Hiya folks,

I've just had my first experience introducing other gamers to some Forge terminology (on a mailing list of gamers here in the Philippines). And, man oh man, did I completely make an ass of myself.

I pointed out with a straightforward comment that perhaps the Impossible Thing might be happening in such and such a game. Then I had to explain The Impossible Thing. Quick basic explanation. I got swamped with some contentions against my use of the term "story" and "protagonist". The discussion veered off to how different RPGs are from other media and how the "dichotomy" I was pointing out was such and such. I'm still busy clearing it all up, but I'm afraid my entire point might have been missed completely.

Anyone with any advice on being a Forge Games and Schtuff advocate?

My apologies, if this sounds like a gripe and if it all sounds like I'm just running home to mommy cuz the big boys clipped me one on the kisser.

It isn't that. I'm curious as to how Forge schtuff might be broached to some old gamers who have very articulate ideas about what an RPG is.

(Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't even try.)

Thanks!

- W.

Best bet is to send them here. Especially if there are several of them and 1 of you it is easy for a number of people with shared beliefs to wave away an individual who offers a different perspective.

If they are articulate about gaming they probably have spent some time thinking about it and may enjoy being introduced to the discussion here. One advantage is instead of just you there are dozens of people who've also spent time thinking about it and that can add a little weight behind it.

It'll probably come as little surprise that I think that that particular case is one where the terminology terminally obscures the content in precisely the manner you describe.

The specific language is good only for people with a shared understading--for people who don't read TF--and I mean read TF--just hitting the articles is a lot of work and that, by itself, won't do it (IMO/IME/Look at the posts that crop up periodicially).

I would stick to describing the phenomena that you think is occurring (the Players think they should be making the important choices, the GM maybe agrees in theory but in practice is setting things up so that's not really possible--as an example).

And stick with that. Maybe say "This theory board, The Forge, has a special term for this conflict ..." but I wouldn't start there.

I'm not sure what instructions one would use to send one's friends here to figure out what the problem was (i.e. saying "check this out" is fine--but if you're saying "I wanna talk to you about this--but before I do, read all this stuff" would prompt me to say "just explain it.")
-Marco

Then we assimilate them...

Sorry! I mean, then we engage in a friendly and frank exchange of expertise, adding their cultural distinctiveness to the collective...

Sorry, there I go again...

Then we get a common vocabulary to discuss what's actually going on in play.

Yeah, that's it.

Hi WD,

I am against trying to explain, and explain things to folks, since most of the contention comes from strongly held beliefs and myths. The Impossible Thing has been advocated for a long, long time, and folks have been trying to get it, for the longest time. Telling them their quest is in vain sends thems straight into defense mode.

No, instead, I pull out Inspectres, Donjon, Trollbabe, octaNe, and I put folks to playing. As preconceptions get shattered through play, then I explain how and why they work. It's rather like trying to explain to a person who's never seen a plane that man can fly. It's easier to show the individual, then start talking about how it works.

Isangmahal,

Chris

I'm gonna wave Marco's banner, I think he's dead on.

In my own group I've wanted to pump up the level of play analysis, and maybe try to solve some subtle and slippery issues. But, without introducing theory, it was sort of a pain in the ass (everyone is pretty much uninterested...the Forge is apparently not in fact the Forge, it is instead "blah blah blah GNS neer-ni-neer-neer ismism blah blah blah", go figure). Anyway, I've just been using close enough for now concepts: theme, challenge, verisimilitude, concept freedom, consistency, game balance, and umm, sentences instead of words. Plus, its all sort of my personal little test to see if any of this theory stuffy actually holds up in play, or whether it's just a kind of false economy of jargon.

Anyway, seems to be working very well (and surviving the test very well). Sometimes I think people will agrue about terms simply for the sake of arguement (hey wait, don't I do that, here even?)...If you explain the concept and they agree, they might decide they want a name for it then.

Trouble is, it's seeming really hard to get to some concepts without covering others first. If you try to cover them at the wrong time, you might get push back/agruement/confusion, and that topic can be spoiled for a while.

For example, I'd try to explain to one of our players that the reason he really enjoys our 'laws of conversation' (who speaks, how, and when during resolution) as a player is because it avoids deprotagonizing effects via FitB/FitM and gives him much more control over color, but why it really doesn't work for him as a GM is that the rules about now narration passes from attacker to defender make Illusionist techniques involving resolution basically impossible. But, whoa, I'd have to cover concepts ranging the wiff-factor to IIEE to the Impossible Thing just to get that point across. Trodding over a lot of 'how gaming is supposed to work' assumptions the whole way. I don't think I'd make it.

If you really want to talk theory, little pieces at a time are probably best. I doubt many theory gurus reached their level of understanding all at once.

