For what it’s worth, I once wrote a brief summary of what Tony called the “Ron Edwards stuff” for a German RPG board. Of course, this is filtered through my own perception. Here’s a quick translation:

What are the main points of Forge Theory?

Role-playing is a social activity
RPGs are played by people because they want to have fun. Therefore, any sensible analysis of role-playing must start with the players as real persons, and not with the characters as fictional persons. The whole context of social interaction between the players has been called “Social Contract”.

Role-playing is creating fiction together
The participants of an RPG are creating imaginary events through play. To do that, the pictures in everyone’s head of what happens need to match to a good degree. These matching pictures have been called the “Shared Imagined Space”.

The Shared Imagined Space is created through negotiation
The players’ interaction at the gaming table is directed toward including certain situations or events into the Shared Imagined Space. The back and forth thus developing is best understood as a process of negotiation. Only if all players at least tacitly agree to a new piece of fictional content can play continue on that basis. This simile has been called the „Lumpley Principle“.

System does matter
”System” has been used to describe the rules by which the negotiation process is organized. These rules may be written or implicit. In some groups, they deter massively from what is laid down in the game text. Therefore, if someone tells you that system doesn’t matter, she is referring to the rules in the game text, and she is saying so because her group is not playing much by those rules anyway. The actual rules they play by are mainly their own, and they do matter indeed. These actual rules greatly influence two equally important things:

1) The fictional content shaping the Shared Imagined Space.
2) How players act at the table to create said content.

There is role-playing, and then there is role-playing
The way how people role-play (see the above points) may vary widely from group to group. That’s because different people have different priorities in playing RPGs. You get the best chance for a gaming group to be fun on a sustained basis when all players in that group follow the same or similar priorities when playing together. This has been called the Shared Creative Agenda.

Attention: Creative Agenda is the full picture! It is recognized when watching a group play for a longer instance, with special attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other. That’s not to say that any action by a player at any time during play needs to fit a scheme or something.

The following three general categories of Creative Agenda have been identified in the GNS model:

1) Gamism: The players accept the challenges of the Shared Imagined Space, taking risks and showing performance (as players) and reaching or missing a certain goal. Sometimes all players may work together to a goal, sometimes they may compete.

Attention: Gamism is not the same as “Powergaming”, which represents a sub-species.

2) Narrativism: The players engage in the moral and human issues of the Shared Imagined Space, taking a position (as players) and thereby making a statement about their characters/the game world/themselves.

Attention: This is not what is commonly called „Storytelling“ or „Cinematic“. If functional (= fun), both is usually considered:

3) Simulationism: The players experience the Shared Imagined Space as something worthwhile for it’s own sake, something which they do not fully control because it follows it’s own laws. Experiencing the Shared Imagined Space and contributing to it is part of any role-playing, but in this mode, it’s the top priority.

Attention: Complex „realistic“ rules are only one style of Simulationist role-playing. More frequently, you’ll find features like style, atmosphere, acting, or dramaturgy. 

So, that’s what I have gathered. Ask a different person, you’ll get a slightly different account.

This post made it onto the forum by accident; Frank intended to post it on some other board. He asked me to delete it.

However, it's so good that I decided to keep it and place it into this forum.

Let's look at that last sentence: "someone else will give you a slightly different account." You know what? If they do, regarding anything substantive about the basic points, they're wrong. Because what Frank says is totally accurate.

Where people vary in their accounts - given that they understand what they're talking about in the first place - is typically a matter of who's asking the questions they're answering. Different people need different angles of attack, because what's totally obvious to one person, and should be used as the foundation for the answer to the tricky part, is another person's tricky part which needs a different starting point for them. That's why all dialogue about these issues must be rooted in accounts of actual play.

There's also the issue of people sounding off about the ideas who really should be keeping their mouths shut. I can name a few guilty parties quite easily, some of whom are much like C students who fail to graduate, then run around telling everyone outside the university how This And That Really Are. Fortunately this has become rarer in the last couple of years.

