about it, while, as gamers, they seem to be deathly frightened by it their own incorrect preconceptions.) They've decided they know all about Ron, the Forge and indie-gaming, and flame on about "Ron's Cult," how "People At The Forge Don't Play Games - They Only Indulge In A Lot Of Useless Eliteist Analysis," how "Ron Has Misinterpereted GNS," how "Ron Is An Arrogant **** Who Won't Allow Disagreement," etc. It would take weeks or months of individual explanation just to get them to the point of knowledge where they could intelligently discuss the GNS model.

<RANT - better here than at RPG.net, right? :)>
BAAAH! Word's cant convey my disgust at such apparent willful ignorance. All they have to do is click a couple of links, read the Forge forums and articles, talk to Ron a bit. What could be easier?
</RANT>

IMO, discussion with them is pretty pointless. It's impossible to defend one's position against ignorantly preconcieved notions. Stubborn uninformed opinions win out every time. In my past experience, long threads in such cases serve no purpose except to get yourself upset, and take a lot of time that could be better spent designing games. If it were me in a thread of that type, I hope I would do the following:

Make a single, large post that accurately and concisely describes:

GNS, explaining Ron's technical terms, quoting from his articles where possible, and providing links to them. [Edit: Emphasizing that GNS classifies choices made in specific game instances, and games desgined to facilitate making those choics, as opposed to determining whether or not a game is "good" or "bad."]

The style of discussion and nature of the community here on the forums, with the emphasis on shared ideas, actual play, and application of theory, giving links to example threads.

Explain that Ron is not, in fact, an egotistical idiot. In fact, just the other day I was teasing him with a "Great One" comment, and he very seriously asked me to stop, explaining that he doesn't want to foster the view that his ideas are special or authoritive. How anyone could get the idea that "Ron doesn't tollerate disagreement," or "Ron think's he has the definitive answers" from such behavior is beyond me.

Hi Walt,

Those are a lot of excellent points. I'm going to pull some parts of your post together and see if it can be used as a basis for a "recommended tactic" at RPG.net, next time around. The ultimate goal isn't an expected policy, just a recommendation.

... what brought me here was the fact, evident over many posts, that the people representing The Forge were saying interesting and challenging things in an intelligent and rational manner. For better or worse, I don't believe the one solid post of sensible welcome approach would have done it.

I buy this. Just giving the link may not be enough (contra my suggestion above to do just that). It's a matter of modelling behavior to others and having them think, "Hey, if they talk and act like that on-line, I wanna see what it's like over there," and with any luck having that look-see pay off positively.

... promoting GNS as a diagnostic tool for the average suffering role player may be unwise.
... Telling me, "well if DeWalt tools work for you, then there's no problem, my advice is for these other nice people over here" doesn't decrease my annoyance. If you're right and I know you're right I wouldn't be annoyed, but it's impossible to perceive that you're right when my only data point says you're wrong.
...much of [the hostility] arises from what the model itself does and is designed to do and there may be no getting around that.

OK, that now establishes the question. If we wouldn't do as well to say nothing but "here's the link," and if hostility/discomfort is quite likely given certain elements of what we're saying ... what then? What, precisely, is most effective, honest, and constructive to say?

Again, this isn't supposed to be a pamphlet for all good little proselytizers to memorize. (1) I'm asking, not telling. (2) I'd prefer that we come up with customizable principles rather than factoids/phrases.

Oh yeah, one more thing: the Forge is not GNS; GNS is not the Forge. That seems to be something that's confounding matters too.

All input is welcome.

Best,
Ron

Some of the principals are pretty obvious.

In most of the rant threads over there there are one or two individuals who actually express an interest to learn more and are not just spouting off. Those people should be responded to directly, using their names at the top of the post to help differentiate it from the detrius answering their questions as clearly and concisely as possible (and where possible) providing a link to a pertinent thread on the subject

An aside: Ron you are usually quick with the Thread search functions, perhaps it would be useful to compile a list of Threads that focus best on certain oft repeated topics and include links to those threads in a Sticky post at the top of the site forum...a sort of index of hot topics that new comers can be directed to "Hey if you're new, read these first" kind of thing.