Thanks for all the advice, folks!

It's all a big help. I sometimes feel it's such a shame that I and my own little playing group seem to be the only ones all the way over here who's even heard of The Forge or who's ever played any of the Forge-born games. Strikes me as sad, somehow. I can really see how many of the folks on the mailing list I'm talking to could benefit greatly from the ideas here. It's a tough nut to crack.

At any rate, great point about the vocabulary Pete, Marco, Jason. I've forgone jargon in my succeeding explanation of The Impossible Thing and have been sticking to explaining observed phenomena in -uhm- human terms.

(And this is just The Impossible Thing here! I can't wait till they read about and digest the rest. FitM, GNS, etc. Hopefully they'll feel encouraged enough to check The Forge out -- before I inadvertantly open other cans of chewy worms. So I'm trying to start nice and easy. )

Good idea about the numbers, Ralph. I've already pointed The Forge out to them. As well as Chris' (Bankuei) excellent articles at RPG.net. Maybe some of them will take a look-see, maybe not. Hopefully they will. I'll find out tomorrow.

Great suggestion on opening with a game, Chris! That was actually how I started the ball rolling in my own playing group. Whipped out InSpectres and -bang!- instant headway!

I've gone ahead and fielded some warm invites to the folks on that mailing list to drop by our currently running InSpectres game. Maybe get into the action. We'll see. We'll see.

Again, my thanks compadres!

Mabuhay,

- W.

This incident should probably serve as a clue to everybody here about how to relate to auslanders. The language of the forge is unique to the forge. It's not only meaningless outside of here, but it makes you sound like a pompous ass and puts people off. The language evolved here, and needs to stay here.

The important thing is to take the lessons learned here and applying them on the outside. Play your games so that the characters are protagonized. Support your closet gamists with opportunities for rule-based challenge. Try to achieve The Impossible Thing (whatever the heck that is; even regulars can't keep up on the latest terminology). But remember to keep your language appropriate to your audience, just like you speak differently at work, at church (M.J. Young excepted, of course) and when you're into the second week of deer camp with the boys.

Greetings,

Generally I refrain from comment about these sorts of things. But. . .

Valamir wrote: Best bet is to send them here. Especially if there are several of them and 1 of you it is easy for a number of people with shared beliefs to wave away an individual who offers a different perspective.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Valamir wrote: Best bet is to send them here. Especially if there are several of them and 1 of you it is easy for a number of people with shared beliefs to wave away an individual who offers a different perspective.

That is perhaps the most exlusionist, adversarial, and patently offensive comment I've read anywhere of late.

In essence, in reading that, the impression I am left with is that you are advocating members of The Forge as a group either ignore or pile on anyone with a diverging point of view? Sort of like what the Catholic Church did with the Bogomils, Albigensians, Cathars, and etcetera?

If you did not intend your remark to convey that intent I apologize, if you did then I think it is a sad commentary upon the state of GNS.

Clay wrote: This incident should probably serve as a clue to everybody here about how to relate to auslanders. The language of the forge is unique to the forge. It's not only meaningless outside of here, but it makes you sound like a pompous ass and puts people off. The language evolved here, and needs to stay here.

Valamir wrote: I can't even comprehend how you came to that idea unless you were predisposed of your own bias to look for such things. Pay attention to the punctuation in the sentence. Its there, or not there for a reason.

Valamir wrote: If your still having difficulty parsing basic grammar:

Valamir wrote: The highlighted phrase was directed at WD, indicating my lack of surprise that 1 individual (him) was having difficulty overcoming the entrenched positions of a group because its easy for the group to reinforce each other. If they come to the Forge and see many people talking about these things they may be less inclined to dismiss the concepts out of hand.

Valamir wrote: BTW: I have little patience for "I apologize if you didn't mean it this way, but" openings. Such caveats are not a Get Out of Jail Free card allowing you to spew whatever vitrol you like and then cover yourself with a brief "my bad".

Valamir wrote: If you are confused as to the meaning of something I write in the future, I suggest you PM me about it so I can explain it to you directly, before you trot out your soap box and demonstrate publically that you just critically failed your Reading Comprehension Roll.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Valamir wrote:

Kester, I have nothing further to say to you on this issue, and your mock pretentions at trying to appear the peacemaking level headed one, hold no water as you've used this tactic too many times to be believable.

If you have any further comments on this issue, I suggest you take them up with a moderator

'Lo,

The Valamir/Kester dialogue is concluded; no more posts about or in it are permitted.

I draw attention to Kester's comment in his post:

If you did not intend your remark to convey that intent [then] I apologize

I'm going through similar experiences with my own gaming circle, W. What I'm doing is basically beating the theory drum every so often, but never too hard and never for very long, and especially only when it's particularly relevant. That way, some of the ideas will start to pop up in their minds, and hopefully their play experiences will improve.

