I've enjoyed reading the start of "Silmenume"s thread on simulationism immensely. Thanks to "Silmenume" for his writings. One of his points promped me to comment, and I have chosen to extract it, as my comment is somewhat on the side of his main discussion:

Silmenume wrote: Conflict is not something that flows from within the game, rather conflict is the source from which all exploration flows!
...

Conflict + Character + Situation = The Exploratory action that is Sim.

Eh, I don't buy it. I mean Conflict is definitely one form of exploration. But I think that quite a bit of RPG play isn't about conflict. It's about establishing color. That is, if I describe the saunter of my character as he walks along the boulevard, I'm exploring the character, but not facing any conflict. If the GM says that I'm passing a huge and ornate temple, we're exploring the setting, but there is no conflict.

I'd agree that Conflict is what drives exploration. Without it, I don't think that most people would play. But it's not the totality of exploration.

Mike

Hello,

I think that what you're calling Conflict, I call "protagonism." It'll be presented pretty thoroughly in my upcoming essay.

Probably the most difficult aspect of this dialogue, in this thread, is the use of "exploration." It is very prone to being interpreted however anyone wants to interpret it, so I need to know whether you're using it in the strict sense of the model, or in a different sense. Your definition above, frankly, resembles Creative Agenda more than it does Exploration, in the model.

Best,
Ron

Hmm... Mike and Ron on my back again! :)

First of all; I use the term "conflict" in a very wide sense, but I don't use it to define any and all things going on in RPGs. Still the game will have conflict either way you see it, always.

Conflicts may be so base that the temple in Mike's example is indeed the source of a conflict; should we go in, or pass it? Any and all scenes where the players have to make choices on behalf of their roles, is some kind of conflict. Any choice made is irreversible; it will influence the flow of the game, and ultimately the destiny of the characters (given a GM who don't ignore the players).

In viewing these points of decision as "conflicts" we focus on the game in a way which give great possibilities to our gameplay. Any small choice made by active players is important, and treated seriously by the GM/players, as it is always part of the greater fiction.

By relating to conflicts in this way we also focus on the main force in a good RPG; the conflict, all scenes demanding or fascilitating an active player choice. We make the decision-making the "flow" of the game. Good focus is essential to flow in the game, and how you relate to conflicts is at the core of this.

On "exploration" though, my thoughts are quite different. I use this term instead of "play", which I find more than adequate to describe how we relate to RPGs, also covering the exploratory bits of it. The inherent exploration embedded in our play with the elements of the RPG, is one sideeffect of our playfulness. However; "play" is a term associated with children, and as such a troublesome term to use. Many roleplayers have a strong urge to be considered adults, and react to such "childish" explanations of their hobby.

So yes; I do have my own way of using the term "exploration", more like the way we would use "play", if we had a normal attitude towards it.

I do not like all the terms used in the GNS-model, and find that I have to reflect this view as I comment on parts of it, even though I have only done so in a very limited way so far.

The reason is that I hold the terms we choose to define our world, or the way we view it. The terms we use have a power of their own, steering our thoughts in subtle ways, installing us with certains ideas, and blocking others.

I will have to write a longer essay on this, eventually. But until so happens, Ron will have to be patient with my fringe comments, with little or no arguments to support them.

I've been messaged by a friendly soul, telling me that the point of "play" being thouchy for roleplayers, as stated in my last post, is not true. I think the point is false, yes, due to a language problem. I'm sorry for that. Here's a clarification on the subject.

The english word "play" is in fact slightly different to the Norwegian word I had in mind, and so my meaning, when expressed in English, is not quite true to my thoughts. The Norwegian word I had in mind; "lek", may be translated into english through the phrase "childrens play", but you really don't have a good, single word for it in english.

The Norwegian word "lek" is not solely linked to childrens activities. However; is is very much seen as such by many roleplayers over here, and that stance hinders them in seeing the many positive connotations within the term, and how it applies to their roleplaying.

