Hello,

This post is directed mainly to Ralph and to MK Snyder, who have recently voiced an uncompromising criticism over the terms I've adopted or introduced. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that "Narrativism" (for instance) isn't suited to its definition as I've proposed, and that seeing that very word simply "pops" an inappropriate interpretation into a reader's mind, creating a cloud in front of his or her understanding of my definition. The same applies, based on previous discussions, to things like the names of the Stances or to Currency or ... well, to anything, really.

My response? No. No, and no again.

Why? Because this phenomenon is endemic to any discourse whatsoever. There are no "perfect terms" that simply create understanding in the absence of the reader (a) continuing to read the definition and (b) thinking critically about it. I expect the reader to do (a) and (b) - if he or she doesn't, then bam - they instantly get encouraged to do so. If they don't, then that's it ... no more attention; that reader has not entered the zone of discourse no matter how much bandwidth they occupy.

Ralph and MK have definitely taken the time to do (a) and (b). That's good, it's great, it means we can have all sorts of discourse about the internal logic or issues surrounding my and their ideas. But their criticism about the terms, which to my reading states that other people should be exempt from (a) and (b), has no impact on me at all.

So does this mean that "any" term will do? No. Well-chosen terms can help an argument, certainly. Any terms-creator is doing his or her best, at the time of writing. However, since no terms can themselves be explanatory, therefore readings can turn into mis-readings very quickly - and will do so, in the absence of (a) and (b).

For instance, you'll note it's called NarratIVism, not "Narration" or "Narrationism." Narrative means conflict + resolution yielding theme; narration means to talk or to describe. I chose the term pretty carefully for this reason, which is to say, there was some logic at work when I chose them. However, a certain fraction of readers of my ideas don't distinguish between the IVE and the ATE and assume that Narrativism = talking (i.e. Drama mechanics). I recognize this as a necessary limitation of the process of communicating, which means I do correct this mis-usage and I don't get bent out of shape about it.

Ralph and MK, that's my take on it. You're free to disagree, and so on, but I'm not going to be sympathetic to the idea that the terms are manifestly ill-chosen because a certain number of people aren't troubling themselves to do (a) and (b).

Best,
Ron

Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ. The purpose of an essay like your GNS document is to communicate ideas to others. It's not a set of personal notes in which you express your ideas in terms that you yourself will understand. Your requirement of A and B on the side of the readers is a cop out. All it really means is that people can't learn GNS from the essay... they have to come here and have it explained to them.

Critical thinking can't ocurr until the reader understands the message. By using non-obvious terms, you've just made it harder for an outsider to get to the point where the essay is useful. People come in here all the time under the misapprehension that they understand the message. Their discussions fail miserably. The threads generally turn into the regulars trying to clarify the terminology for the newbies. This is a bad, bad, bad thing, because it means the people from other groups (RPG-Create and RPG.NET frex) who don't have the time or inclination to come here and put in the time required to figure out what you actually mean have a completely off the wall idea of what you're all about.

The problem is that many of the terms you use have common meanings that have absolutely nothing to do with the way you use them in your essay. It would be one thing if the terms were slightly tweaked to achieve more precise meaning. But you define your terms to mean things that they don't mean! The most extremely unfortunate example that come to mind is Simulationism.

GNS bears a striking resemblance to Musashi's Art of Five Rings: lots of great content, encoded so that it's practically impossible for a reader to grok it without instruction.

Note that these areguments aren't just theoretical either. I experienced it first hand when *I* was first learning GNS, and I've seen *soooo* many GNS flamewars in which the people simply didn't know what you were talking about. I remember trying to explain your use of "Exploration" to Bradd Szoyne once. His response was something like "That's even worse than I thought! Exploration doesn't mean that at all!"

If this post comes across as being a bit strong, that's because it is. I'm a huge fan of GNS. It's incredibly useful and thought-provoking. I think it's a shame that we have to spend so much time explaining "What Ron Meant" (read "What Ron Should Have Said") to people. If only they could understand "What Ron Meant" simply by examining the essay. Much time could be saved, and many flames averted.

Hi Nathan,

Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

Best,
Ron

I, like many people, have had to work to understand Ron's GNS model.

However, I have to support his assertion that terms are non-obvious. Vocabulary only covers areas that have been explored; when you explore a new area, or make more distinctions in an old one, you have to assign new meaning to words.

Hence, unless you invent a new word, a term always has the baggage of the old meaning as well as the new.

- Alan

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

I know. You've taken this stance before. Just don't expect me to stop bringing it up...cuz, to be direct about it, I think you're wrong.

The problem is not learning the GNS definitions. The problem is unlearning the existing definitions that we already know and THEN learning the GNS definitions. That's why I suggested to MK that substituting nonsense words into the article makes it easier to understand. I'm sorry, but it does. Putting Semism in the article instead of Simulationism makes a WORLD of difference. It saves all of that back and forth "that's not what simulation means" stuff that we went through ad naseum a year and a half ago and periodically are forced to revisit.

In order to understand GNS you have to get past things like "Simulation" doesn't mean here the same thing that it means to the rest of the world. The vast majority of gamers already know what the word simulation means and it doesn't mean what GNS says it means. Its a word with an existing defintion. So someone reading the article, sees the word and says "oh, ok, I know what that word means...and aha, I see where Ron is wrong". Of course they think its wrong because your definition conflicts with theirs.

That's why Exploration is a better term. Sure it has an existing definition, but people aren't likely to really think you're talking about literally slashing through a jungle with a machete so they're better able to fit the unique GNS definition into their lexicon.

While I absolutely see and recognize the definition between Narrative and Narration...I also think its splitting things way to fine to expect the typical reader to make that distinction.

I just fail to see the value in intentionally and willfully setting up a conflict. Of knowingly embracing a situation that increases confusion. I certainly do think that there is and should be a learning curve, and that in the main we want people to have to wrestle with the ideas before concluding that they "know the theory" because that enhances understanding. But I think there is a difference between wrestling with an idea because the concept is complex and wrestling with an idea because the terminology is an obstacle.