Personally, I have found that there's an ego block to the discussion. Like someone who fancies themselves to be great lovers get defensive when you use terms like "g-spot" and "French ticklers." Many roleplayers think they already know everything about roleplaying. If you bring up concepts and theories, like what's discussed on the Forge, they feel inadequate and simply put up a wall. Such is my experience, and I'm sure many here have too and probably prepetuated the same behavior at one time. Such people tend to try to torpedo the theory before they even understand what the theory says.

Jargon or no, this will happen, but jargon doesn't help.

I've said this before--I think it bears repeating:

[RANT ON]
The way large portions of GNS are formulated/described are IMO, highly to yeild the hostile reaction.

When I've discussed theory with people I *haven't* gotten a defensive reaction--but I've done it in a way that's gotten a bad reaction here.

For one thing, instead of describing a game as incoherent, I've discussed different ways text could be understood. VtM is perfectly "coherent" if you read it a given way (PM me and I'll explain).

The Impossible Thing is perfectly possible if you read it a given way (again).

Rather than using language that obsfusicates that ("The game is Incoherent"--as though ANY game couldn't be read two different ways or the 'promises' of the game *you* wrote couldn't be misconstrued by someone**) it's simply better to approach it from a viewpoint of personal understanding and, here I go, intent.

Someone once said of GNS words to the effect of: "It's a way of quantifying a decision you make in play--am I exploring something, playing to 'win' (for some value of win), or is my decision prioritizing play with an enjoyable story addressing a thematic continuity" (this is way a paraphrase, but bear with me).

I've *never* had anyone react badly to that. Discussions about how rules can help or hinder those decisions--about how social conventions can interact with those priorities--about how playing 'to win' is as valid as playing to 'explore' and even about how prioritizing thematic questions is different from engaging in story-like exploration are all pretty natural.

I've had some discussion and *disagreement* but not hostility (no, it doesn't discuss every possible intent--it's not trying to--and yes, analysis of the play at the table is different than the decision-model--I'll keep saying this--it seems I can never say it enough).

But that approach relies on intent as a factor and doesn't apply to analyzing other's play (the play at the table may be decided to be Simulationist play--but that doesn't tell you what people's "intent"* was when making individual decisions)--and a lot of people here aren't interested in that (it seems. I've gotten PM's telling me that).***

I do NOT think people are desparately clinging to the hope of "The Impossible Thing." I don't think anyone *really* believes in that self-contradiction. The textual description in the glossary does not in any way address the basic misunderstanding which will almost necessiarly exist between two people (the title refers, very distinctly, to one person believing in a parddox)--nor does the big GNS essay (which declares the text in question 'absurd').

I do NOT think people believe themselves to be all-knowing and hate the idea that someone has thought about this a different way--but I do know
that a person who reads all this and returns to their group thinking they know more than the people there will come off to those people as though the theorist thinks they're a bunch of morons. That's not a good way to start a discussion.

And I think the language supports this (Narrativist play is the 'new revolution'), those popular, widely loved games you like are "most likely" to lead to power struggle (not may or can--but most likely--and not even "most likely" to lead to misunderstanding--but that misunderstanding is, most likely, to be resolved with on-going powerstruggle. I know this is based on observation. I don't believe it and I don't think anyone here is a good sample element. The kinds of things that lead people to TF are, IMO, likely to be dysfunctional experiences).

But regardless, people can post snarky comments about White Wolf here all day long. If someone tries that with Sorceror there'd be an immediate pile-on or they'd be written off as a troll. I'm not talking about posting criticisms. I'm talking about pure game-bashing.

As it stands, I think GNS is a preferred vocabulary of people who want to deride players or games they don't like. One can rightly point out that that's not GNS's fault--but rather the way those people are applying the theory.

True--but if you want the meme to spread, there are ways to make it more robust--and less useful to those ends. If you want to discuss it here and don't care how useful it is outside of the TF, then there's no worry. But I've been told by people in PM's that a lot of folks here see it's primary value as resolving those real-world dysfunctions.
[/RANT OFF]

-Marco
* I am not saying you can ever know another person's intent, only discuss your *own* with *some* degree of accuracy. I'm not saying one will ever want to *speculate* on another's intent. I'm not saying that an analysis of play at the table will factor in intent in any way. If you think I am, PM me.

** In non-ranty mode: there are games that make next to no 'promises,' which helps. There are games it's really hard to misconstrue (How to Host a Murder, for example). But the majority of mainstream games--almost anything designed to be Simulationist, I think, will be able to be categorized as Incoherent by someone. Even triumphs of clean design like Nicotine Girls can be seen as variable in what modes of play their mechanics encourage.