I chose to translate it with the word "play", as this is close in meaning, and functional in this context. Play is not imbued with quite the same connotations as "lek", but it is quite sufficient for the main point of my post, and more suitable than "exploration" as a central term in any broader model on RPGs.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

On the terms used in the essay;
- Character and color (c+c); system, setting and situation (s+s+s); is this a set of phrases chosen partly because of the first-letters in the words? Seriously; I do this a lot myself.
- All the terms are defined within the text, and as such are functional, but still I feel that two of them needs to be replaced, and two of them needs to be merged.
- Character is OK.
- Color should be part of setting.
- System is too narrow a term for the things we do and the tools we use when playing. "Method" is better suited.
- Setting is OK, but needs to swallow the "color"-term to be a fully functional term.
- Situation needs to be replaced, both because it is too similar to setting, and because it needs to make place for the more poignant "conflict".

I propose to use four set of terms, each one focussed on one level within the roleplaying-media. These sets of terms are meant to offer alternate viewpoints to the creation, discussion and practise of RPGs. They are meant to augment eachother, not to compete for supremacy. The first set is meant to replace the terms used by Ron in his essay:

Game level:
- Character
- Setting
- Method
- Conflict (relates strongly to the personal level)

Personal level:
- Engagement
- Play
- Catharsis

Artistic level:
- Designer (creator(s) of the game)
- Vision (what the game is meant to produce, and how the designer conveys his ideas, this term relates to the sum of all terms in the first set)
- Elements (the elements designed to make up the game, which the players use to build the fiction)
- Player (participant(s) in the game)
- Fiction (what the game actually produce, how the players "add it up", this term relates to the sum of all terms in the first set)

Social level:
- Social context (how the players gather, talk, eat, organise, socialise)
- Gameplay (how the players use the game, how they enjoy it, and what kind of standing the game has in the group)
- Reflection (what experiences the game offers, how it reflects our lives, how it influences our talks and thoughts, and how it changes us)

You may consider this a skeleton for dissecting and discussing RPGs. I'd like to develop it into an essay or book on the subject, but would like to have some comments on the skeleton.

Comments and critique are appreciated!

Hi Tomas,

Could you clarify something for me? It appears that you're in the process of formulating your own comprehensive theory of role playing games. It also appears to me that this theory has very little relationship to GNS, except for a few inevitable overlaps in terms (inevitable because they refer to fundamental aspects of role playing games that one would expect any analysis of role playing games to address, such as "character" and "setting.") There's nothing at all wrong with that. I look forward to discussing your theory once you have it laid out in full.

(There's not much I can say about the theory in its current presentation as a list of terms, though. Sure, all these terms refer to aspects of role playing games. They have designers. They have players/participants. There is gameplay. There are characters and setting. There is a social context. And so on. But I'm waiting to see what your theory has to say about those things.)

What's confusing me is that you tend to phrase things in such a way as to suggest that you're requesting changes to be made in Ron's GNS theory, when what you're really doing, I believe, is describing your own entirely unrelated theory. For instance, when you say "Color should be part of setting" (emphasis added), you could mean:

1. "In my theory, color is part of setting, in contrast to Ron's theory in which it is separate."

2. "Ron's theory is wrong because he says color is separate from setting but it should be part of setting instead."

If what you mean is #1, then there's no problem except that your wording sometimes makes it sound like you're saying #2. There's no need to set your new theory in opposition to GNS or any other theory. Pointing out the differences (as sentence #1) can be helpful in understanding how it differs from other theories, GNS in particular, but you're under no obligation to show that GNS or any other theory is "wrong" in order to promote your own theory. Eventually, your theory will succeed or fail, or be accepted or not, based on how useful it is in improving understanding, designing, and/or playing of role playing games.

But if #2 is what you actually mean, then you're making a different kind of claim that puts more burden on you to back it up right away. If what you're doing is looking at specific terms or statements of GNS and saying "that's wrong, that's wrong, this other thing is wrong," then there's a problem because you're not backing these assertions up with any real arguments, you're just expressing one personal opinion after another. Why should Ron change his theory in the ways that you're demanding? Given that in discussing GNS we've talked about many examples of color that applies to characters, for instance, what argument can you offer that GNS is wrong about that?

Do you see the difference between #1 and #2, and do you see why I'm a little uncertain about which of these two types of statement you're trying to make? Since I see no resemblance in overall structure between your theory and GNS, I believe that what you're trying to say is closer to #1, but your actual phrasing suggests otherwise. So, can you clear that up for me before we proceed?

- Walt

Yes, Walt, I'm in the process of formulating my own ideas on RPgs, and have been som for some years now. I will try to write more cohesive on it this winter.

While I do this, I engage in discussions, sometimes without being able to hold my "grand schemes" back.