I was confused (though probably not as badly as some) by GNS initially. It opened my mind in many ways, and like many new converts who felt many years of unsatisfactory or even painful gaming were explained by it, I became somewhat overzealous. And my impressions were corrected by instruction here on the Forge, as well as experience.

I want to make it clear that I don't want to weigh in on "Ron's side." I am wanting to directly challenge the idea that, as Fang said, "this is not academic discourse."

Creating academic discourse around role-playing games, and to some extent, gaming generally, is precisely one of Ron's, and the Forge's, major contributions to the hobby. GNS, and many, many of the other theoretical discussions on here (not least of all yours, Fang--though your texts do have a much more casual tone, they are heavy going for me), require serious work to understand because they describe things with far more precision than normally seen in discussions of gaming.

What makes the Forge not an ivory tower is that the creators of the abstruse theories in discussion here are willing to explain them. It's no more an ivory tower than, say, the many Linux development communities out there. (I'd say it's a lot friendlier than most.)

It can certainly be argued whether Ron found the best terms to use in his GNS theorizing. But his basic point that there is not going to be any terminology that doesn't require a pretty similar amount of work, and susceptible to similar levels of misunderstanding, is pretty solid, IMO. I'd actually be pretty supportive of a Latin terminology, for that matter, but you can bet that would increase the perception that we're an ivory tower over here tenfold.

--JB

J B Bell wrote: I want to make it clear that I don't want to weigh in on "Ron's side." I am wanting to directly challenge the idea that, as Fang said, "this is not academic discourse."

J B Bell wrote: not least of all yours, Fang--though your texts do have a much more casual tone, they are heavy going for me

Just a quick thought -

There's very little to be gained by disagreeing over the "right" underlying principles of terminolgy. If someone thinks GNS (or Stance, or DFK, or whatever) would work better with other terms, they can (and should) go ahead and write up a full description of what they want to use, and why.

Seems to me, that's only way anything practical will result from this conversation. Ron has stated why he's going to stick with his terms, and rather than trying to get him to change his mind, someone who wants different terms should just (as Fang has done) write 'em up and see if anyone is willing to use 'em. I've no doubt that if there's a well reasoned discussion about why Shared Authoring is a better term than Narrativism for exactly the same thing, Ron will read.

Seems to me that specific examples and discussions that find a better way have a better chance of achieving the desired result.

All terms are non-obvious. All possible terms are NOT equal. I think everyone will agree on those two pronciples. Fine, demonstrate that a particular alternate term works and is somehow "better" than the current one - sufficiently so that it's worth replacing what really is several years of experience with the old terms. I'm sure it can be done, but I gotta admit, it won't be easy. And it's worth acknowledging - it'd be a lot of work, work that's entirely unneccesary for those who understand the current terms.
Not quite as quick as I thought, but . . . there you have it.

Gordon

If there is a possibility, like Ralph seem to indicate, that some re-labeling of the theory would simplify understanding (and remembering?) terms then I would like vote in favour of that.

My main problem is that a lot of terms are so similar that they really float together. I have to look really careful if someone is writing narrativist narration or narrative... it's even more tricky when they are used in compunds.

In addition it's tempting to describe mechanics where the player gets to narrate things in director stance as "narrativist mechanics" or similar. Am I the only one who has this problem - accidentally inventing terms that might mean something completely different within the GNS framework?

Very good point Gordon.

Greetings Ron,

I feel your pain.

That said I have Draft 3 of my "encyclopeida" entry hammered out-- Draft 2? Oh, that went into the bin and I started over-- it's a bit longish but if you like I can post it here?

[joke]
Or, I suppose, could email it to you *alone* so that you get the joy of intense migrane confusion?
[/joke]

Unless everyone *else* would rather be spared my *expanded* encyclopedia article. In which case I could just weed through my links and pop into the Resource library and add every single link to a role-playing glossary I have.

Whatever you folks want. I mean this is a democracy... ?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Kester Pelagius wrote: Whatever you folks want. I mean this is a democracy... ?

Greetings Le Joueur,

Nice day here. Hope it is warm and clear skies where you are at, too.

Le Joueur wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

True enough, but some terms have less connotative baggage. In fact, Latin is often used to alleviate much of this problem.

But I have a final point to make: this is not academic discourse. Depending on people to think critically and so forth works fine in an academic venue, which this isn't. Confusion reigns, but has anyone ever gotten confused about my Sine Qua Non Technique? Not really, they have to go look it up (in the Scattershot forum, hint hint), there really isn't any connotative basis.

Le Joueur wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Whatever you folks want. I mean this is a democracy... ?

Actually, no. The GNS is not a group idea nor is it democratically voted upon. It is Ron's model and his alone. Despite that fact this is quickly turning into a ragging fest about all the problems we've had over the GNS and explaining it. Perhaps we need to change directions; anybody want to suggest alternatives that don't require Ron to change his model?

Fang Langford

p. s. This may question the whole framework of having (only) a GNS Model Discussion forum providing that it is not a Forge entity, nor a group effort.

Good afternoon Kester,

(Whew, am I glad this is still civil.)

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

True enough, but some terms have less connotative baggage. In fact, Latin is often used to alleviate much of this problem.

But I have a final point to make: this is not academic discourse. Depending on people to think critically and so forth works fine in an academic venue, which this isn't. Confusion reigns, but has anyone ever gotten confused about my Sine Qua Non Technique? Not really, they have to go look it up (in the Scattershot forum, hint hint), there really isn't any connotative basis.

I think I agree here, partially.

While one can't assume that others will approach an argument, any argument, from the same stand point as they themselves intend a discussion to begin from there is something to be said for making use of extant terms in a manner that is familiar.