*** What I'm calling the personalized or "intent" based model of GNS here is not intended to be the whole of the theory nor address every facet of how, for example, actual play might be *analyzed*--however, it is intended to be an easily spreadible non-contraversial meme that has MAXIMAL value in providing perspective and vocabulary to people and I believe it can be applied to *any* valuable discussion of GNS's present, most popular formulation.

Excellent post, Marco. One thing I would add is the, perhaps obvious, observation that just because one person in a group is unsatisfied with their gaming experience does not mean all members of the group are unsatisfied. Ron points out in the introduction to the GNS essay that:

The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience.

Hi all,

Just a quick update on this.

As far as introducing new ideas are concerned, it's going as well as can be expected without actually getting the folks on the list to try out InSpectres, Trollbabe, etc. Apparently, it's turning out that absolutely zero of the folks there have heared of these games.

I'm, as ethan_greer would put it, beating the theory drum less often these days on that list. I do still put in a little few "system matters" comments from time to time whenever someone raises a relevant issue (largely, however, the discussions going on there circle around GMing and playing techniques more than anything). I'm doing all this in as accessible a vocabulary and writing style as possible. The ego-defensive thing is still present of course -- I'm a psychologist so I tend to see this more than most people. We can't ever escape from things like that; it's par for the course.

I've had two folks drop by our InSpectres game, one for each game we've had for the past two weeks. I haven't really had the chance to talk to them about how they found the whole thing. I sensed that there was a lot of confusion on their part, some defensiveness (eg: they brought all their game manuals), and so on. Hopefully, I can get in touch with them again soon.

All of this, of course, simply boils down to: Unless they want to take the red pill, they ain't never gonna take the red pill. The most I can do really is point to The Forge, explain in accessible and non-threatening terms whenever appropriate, tell them about some cool new games, and continuously offer warm invites to play with our group. That's the most anyone can do. Anything more than that is delusional.

Thanks again, all!

- W.

PS: Marco -- Correct me if I am wrong (via PM or e-mail) but I think the main difficulty that most folks have in accepting your "intent-based" proposals is simply that they don't find it useful to know what happens inside the blackbox of any particular gamer's brain. What matters is what you feed into it, and what comes out of it (ie: observable behavior as expressed in actual play, and supported by the system).

The reason I believe this is so, is that it's much harder to tool around with what's in the blackbox rather than the elements that you feed into it. The feedback you get out of the blackbox allows you to adjust what you feed it. It isn't necessary to open the blackbox.

I know that's a somewhat simplistic view, but I hope it helps explain the resistance you're experiencing.

Hi W,

I'd say its also a very different ball game trying to advocate theory stuff online vs. face to face. For many people in general, online interactions tend to be stripped of any and all requirements of basic society, simply because any sort of interaction can be done in a "hit and run" fashion. That is, anyone can just scan someone's post, not fully read it, and reply "You Suck and are a Big Doody-head!(TM)".

Quite simply, anyone online who is actually interested in hearing what is being said probably doesn't need to be told twice, and may have already checked out any links you may have provided. Otherwise, its rather like trying to outshout a drunken riot.

Face to face, at least a minimal level of social decorum has to be kept up, at least in the fact that most people subconciously recognize that being a complete ass is one great way to get your ass kicked. Second, you get a chance to actually get to know someone on a level, and are able to take examples and experiences they give you, and reflect it through theory on the spot. Or, better yet, give descriptions, reply to answers, and if all else fails, run a example of "how it would work" right then and there.

Chris

WDFlores wrote:

PS: Marco -- Correct me if I am wrong (via PM or e-mail) but I think the main difficulty that most folks have in accepting your "intent-based" proposals is simply that they don't find it useful to know what happens inside the blackbox of any particular gamer's brain. What matters is what you feed into it, and what comes out of it (ie: observable behavior as expressed in actual play, and supported by the system).

The reason I believe this is so, is that it's much harder to tool around with what's in the blackbox rather than the elements that you feed into it. The feedback you get out of the blackbox allows you to adjust what you feed it. It isn't necessary to open the blackbox.

I know that's a somewhat simplistic view, but I hope it helps explain the resistance you're experiencing.

Hi,

Although I don't agree that the terminology used here is necessarily exclusive or obfuscatory, I do always try very hard, when explaining Forgey principles to others, to couch it in layman's terms as much as possible. That includes terms that are common but used idiosyncratically here, such as "story" and "protagonist". When I do have to resort to jargon, I am always careful to explain that I am using jargon, how that jargon is typically used on the Forge, how that jargon differs from its everyday usage outside the Forge (if applicable), and why.

It makes for some very long explanations, but it's quite handy for heading off confusion and bad feelings when members of the audience feel like their "owndership" of a particular term is being threatened.