I don't visit RPG.net much currently, but I'm sure those who do and who follow the threads involving GNS recognize a few regulars who do not and will not try to understand and who willfully seek to denegrate GNS and the Forge. Those folks should just be flat out ignored, and if someone starts to get baited by such a person, someone else who recognizes it can issue private message warning.

Obvious flamebait and trolls that post out right lies should be responded to, because lies allowed to stand become percieved as truth. But the response should be a simple curt "that statement is absolutely not true" followed by links to threads that demonstrate such. But decending into arguement might be fun, but serves no useful purpose in promoting the Forge.

Stealth Advocacy. There are many good threads and legitimate queries for assistance to be found at RPG.Net and other places. Forgeites should involve themselves in those threads and give good advice drawing upon the things we talk about, but do so with absolutely no jargon whatsoever. The minute you say one of the buzz words the response will go from "Thanks for that great advice", to "Oh man, not more of that GNS crap". If anyone seems to be interested in knowing more, direct them to a pertinant Forge thread.

Thats what I come up with.

Ron Edwards wrote: Oh yeah, one more thing: the Forge is not GNS; GNS is not the Forge. That seems to be something that's confounding matters too.

Hi Walt,

Yes, I do remember your arrival in the GNS thread a few months ago. It was my intention to provide not just information but a style of response people found inviting and encouraging of further curiosity. I hope I was one of the people you spoke of so kindly.

This is why I, too, am not convinced the thread links and a hearty "Hello!" will do the job. It took me a while to find this place -- even though Jess had told me about it for months -- because without some sort of way in it seemed more trouble than it was worth. It's simply a big investment to find your way around, get a sense of the place. The common language, the posting styles -- are all rather unique for a gaming site.

I think the "Hey, you want to talk about this, I'll take the time to talk about this with you," on another site is fine... Not to bring people to the Forge (which is, of course, NOT GNS), but because we care about this stuff and like to talk about it. (It's why we're here, after all.)

However, my new big bugaboo/frustration about all this is TIME. For me at least, those two threads become big drains because there are so many things to correct/explain/rectify/define again/repeat for the third time.

This last round I suddenly thought: "This has already been done before. It's all right there, on the Forge, the careful explanations, the sorting out, and all." So it just seemed silly to go through the trouble of doing it again, when several dozen people had been the process and it's already archived!

That's all. I think links for certain topics might be a really good idea, to avoid reinventing the wheel all over again.

******

Oh, and I too want people to knock off the "aren't we glad we're not RPG.net" nonsense. RPG.net provides a great service for a lot of gamers. First and foremost, it's such a big beacon for so many gamers that it provides a clearing house of links, games and ideas people might never otherwise find.

I probably never would have found The Forge without RPG.net It also gets a lot of press out on other games that are small, but not indie. (Nobilis2 is going to gets sales because of RPG.net, not The Forge). They provide articles and discussion for a certain style of play that many people enjoy.

So knock it off, already.

******

Finally, the GNS / The Forge distinction, while true, is problematic. Let's note that in Actual Play, and most of the game boards below, the GNS model is used as both scalpel and gauze during discussion. I'm not saying this is good or bad (I think it good), but to say, "Well, come on over and don't worry about GNS" is a bit disingenuous. The terms are used, if you play you're going to have to learn them, and that means learning GNS.

Just something to think about.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Oh, and I too want people to knock off the "aren't we glad we're not RPG.net" nonsense. RPG.net provides a great service for a lot of gamers. ... It also gets a lot of press out on other games that are small, but not indie. (Nobilis2 is going to gets sales because of RPG.net, not The Forge). They provide articles and discussion for a certain style of play that many people enjoy.

So knock it off, already.

I guess one big advantage that I keep forgetting I've been given is that I've seen a lot of what folks were posting about on GO, and then they made the transition here. I was a straggler, but I already knew what I was looking for.

Now that I think about it, there's two things that would get me over here if I weren't part of this. First, if any friends recommended it, which is what I try to do for folks who I think could use it, and second, if I were to see a thread in what I'm interested in.

Chris

I just went over there and read the first five pages or so before I got bored with the whole thing.

For better or worse, I don't believe the one solid post of sensible welcome approach would have done it.