...However the pertinent question to ask is whether or not Ron lets the reader know up front that he is not using common terminology,

First, Ralph, Ron was using what he thought were the best terms when he first promulgated the theory. The definition was actually pretty good at that time, and it's only because understanding of the theory by all of us has changes it over time that the "common use" meaning of the term has become further from Ron's definition than is strictly "handy". His adherence to them over time is not done in a malicious or obdurate way, but for important reasons.

As I see it, the reason for not changing an initial term later on is that it leads to a slippery slope effect. If we rename a term because of these refinements of the definitions, that's precedent to rename them again after any change in understanding. And at each change (even if only one) there has to be a propaganda campaign to get people to understand that the term has changed. I know that the whole "nemism" thing isn't serious, but just imagine trying to use such a term in discourse. We'd be laughed off the net. Any change in term at this point will be seen as "political correctness". Yes, that's right Ralph, you're supporting "teminological correctness" which is the same thing.

If Ron had made the change early on, when the theory was still very much in a gelling state, I would have supported a change. But it's far to late now to do so without a lot of danger, IMO. Perhaps I'm biased, as I can read through the essays, and there is no traslation that occurs. I do not see simulation in Simulationism when I read it.

The same thing occurs with a certain pet peeve of mine with military radio traffic. I can parse the word "repeat" to mean what it does on a military radio net, that being that artilliery on the net should refire the last mission. Somehow everyone wants it to mean "repeat what you said", which is supposed be stated as "say again" on a military radio net. The problem is so pervasive that people die of friendly fire accidents from it occasionally, and movies do it wrong all the time (in fact they never even get close to what radio traffic on a net really sounds like).

The point is that this is all "jargon"; which is defined as use of terms by members of a specific field in a certain manner which gives those terms meanings that are different from their common use. Every profession has these sorts of terms. And they are not neccessarily a bad thing. They do require that people learn the definitions of these terms, however. But that's OK. To deny that one should use Jargon ever, is to try and create a uniform understanding of all language. You'd have to admit that even if we used a better term like "Exploration" that we'd still have to explain what it meant in this context. It's just not a realistic or neccessary goal to make all words have but one meaning. When meaning shifts in terms occur (which they always have, and always will), one must adjust. Or be left with our grandfathers asking "What's a Jiggy?"

And lastly, I should point out that Narrativism at least did not exist before Ron ccoined it. It never fails to confuse me how somebody can claim that a word that Ron made up must mean something different from what he says it does, simply because there are other similar terms. That really seems absurd.

Mike

I have two degrees.

Anthropology and technical writing.

In my professional opinion, the GNS essay is not written well.

*Idiosyncratic use of English
*Passive voice obscuring tense
*Lack of concrete examples
*Lack of contrast and comparison to other models

Insisting it is the responsibility of the reader to unlearn English in order to decode text is counter to the very purpose of expository writing.

Hi MK,

All that's fine ... but it's not to the point of the thread, which is to say, whether the communicative power of the terminology per se is altered.

Fang and Ralph, my argument is that even something like "Author-sharing" in place of Narrativism would itself engender a whole constellation of misunderstandings, ranging from snap judgments at first sight to pained and elaborate semi-refutations after a first try at critical reading. Sure, many of the terms generate Confusion X about the concept involved. I don't think, however, that on the whole my terms are so awful that they generate irreparable confusion, which frankly, Fang, is what you're saying. That, I'll disagree with.

[Side note: Proponents of or participants in the rec.games.faq.advocacy usenet discussions sometimes bring ownership-indignance to their discussion of GNS, and I can't help that. No one likes to see "their" terms co-opted, but that's how science/discourse works.]

Ultimately, I evaluate these things in term of the long view. The Forge has seen the current essay up for how long ... a year now, right? (Geez, is that all?) And how well have people understood it, granting that different people will go "boink" at different stages of interacting with it? I think, pretty well. Damned well, for that matter, in comparison to any other proposed model regarding role-playing thus far. And it's still under development, as it says right in the text.

I fully agree that the essay does pretty poorly compared to some idealized dream model which is instantly accessible, developed in all possible conceptual angles, fully referenced and exemplified, and written with precisely the right mentoring diction for every possible reader. Less snottily, I also agree that it's far from ideal in terms of realistic quality as well - which is what the putative revision is all about, in the long term. I'm willing to entertain any and all suggestions about the latter, but suggestions or protests coming from a desire for the former aren't going to mean much to me.

Best,
Ron

Like I've said before. I have no problem with the terminology now...after what...nearly 2 years of being in the middle of huge extended threads discussing their meaning.

I just find it highly unfortuneate that the easiest way to explain GNS terms to new people is to instruct them to insert gibberish words into the text so they won't be confused (and no this last example with MK is not the first time I've recommended that).

And Mike...really. I would never claim that Ron used the words he did for malicious intent that's ridiculous. And yes I do know that the model has come along way from when it was first coined (but given the HUGE closest-thing-to-a-flame-war-we've-seen-here-on-the-Forge over the term Simulationist from a year and a half ago, the word hasn't fit probably for the majority of its life).

As for the arguement that its too late to change. Rubbish. The %age of total gamers (even total gamers who frequent the internet) who've even HEARD of GNS let alone given it serious consideration is miniscule. I mean realistically who would really be effected by having the terms change. 40-50 regulars, a couple of hundred casual people and maybe 1000 "heard about it and don't cares". Does the theory even really have a life independent of the Forge? Not a sizeable one. Personally I think the reluctance to make changes is more based on pride (well deserved as it is) than on any actual beneficial reason to not.

I understand that there will be education involved no matter what the term is, but educating from scratch is a lot easier than first having to deprogram. Right now its twice as much work. Before you can even begin to explain a term you have to spend half a dozen posts purging them of the connotations they already have for the term. Yes I would agree with Fang...it IS an impediment to both learning and teaching.