This is one such instance, and I interpret it like this: I must be ready to write a serious, broad and detailed article/essay/book on RPGs now.

So Walt; you are quite right; I'm not good at keeping my tongue, and should have posted my "skeleton for a new understanding of RPGs" on the theory-forum, and not here. It is not directly related to the GNS-model.

However; even when my thoughts mutate, they may blossom...

Tomas, I'm not trying to silence you. Just the opposite! I want to see you develop your ideas further. Making it clear that you're talking about an alternate model that stands on its own, rather than a refutation or attempted "correction" of the GNS Model, should get you better feedback here (whether in this forum, or the theory forum).

- Walt

Walt,

I don't think you're trying to silence me. Your comments are appropriate, and I appreciate them.

I will not post my "skeleton" on the theory-forum now, as I have had some feedback at other forums, and reckon central members of the Forge to have read it here, without commenting.

Hello,

Tomas, I see you playing three games in this thread.

Game #1 is, "If I don't get a fast response, then I can be as obnoxious as I want to." You are skilled at being obnoxious while using formal language, such as referring to the person you're speaking to in the third person, or saying "thank you" insincerely. In this case, your reference to others not commenting is another example. Language like that is merely a hypocritical way of saying, "Fuck you, you asshole."

Game #2 is, "I don't have to understand or compare my ideas to anyone else's." Walt's question is correct, and you have not answered it in your reply to him. Do you or don't you want to discover the points of similarity between your ideas and my model? Mike's and my replies provide some of them. Those replies indicate respect for your post. The reason you're not seeing more replies is due to your extreme lack of respect for what you've received so far.

Game #3 is, "Terms are more important than the concepts and connections among them." I disagree with you profoundly. Either we have to arrive at a compromise position in order to understand one another, or we aren't going to be able to communicate. I'm willing to work on such a compromise, but there's no sign that you are.

I don't have time or energy to play any of these games with you. Whatever insights or ideas you have to offer about role-playing - and who knows? they may be brilliant - are not worth it.

So, I'll lay it down for you in strict and straightforward terms. Find some more respectful way to express disagreement. Be patient while awaiting replies. Stop playing the games.

There's really no point to posting here if you can't accord with these points. Now you have a choice. Either you can interpret this post as saying "Shut up, be silent," or you can interpret it as an attempt to reach some actual discourse with you. It's up to you.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Tomas, I see you playing three games in this thread.

Ron Edwards wrote: Game #1 is, "If I don't get a fast response, then I can be as obnoxious as I want to." You are skilled at being obnoxious while using formal language, such as referring to the person you're speaking to in the third person, or saying "thank you" insincerely.

Ron Edwards wrote: Game #2 is, "I don't have to understand or compare my ideas to anyone else's." Walt's question is correct, and you have not answered it in your reply to him.

Ron Edwards wrote: Game #3 is, "Terms are more important than the concepts and connections among them." I disagree with you profoundly.

Hi Tomas,

Wow! Thank you. I appreciate this post a lot, and I now have a better idea of the real-you. That's important to me.

Let's do this right, then.

I think your presentation, in the first post, is very solid. Do you think, as I do, that your "exploration" is very much like my "protagonism," and that your "conflict" is very much like my "Situation"?

It's quite likely that we have independently arrived at some of the same things.

1. Am I reading you correctly that the social interactions that give rise to the presence of your "conflict" and "exploration" must have a certain set of features?

This may be a geographic difference, but here in the States, many role-playing groups are conducted in what I consider to be very badly-conceived social circumstances. ("conceived" meaning "originated" as well as "understood") I spend so much time discussing Social Contract and Social Context due to this phenomenon being so common.

So I'm interested in what social features you consider most necessary for functional play (engaging conflicts, rewarding exploration) to occur.

2. Is there an equivalent term or concept to my Techniques level in your framework? I'm not seeing one, but I'm very interested how you might state this concept.

Now, as far as the terms specifically are concerned, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the role that terms play in thought in general. But I don't think that our disagreement is a deal-breaker; we can probably live with the difference and still manage to work out a good dialogue. For what it's worth, I consider all of my terms to be labile, subject to change through debate ... but I consider that to be a final step in the process of working out terms' meaning, and that to engage in that debate prematurely tends to bleed a discussion dry before it concludes anything.

Best,
Ron