Best, Ron

Bannig gode tosamenfaten, Frank :)

In other words, yes, that's a good summary.  As this is in site discussion, let me propose to make some sort of sticky out of it.

Hey, this is good! I want to use it with my group to spark some discussion.

To make it ready for publication, I can change "deter" to "differ", but this one I cannot open up on my own:

Attention: This is not what is commonly called „Storytelling“ or „Cinematic“. If functional (= fun), both is usually considered:

Ron wrote: There's also the issue of people sounding off about the ideas who really should be keeping their mouths shut. I can name a few guilty parties quite easily, some of whom are much like C students who fail to graduate, then run around telling everyone outside the university how This And That Really Are.

Hi there!

Wow, this is a pretty impressive confirmation of my own feeling that I have "got it" by now. Thanks Ron! Not bad for a first post, eh? ;-)

Please note that this text, "The Forge in a Nutshell" originally, was written in German with a lot of thought, but translated quickly and carelessly for posting at The RPG Site. For example, "attention" is a clumsy literal translation of German "Achtung". "Note" would have been much more organic. Also, I did not care to do any formatting. If this thing were to become a source of some kind here at the Forge, I would certainly want to work over it first.

Mikael, the bit you quoted is to say that "Storytelling" or "Cinematic" usually refers to a Simulationist mode of play, if that mode is supported my a Shared Creative Agenda. It's only Sim if it's fun (to the participants). If there is no fun, there is no Shared Creative Agenda.

- Frank

I second the motion to sticky this thread.  (Like it really matters that I second it. :-)  This is one of the best condensations of The Big Model I've seen and I'd love to be able to reference it quickly when I need to.

Heya,

Nice post, Frank.  That's the best summation of the Big Model I've ever seen.  One thing I'd like to ask you about is how you have explained Techniques and Ephemera to people you've introduced Forge Theory to.  How have you shown them how those things relate to the larger boxes of SIS and System?

Peace,

-Troy

Hi Troy,

Thank you! To answer your question: Introducing people to the Big Model means focusing on the basic points and the big picture. An abstract definition of Techniques and Ephemera makes sense only if you are going to discuss specific Techniques and Ephemera. Same goes for the elements of Exploration. But that’s not introduction any more, that’s advance theory. I don’t usually try to explain advance theory to people in abstract, and neither do I claim or aspire to be an expert. In terms of introduction, I think the “System does matter” paragraph above is perfectly sufficient.

When discussing specific aspects of game design or actual play, I may bring up the concept of Stances or IIEE or what have you. But I rarely use those terms, rather just paraphrasing the concepts themselves. If the people I talk to are interested in the Big Model, I may explain things in context. But usually that’s not necessary for applying those concepts in a useful way. If I read an actual play report where there is, say, confusion about IIEE, I can point out the problem and suggest a solution in simple non-jargon terms. There is no need for the others to even ever have heard of the Big Model.

- Frank

Hi there,

M.J., you asked:

do you contact such people privately to let them know you feel you have been misrepresented?

Frank,

If you don't mind I'll translate it into Polish and post on Indie Explosion! forum.

And while I'm at it, what's the origin of "Lumpley Principle" term? Am I correct that it comes from Vincent Baker's nick, or maybe it is the other way around or something?

Hi Filip,

No objections to a Polish translation, please go ahead! And yes, the "Lumpley Principle" is named after Vincent Baker, who first came up with it on the Forge. At least legend has it that way.

- Frank

So I thought, but I was wondering if my translation was correct.

For those who can read Polish, here it is.

Frank wrote:
For what it’s worth, I once wrote a brief summary of what Tony called the “Ron Edwards stuff” for a German RPG board. Of course, this is filtered through my own perception. Here’s a quick translation:

[...]

So, that’s what I have gathered. Ask a different person, you’ll get a slightly different account.

Italian? I dunno, does it have to be Italian?

No, just kidding. Anyone who wants to quote, translate or otherwise make use of this text, by all means do!

- Frank