It would be like inventing a new mathematical operation and calling it multiplication. "oh I know how to multiply", "No no, forget what you know about how the rest of the world uses the word multiply, here on the Forge multiply means to take the log square and divide by pi" "huh"...that is how I feel explaining Simulationism and Premise et.al. over and over and over again.

That said, its not my model to change. I've reached the point for my own use where I understand most of it well enough to get it to do what I need it to do. I'm not about to launch some picket line or boycott over the issue.

But consider this.

Ron, you've expressed some desire to pass the torch a little bit and encourage the "next generation" of Forgeites to take more of a lead role in educating new comers. If a sizeable portion of the people who'd be taking such a role think the terminology makes the job of educating new comers extremely difficult, do you think they'll be more or less eager to shoulder that responsibility. How long do you want to be stuck with the job of primary source of GNS knowledge?

Hopefully the version of the article you're working on will find a way to ram home the points of "forget your preconceptions...here's what the term means for purposes of this discussion" well enough to elminate most of the problem. I hope so.

Ron Edwards wrote: Fang and Ralph, my argument is that even something like "Author-sharing" in place of Narrativism would itself engender a whole constellation of misunderstandings, ranging from snap judgments at first sight to pained and elaborate semi-refutations after a first try at critical reading. Sure, many of the terms generate Confusion X about the concept involved. I don't think, however, that on the whole my terms are so awful that they generate irreparable confusion, which frankly, Fang, is what you're saying. That, I'll disagree with.

I can see why they are upset.

This argument has been going on for *five years*. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Frankly, Ron, your ideas would much more quickly be appreciated as innovative if you hadn't used such similar terminology, as well as be quickly understood overall.

I think more explicit compare and contrast on your part to point out the novelty of your ideas would help as well.

What good has come out of willfuly clinging to obfuscation? It retards discourse and makes the author look like a plagiarist.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1019256558d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5pf9af%242fc%40camel12.mindspring.com&rnum=6

Hi Fang,

Oddly enough, I agree with you about the evolutionary context of your posts, in that GNS et al. may end up being itself a basis for deriving somethin' else that works way better. So far, I think, it's been robust (GEN being an example), but the SGR and similar material are right and proper Forge topics for just that reason. I'd hate like a bastard to be the kind of theorist who can't move on, although admittedly, the originator tends to be like that.

Ralph, good points, all 'round, I'm seeing what you're saying, and although my outlook (Gordon's, Mike's) is different, there's some room for maybe positive steps that work for both of us.

It just so happens that I'm working up two rather big essays at the moment, one all about Simulationist RPG design and other all about Illusionism and related terms. Let's see whether the existing terminology is robust enough to make those essays work, and whether they change certain aspects of the terminology (which are a bit squeaky in one case) to make more intuitive sense.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: I'd hate like a bastard to be the kind of theorist who can't move on, although admittedly, the originator tends to be like that.

I think "nemism", "gemism", and "semism" worked just fine.

I'm mulling over the replacements for "Premise" (I used "cookie" in another thread) and "Explore" right now. The definition of "Explore" currently offered has the Big Word Connotativewise "Imagine" embedded in it, will also requires narrowing--since over on another thread we're duking it out whether or not that means passively viewing or actively inventing.

'course, I'm coming from the land of disk drives, bits, bytes, CADs and RAMs.

French as a source of neologisms is a problem for me, as I have no clue on how to pronounce or spell francowordlets.

Good evening Joueur,

Hope the weekend ahead turns out to be a good one for you.

Le Joueur wrote:
p. s. Kester, you wrote, "Without the precursor elements in place, there would be no debate about GNS" All I'm saying is, perhaps its time that the GNS takes its proper place amongst the "precursor elements."

Paganini wrote: Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ.

You must understand that the phrase "Narrativist Game" is shorthand for "a game which more easily facilitates narrativist play"

M. J. Young wrote:

Paganini wrote: Sorry Ron, but I have to agree with Ralph and MJ.

With all due respect to Paganini, Ralph, and MK, MJ sides with Ron on this one.

I just want to comment on a couple undercurrents that seem to be running through this discussion. Here's a list to begin with:

- The implication that an academic approach is somehow inappropriate to popular discussion of a subject.

- The argument about the group verses author ownership of theory.

- An implicit belief that there is one model which can address all aspects of the subject.

I'll start with the last and work up.

Theories are tools for developing useful insights into a subject, not clockwork simulations of the how the subject works. As such, a theory can be thought of as analogous to a tool of analysis, like a telescope. But just as astronomers only get limited information from a given tool (telescope, radio dishe, IR sensors) so does a given theory only give a limited range of insight.

However, to get away from the physical sciences, where elegant solutions often do suceed in describing reality, we have to look at the application of theory to social phenomena. As these are more complicated and intricate, the seach for an elegant single theory is often counter-productive.

Especially in areas of social interaction, a theory must be judged by how useful it is generating new insights and how effective the results of its application are. Ron's GNS theory is certainly successful in these areas, having triggered insights in many readers, and been the basis for very effective game design. But we need not expect it to produce all usefull insights in the area. We have other loops in our toolbelt.

By accepted tradition, a theory is not a democratically produced concept. The process works by growth and synthesis. If one disagrees with a theory, one develops one's own hypothesis and tests the effectiveness of it. The insights gained from the new hypothesis either verify a new theory, or suggest changes to the old one.

Finally, I want to challenge the idea that the academic approach is somehow innapropriate to this venue or to the purpose of communicating game theory. The academic approach has been developed over millenia as a way to explore and analyze subject matter. Is this not the purpose of the Forge Forums? Why would we want to reinvent or ignore methods that have been proven so productive for our society? It has certainly been productive in spawning discussion and insight into our hobby. I applaud Ron and others for bringing these standards to our discussions.

Hey Alan,

Alan wrote: I want to challenge the idea that the academic approach is somehow inappropriate to this venue or to the purpose of communicating game theory. The academic approach has been developed over millennia as a way to explore and analyze subject matter. Is this not the purpose of the Forge Forums? Why would we want to reinvent or ignore methods that have been proven so productive for our society? It has certainly been productive in spawning discussion and insight into our hobby. I applaud Ron and others for bringing these standards to our discussions.

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

OK, I'm going to weigh in as a vigorous anti-academist in terms of writing standards.

Academic standards of writing are terrible in terms of efficiently conveying information to a lay public or to individuals outside of the field.

So, before going any further, gentlemen, we need to define the audience.

Is the audience academic professionals in the field of roleplaying game design?

MK Snyder wrote: Is the audience academ4ic professionals in the field of roleplaying game design?

Hold up, Alan, I'm not sure I agree.
The stated purpose of the essay is to "...provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals. "

Thus it is attempting to speak to all gamers, or rather, all dissatisfied gamers as its target audience.

Unless Ron wants to write, or allow/contract to be written a "GNS for Dummies" essay (obviously with his input as critical, so as the two essays do not diverge in meaning or definition from one another). That, however, as is the answer to MK's question, Ron's perogative.

Terms being intuitive or non-intuitive aside, what about the overloading on certain words? Even when basic GNS is mastered it's a bit confusing that we have: narrativist, narrative, narratate with no relation to each other but often coming up together. Then there's the word "premise". If we're supposed to use "story because it's not well defined", what about "premise"!?

That said I think the problem only emerges exactly in the GNS part. All the other stuff - currency, drama-karma-fortune, switches & dials, drift and so one - work perfectly for me.

So if we're talking about changing GNS terms there is actually very little I see as necessary to change.

One would be to change "Narrativism" to something else which immediately leads to the definition. Something like "Themism" or something since it's about exploring a theme. Thus avoiding the association with "narrating something"

The other would be to change "Simulationism" to "Explorationism" (or something like that). This was already suggested elsewhere.

Finally we'd separate "Theme" from "premise" and use "premise" for the general non-GNS specific form: "In this game you play vampires" as "premise" and then use "theme" for a premise developed for a particular mode. "Is it right to sustain one’s immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?" would be a "theme".

To sum things up

I think very little really needs to be done to make the GNS more accesible, it's mostly running into trouble where Ron seem to have wanted to keep associations to the older Threefold model.

Naively I'd make the following simple changes which I think would eliminate almost all problem with GNS as far as terms goes:

Narrativism -> Themeism
Simulationism -> Explorationism
General premise -> Premise
Specific premise -> Theme

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here but it seems reasonable to me. It would be simple to keep using these things in parallel too.

Going to mull for a few days...however, wouldn't "Explorationism" cause problems with "Exploration" (already a general term in the Essay)?

Simulationism is defined as the prioritizing of Exploration above the concerns of the other two styles; this means the other two styles have Exploration (must have it, in fact), it just isn't the overriding priority.

Then again, it does seem intuitive...but take that from someone with a grasp of the essay. I can easily see that term alongside "Exploration" leading to all sorts of misunderstandings and denouncements of appropriateness.

"currency" snapped right into place for me, as did "drift".

"Karma" and "Fortune" I have trouble not switching, as they are both terms for personal fate or destiny...so I have a connotation problem there.

Maybe change "Fortune" to "Chance" to get the connotation of randomness.

MK Snyder wrote: "Karma" and "Fortune" I have trouble not switching, as they are both terms for personal fate or destiny...so I have a connotation problem there.

Pale Fire wrote:
Hmm... karma is actually about what you did before, earlier actions that determine your future, while the fortune thing is more random. I think this might be a misreading of "karma" that's giving you a problem. I don't see an actual conflict here in terms of it's original meaning.

We could also change Gamism to Competitism, but I think it's clear as it is.

M. J. Young wrote:


As an academic effort, it is quite reasonable that it uses terminology--Jargon, as has been rightly illuminated--which requires some immersion in the field. I would not expect that all of you, no matter how well educated or intelligent, would be able to read a Law Review article and understand exactly what it meant, because the author quite reasonably would have relied on his expectation that the reader was already versed in the language of the field, probably also at least some of the recent literature on the subject and the relevant case law. Similarly when my wife, ACLS certified critical care nurse, starts telling me about her night, it is not at all uncommon for me to have to ask her what a word means when she uses it that is different from what I, as a layman, would understand.

It is often said on the forums:

You must understand that the phrase "Narrativist Game" is shorthand for "a game which more easily facilitates narrativist play"

and other statements like this. Similarly, you must understand that the use of the words narrativist and simulationist (since they particularly seem to be under attack) are shorthand for all the baggage of meaning that has appeared in articles and forum posts over the past years. We work to bring newbies up to speed on these precisely because you can't jump into an academic discussion without picking up the undergraduate courses.

These words mean what they mean in game theory precisely because to those of us who have been talking about them all this time they have come to have these meanings. It would be different if, like Humpty Dumpty, Ron had just decided to give the words whatever meaning he wanted. Ron did not give these words the meanings they have. He gave certain concepts names which fit them as well as anything anyone could find at that moment (many of which he did not give but received from others already discussing these issues), and then worked with us to discover what the concepts really meant. The fact that having followed some of these concepts into places we never expected them to lead we find the handles don't fit as well as they once did is not sufficient reason to abandon the handles and start from scratch.

Besides, even if we were to call these things gemism, nemism, and semism, in five years we would be arguing that the meanings attached to those words no longer fit the concepts to which they were being applied.

Hullo, :)

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Just to add a fresh point of view, I am not particularly in love with Ron's selected terminology, but in all fairness, I must say that I did understand the definitions, after reading the essay a couple of times. Plus, I did refer back to the threefold, after being pointed towards it, and the differences were clear enough.

I should also point out that the many arguments supporting changes in terminology may well be very valid, but they fail to address the main argument against changing, namely, that it sets a precedent, and a bloody dangerous one, in my humble opinion.

Cheers,

J.

JMendes wrote:
I should also point out that the many arguments supporting changes in terminology may well be very valid, but they fail to address the main argument against changing, namely, that it sets a precedent, and a bloody dangerous one, in my humble opinion.

Cheers,

J.

Hey, :)

Irmo wrote:

JMendes wrote: changing [...] sets a precedent, and a bloody dangerous one, in my humble opinion

Why so?

JMendes wrote:

Well, what's gonna happen when some guy has a quibble with some other term that everyone understands, but manages to suggest an alternative that actually is a lot better? Do we change it?

What about two years from now, when the evolved meaning of some term is so contrary to the original meaning as to bear no relation to the term itself? Are we going to change it? I can tell you from experience, it's going to confuse everybody and their mother.

I can hear someone saying, wait a minute, we have to be reasonable, only change when it is necessary. Sure. But then it becomes an arbitrary line between what is and isn't necessary, that someone has to set. And then, there will be arguments about where the line has been set.

So, and again this is all just my humble opinion, a policy of 'no changes unless the theory itself changes' just makes more sense.

greyorm wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorry, man. All terms are non-obvious.

Throwing my hat in here: I agree completely.
A term is shorthand for a complex definition. Shorthand, by its very nature, is non-obvious to someone unfamiliar with the complexities of the definition, and almost always leads to all sorts of amusing (or frustrating) misunderstandings until understanding of the term's definition is reached.

Greetings Irmo,

As this is my first post to you let me just take this opportunity to say "Hi!", and welcome.

Irmo wrote: Just to get started in this discussion, I challenge the validity of this paragraph, for a very simple reason. We're not talking law and medicine here. We're talking roleplaying. All of us have a pretty good basic grasp of what roleplaying is for us, and what it can be for others. As such, all of use SHOULD be able to grasp the basic terminology. This isn't about two completely different academic fields, or about academia vs. lay people.

Irmo wrote:
The issue is precisely that not everyone understands it.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Irmo wrote:
The issue is precisely that not everyone understands it.

That's an untennable standard, and leads to exactly the slippery slope that Mr. Mendes notes. I'm sure you don't mean to imply that while even one person does not understand the theory that we must change it until they do? That would lead to neverending changes, as there is no useful model that absolutely everyone can understand.

No, the standard must be that the terms must be suitable enough that the theory can be understood with effort, and taught when effort fails. And that has been proven to be the case many, many times here.

On another topic, while the audience here may not, strictly speaking, be academic, they are intelligent, and with effort have all been able to grasp the theory as presented. I would posit that a less adademic tone would have, in fact, confused even more people. The topic is complex, and as such requires complex description. To whit, every time someone writes a GNS for dummies (it's been done several times), it leads to more confusion than understanding.

Ron's only human, people; yes his presentation is, like every other ever made, imperfect. I find it irksome that people go so far to denigrate his efforts. That said, his efforts have not only been sufficient for the needs of many, but incredibly helpful to a great number of people. I see few other people contributing to the discourse as much as he does, and he deserves accolades for bringing the discourse to a higher level, not criticism for trying.

And in any case, speaking about academic tone in a thread that's supposed to be about terminology is missing the point a bit, no? I've seen nobody yet who's suggested that the terms are too academic or the like, so isn't this a case of misdirection?

Mike

Irmo,

Having a grasp of role-playing and a sort-of loosey-goosey understanding of the reason I/they play does not entitle one as the lowest-common denominator. Everyone has a "basic grasp of physics" too, because we're biologically wired for it -- however, some understand the actual scientific/academic study of such easily and some do not.

To me, the argument that "anyone who sort-of understands why they play role-playing games should be able to unerstand the theory at a glance" is an argument standing on the shaky, unrealistic grounds of equality.

Also, your description of terms is off-base. You state that terms function as definitions for things...which I entirely disagree with. Terms are shorthand for definitions.

Further, despite your argument with my statement*, the definitions of the terms appear to work just fine, once one gets past any personal confusion arising from the actual terms and what they seem to define as opposed to what they do define.

* which I note is not an argument with what the preciseness of the terms actually contained in the definitions in the theory, but rather a, "well, if you say this, then this other thing must be true because you said that first thing" without actually looking at and judging the second supposedly true fact. In other words, we are not here to play intellectual games and piss back and forth in the wind -- if you actually have a beef with the definitions themselves, then say so, don't try to discredit them on anything but their own terms, or because I or anyone else misspoke, was unclear or gave a poor example.

And welcome to the Forge, BTW!

Some personal views...

I think the opinions that Irmo has expressed are quite valid and I share them to some extent.

I'd love to be able to direct the guys in my group to the Forge and say, "Hey, take a look at this GNS thing.", but I won't because I know that GNS would probably go right over most of their heads. The academic style in which it is written makes it largely inaccessible and prone to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

As a consequence my own feeling is that GNS in it's current form will never reach the widespread audience that it probably deserves.

To their credit the participants in this forum (including Ron himself) are always willing to answer questions and explain aspects of the GNS text which at first reading may be difficult to grasp. For me their input has been invaluable. Frankly, I'd have been lost without it even though I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent and literate individual.

The academic style that GNS is written in and the level of debate that is present on this forum are somewhat intimidating. Unfortunately I'm no academic. I'm just a guy who like to roleplay and who wants to get the most from the hobby.

Me? I'll take what I can from GNS and try to put it to practical use in the games that I run which is I suppose is one motivation that Ron had for writing the article in the first place. i.e. for players to put his theory in practice. I'll give it a go.

As for actually modifying the text in an effort to accomodate a wider audience, that really is entirely up to Ron.

I personally feel that doing it would be beneficial.

Since some of my comments seem to have provided the tinder for this thread, let me just weigh in, that I'm perfectly happy waiting for the next version of the essay to see if a change in presentation can help alleviate the issues.

I think Ron's made it amply clear that he's heard what people are saying and is taking it all under advisement. I'm not really sure at this point there's any benefit to continueing on this thread.

Hopefully, the very busy Mr. Edwards will be able to complete the article in the not too distant future. Until then, the theory is imminently useable, has been being used successfully for years (some of the newer members of the Forge may not realize just how long GNS has been around and how many games have been successfully designed drawing on its principals). If it takes a little extra effort to explain, then at least for the time being, that can be something we all are aware of and can take into account.

Yes?

greyorm wrote:
To me, the argument that "anyone who sort-of understands why they play role-playing games should be able to unerstand the theory at a glance" is an argument standing on the shaky, unrealistic grounds of equality.

Also, your description of terms is off-base. You state that terms function as definitions for things...which I entirely disagree with. Terms are shorthand for definitions.

Further, despite your argument with my statement*, the definitions of the terms appear to work just fine, once one gets past any personal confusion arising from the actual terms and what they seem to define as opposed to what they do define.

* which I note is not an argument with what the preciseness of the terms actually contained in the definitions in the theory, but rather a, "well, if you say this, then this other thing must be true because you said that first thing" without actually looking at and judging the second supposedly true fact. In other words, we are not here to play intellectual games and piss back and forth in the wind -- if you actually have a beef with the definitions themselves, then say so, don't try to discredit them on anything but their own terms, or because I or anyone else misspoke, was unclear or gave a poor example.

Hey, Irmo, :)

I'm not going to dispute your points, as it seems that we are looking at the same situation through very different glasses and it would take ages before either one managed to convince the other.

However, I would like not to be misunderstood. So:

Irmo wrote:

JMendes wrote: Well, what's gonna happen when some guy has a quibble with some other term that everyone understands, but manages to suggest an alternative that actually is a lot better? Do we change it?

The issue is precisely that not everyone understands it.

So, and again this is all just my humble opinion, a policy of 'no changes unless the theory itself changes' just makes more sense. <emphasis added>

No, it doesn't make sense.

JMendes wrote:

What I meant is, if we change it now because some people don't understand it, what's gonna happen when blah blah blah. Do we change it again?

In other words, what I was aiming at is that what the issue is today is rather irrelevant when faced with what utter chaos and mayhem might ensue in the face of such precedent. Again, and graphical language aside, this is all in my humblest of opinions.

And I don't see why chaos and mayhem should ensue, given that the practice to revise terminology when it has become unsuitable is (and I quoted one example) commonplace in academia. Of course, it is entirely possible that your experience with academia is one of utter chaos and mayhem. It's not that rare ;)

Cassidy wrote: As for actually modifying the text in an effort to accomodate a wider audience, that really is entirely up to Ron.

Irmo,

You defend yourself as not saying what I've accused you of saying, then went on to say precisely what I was arguing you said. Somewhere along the line we're missing each other.

What you say about someone who has given thought to the matter being able to understand the theory is exactly what the definition I used ("anyone who sort-of understands why they play role-playing games"). I don't believe that this sort of lowest common denominator can be used effectively when attempting to define a theory, as some will simply find it easier to grasp than others -- thus there will be an endless amount of "dumbing down" to be done, possibly to the detriment of the theory.

The thing is that nearly everyone here, with a little work, understands the essay. This doesn't bode well, to my mind, of a need to rewrite the terms & definitions of the theory from their current state. It works, obviously, because almost everyone does get it.

Could they get it better if it were rewritten? Perhaps or perhaps not...and when do you stop rewriting for clarity? It isn't when "everyone gets it by reading it"...that state of affairs is a fiction.

So what is the precise, definable point you (Irmo) believe a rewrite could effectively be ceased?

In my mind, the current situation is no different from anything else: a little work is required to comprehend something new, for some it is easy, for some it is more difficult. Some will put in the effort, some will not.

As I've stated elsewhere, it took me a year to develop a solid understanding of GNS, but I have no problem with that and do not blame the essay. It isn't like learning to tie your shoes, it is fairly in depth, with a number of nuances and critical thinking involved.

Related example: I still can't do algebra very well, nor am I particularly good at balancing my checkbook (without work)...this doesn't mean that math theory or application needs to be dumbed down even further for me so I can grasp it or "get it" right off. It means I personally will have to work harder to get it.

Theory rarely "just clicks" for the majority, and attempting to make it so that it does so is an exercise in futility, because it never will do so. Can it be clarified with more rigorous example? Yes, I think it can be.

As to your defense about never having made the statement you did about terms, please reread your own post: "Terms are tools. They have one, and only one task: To describe the model."

I disagreed with this. Terms are not there to describe the model. Terms do not provide definition. Hence my taking issue with your phrasing.

The terms are there to provide shorthand for the definitions. Currently, the problem being discussed is that it is the terms themselves which are causing the problems with understanding said definitions, because of the nature of the terms chosen conflicting with the definitions they stand for.

Finally, as to my ability or lack thereof to understand the gravity of being unclear, that was not the issue. The issue therein was: Do you yourself find the definitions themselves unclear?

Anything else -- my own understanding or lack thereof of the -- is really unfit for this discussion, as it does not guide towards a solution to the problem posed and will simply result in endless arguments where I can claim I DO TOO understand the gravity, and you can simply counter I DO NOT.

Thus, whether or not you have a beef with the definitions themselves is definitely at issue, because you, as a reader, are there to judge: Are the definitions too hard to understand as they stand?

If you think they are too hard to understand, then bring that up and, more importantly, why you found them to be so. Such a response can be dealt with on a solvable level, and can be discussed objectively and productively.

Edit: BTW, I apologize if the above sounds hostile or argumentative in tone; not my intention, so take any perceived tonal implications with a grain of salt.

greyorm wrote: Irmo,

You defend yourself as not saying what I've accused you of saying, then went on to say precisely what I was arguing you said.

Somewhere along the line we're missing each other.

What you say about someone who has given thought to the matter being able to understand the theory is exactly what the definition I used ("anyone who sort-of understands why they play role-playing games").

I don't believe that this sort of lowest common denominator can be used effectively when attempting to define a theory, as some will simply find it easier to grasp than others -- thus there will be an endless amount of "dumbing down" to be done, possibly to the detriment of the theory.

Could they get it better if it were rewritten? Perhaps or perhaps not...and when do you stop rewriting for clarity? It isn't when "everyone gets it by reading it"...that state of affairs is a fiction.

So what is the precise, definable point you (Irmo) believe a rewrite could effectively be ceased?

Related example: I still can't do algebra very well, nor am I particularly good at balancing my checkbook (without work)...this doesn't mean that math theory or application needs to be dumbed down even further for me so I can grasp it or "get it" right off. It means I personally will have to work harder to get it.

Theory rarely "just clicks" for the majority, and attempting to make it so that it does so is an exercise in futility, because it never will do so.

As to your defense about never having made the statement you did about terms, please reread your own post: "Terms are tools. They have one, and only one task: To describe the model."

I disagreed with this. Terms are not there to describe the model. Terms do not provide definition. Hence my taking issue with your phrasing.

Finally, as to my ability or lack thereof to understand the gravity of being unclear, that was not the issue. The issue therein was: Do you yourself find the definitions themselves unclear?

Thus, whether or not you have a beef with the definitions themselves is definitely at issue, because you, as a reader, are there to judge: Are the definitions too hard to understand as they stand?

If you think they are too hard to understand, then bring that up and, more importantly, why you found them to be so. Such a response can be dealt with on a solvable level, and can be discussed objectively and productively.

Irmo,

I'm not sure if you have, but if not, now might be a good time to read the discussion etiquette rules for this forum (check "Site Discussion"); I mention this because dissecting posts to reply line-by-line is frowned upon, which I realize is unlike the majority of other discussion forums on-line (you will find the Forge is atypical in regards internet disussion).

Unfortunately, you've stated only denials of previous statements you have made, though no clarifications for me, thus I find much of your post impossible to respond to. For example, you may maintain you "did not," and this is impossible to respond to, for we will go around and around in a "did so" and "did not" competition. I have no answer to this sort of argument.

Also, the degrees you may have or be studying for, your IQ or EQ, or other similar pedigrees is irrelevant to the discussion (I think it would have been possible for you to easily make your point without mentioning these facts), though I do see the analogy you are drawing: I simply don't agree it is the correct one.

As you believe your own reaction to the terminology and so forth are irrelevant to the issue, there is no common ground here for discussion between us, as I believe quite the opposite (that your reaction is relevant). I have no basis to respond to any problems other than you say "it's broken."

If it is, please feel free to give Ron specific examples of how it is broken, and if possible suggest changes in line with your stated goal for clarification...a number of other individuals have already done so.

Given all that, I let what I've said already stand on its own as my final explanation as to why things are the way they are.

Also, I'm confused by what you mean by "derogatory" in regards to my statement. Are you stating I was being derogatory towards you in my response? If so, I apologize, but I am uncertain what you find to be insulting, or whom you believe I am insulting (if not yourself)? Could you please clarify this? (privately, preferably, as it is off-topic)

Another of the things I can respond to is to note that I make a serious distinction between "rewritten" and "clarification," the latter which I have no problem with, but find no reason for the outcry for the former, given the reasons stated already about people who do get it after some work (this includes nearly everyone here).

Finally, the choice in this matter ultimately isn't mine, as it isn't my essay. What Ron chooses to do is ultimately up to Ron.

greyorm wrote: Irmo,

I'm not sure if you have, but if not, now might be a good time to read the discussion etiquette rules for this forum (check "Site Discussion"); I mention this because dissecting posts to reply line-by-line is frowned upon, which I realize is unlike the majority of other discussion forums on-line (you will find the Forge is atypical in regards internet disussion).

Unfortunately, you've stated only denials of previous statements you have made, though no clarifications for me, thus I find much of your post impossible to respond to. For example, you may maintain you "did not," and this is impossible to respond to, for we will go around and around in a "did so" and "did not" competition. I have no answer to this sort of argument.

Also, the degrees you may have or be studying for, your IQ or EQ, or other similar pedigrees is irrelevant to the discussion (I think it would have been possible for you to easily make your point without mentioning these facts), though I do see the analogy you are drawing: I simply don't agree it is the correct one.

As you believe your own reaction to the terminology and so forth are irrelevant to the issue, there is no common ground here for discussion between us, as I believe quite the opposite (that your reaction is relevant). I have no basis to respond to any problems other than you say "it's broken."

If it is, please feel free to give Ron specific examples of how it is broken, and if possible suggest changes in line with your stated goal for clarification...a number of other individuals have already done so.

Given all that, I let what I've said already stand on its own as my final explanation as to why things are the way they are.

Also, I'm confused by what you mean by "derogatory" in regards to my statement. Are you stating I was being derogatory towards you in my response? If so, I apologize, but I am uncertain what you find to be insulting, or whom you believe I am insulting (if not yourself)? Could you please clarify this? (privately, preferably, as it is off-topic)

Another of the things I can respond to is to note that I make a serious distinction between "rewritten" and "clarification," the latter which I have no problem with, but find no reason for the outcry for the former, given the reasons stated already about people who do get it after some work (this includes nearly everyone here).

Finally, the choice in this matter ultimately isn't mine, as it isn't my essay. What Ron chooses to do is ultimately up to Ron.

Hello,

I am moderating. This thread is now closed.

Any further discussions of terminology are welcome to continue, based on substantive concerns or ideas, on their own threads, beginning with fully-articulated assertions or inquiries.

Best,
Ron