The Forge Archives

One thing that I sure needed when I first arrived (and still need from time to to time now) is a glossary of Forge terms and acronyms. I *think* I understand most of the terms that are sprinkled throughout many posts, but I am still up in the air on a couple of the popular acronyms (I can't recall what they are at the moment).

I know this has been discussed before, but nothing has come of it yet. I think this is due more to a lack of time on the part of the people most qualified to create such a glossary than a lack of enthusiasm for the idea. Therefor, I am going to "step on up" and volunteer to create (and maintain, if necessary) a Forge glossary. (Yay, me!) :)

However...

I don't feel even remotely qualified to define terms that, by my own admission, I have a shaky grasp of at best. My abilities lie in *presenting* information, not necessarily in creating content (I am a trainer and a writer by profession). I'll need the help of others to actually nail down correct definitions. So my invitation/challenge is this: Send me ANY Forge term, concept or acronym that you feel a new member might stumble over. If you can define the term, please do so, but feel free to also send me terms that have you puzzled. I'll compile everything, post it for editing, and then create a cleaned-up version we can present as either a sticky post or a nice PDF. Please send everything to me via Private Message so I'll have it all in one place. Thanks!

Steve

PS. If you're unfamiliar with private messages, they're the internal email system within a message board. To send me a private message just click the PM button at the bottom of this post. To check your own messages, click the "You have [X] new messages" link at the top of the page.

Well, Steve, there's a glossary at the end of the three individual GNS essays:

Narrativism: Story Now
Gamism: Step On Up
Simulationism: The Right to Dream

Scroll to the bottom of each essay to get the glossary bits.

Yup, I was going to start with those and gather all of the terms presented there together into one document, along with any clarifications that have come about as the result of further discussions here on the boards. Also, there may be some other terms that have been introduced since Ron wrote those essays.

Hello,

There goes my surprise. I have a Glossary document nearly completed, which has been through one round of preliminary review. My plan is to clean it up a little, post it at the Forge, and lay it open for a round of responses. The rules for the responses are going to be pretty rigid; it's not intended to be a multi-author consensus document.

Anyway, between Elfs and my non-Forge life, it's just been sitting on my drive in its current state. But it is the next project that's planned for my article-level input here.

Best,
Ron

Oops. Sorry, Ron, didn't mean to spill the beans (especially when I didn't even realize I was holding any). I'll get back to my game development stuff instead! :)

Steve

Hi Steve,

Tell you what, your steppin' on up has earned you the right to early-reviewer status, so make sure and send me your email address by private message. I still owe you a prize for your limerick, too.

Best,
Ron

does the term http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=857">gnarliburr make it? ;)

(in any event, I need to rekickstart the project get the referenced article and the rest of our society magazine online)

in the Glossary article itself, or the ensuing discussion, I think references to threads which nailed concepts would be useful

Quote from: kwillin the Glossary article itself, or the ensuing discussion, I think references to threads which nailed concepts would be useful

Ya beat me to it, kwill.

To provide more feedback for the fine folks working on the Glossary project: Usually, whenever I encounter new jargon in the essays, the first thing I do right after reading it is perform a search of the fora for the new terms. I also do this often for even old terms. It's gotten to a point though that the search results are often a bit unwieldy to go through. (Although it must be said that it's half of the time at least a helpful slogging through since you get to place the context and see the development of the terms you're interested in.)

I realise that a thread reference along with the Glossary might be just too much to come up with. In which case, I propose that upon the release of said Glossary, we can perhaps help each other out by putting a thread reference thread up on the appropriate fora and then fill it up with the needed pointers ourselves. It'll certainly help the new folks and help everyone else with handy pointers to the discussions.

Mabuhay,

- W.

I think we may be jumping the gun a bit here fellas since the glossary article is not ready yet.

That said, I'd like to voice the opposite opinion on the thread references. Some of the terms in the glossary at the end of the three G,N,S articles have such links and I never look at the referencing thread and even when I do, I don't find it especially useful. If the meaning of the term is nailed down somewhere in the thread, it's no fun slogging through an entire thread trying to find it among the rest of the discussion and misuses of the term as the meaning is hashed out and contrary to the purpose of a glossary.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrI think we may be jumping the gun a bit here fellas since the glossary article is not ready yet.

Hi, Jack:

Yeah. You're right. Let's wait until the Glossary comes out before we do anything about this (not that we can do anything about it before it comes out). It could end up being complete enough to require little or no reference threads (and those are already in the articles as Ron and company see fit).

To Ron and the Glossary folks: Good luck and Godspeed. It'll be a much appreciated addition to the essays already up. Thanks for taking the time.

- W.

Hi.  I missed this thread when it started, but it's still on the first page so I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.  

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere goes my surprise. I have a Glossary document nearly completed, which has been through one round of preliminary review. My plan is to clean it up a little, post it at the Forge, and lay it open for a round of responses. The rules for the responses are going to be pretty rigid; it's not intended to be a multi-author consensus document.

OK, I am going to step up here and put a bit of criticism.  Ron -- I think you can and should make a "guide to terms in Ron's theories".   However, I don't think this is a suitable approach for an official Forge glossary -- because The Forge is more than just Ron's theories.    

I would like to suggest that the glossary document could perhaps form the start of a more expansive glossary.  An official glossary -- if there is to be one -- should IMO be completely open in development, multi-author, and should be a living document which changes to reflect current usage.  It could perhaps be set up as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki">Wiki, or just have active maintainers who respond to change requests.

Hello,

Shock and surprise, John, I've already considered that issue. It is indeed the main reason for all this delay: how can a Forge Glossary be, in effect, Ron's Guide to Role-playing? Answer: it can't. Or rather, to achieve the latter by posting the former is abusive. But to post the former without some reference to the latter is not functional.

Solution 1: a big Wiki where, in effect, various levels of understanding come together and create monstrous hybrids of misunderstanding.

Solution 2: I write the damn thing with an explicit goal which differs from My Guide.

I chose Solution #2. The goal of the Glossary is to be as helpful as possible to an interested newcomer to the Forge. Everything in it is there for that purpose. If you don't trust me on that - like some former Forge posters, convinced that I must be up to something - then that's your privilege.

Does the Glossary include a Big Model section? Yes it does; I think that's a necessary part of it because that's the basis for a lot of our discussions here. Does it say "You must believe this Big Model" or "Everyone at the Forge believes it?" No. And you know what, I don't care how many people think it must say that when they read it, 'cause it doesn't.

Basically, I can't do something that everyone wants me to do: write a perfect glossary that will express the complete range of possible RPG Theory, from day one, through at least two mailing lists and four websites, with fair dinkum given to every single nuance ever mentioned, to every reader's personal satisfaction. Can't be done.

Like it or don't - it's written by me and thus will have all the various personal takes, understandings, limitations, biases, and so forth that accrue to any document ever written by a person. That's too bad, for people who have a problem with that and are looking for the Golden Document of Fair-minded Summary. Anyone is free to craft such a document and post it; hell, it can be an article here at the Forge.

The only thing I can say is that it has been written for the sole purpose of helping an interested newcomer become more comfortable with the various jargon and slang utilized here, with links and so on that back up some scholarship if someone wants.

Status Report: the first draft is in Clinton's hands, and he is PDFing it in his copious spare time. It will be posted at the Forge and be subject to critique and debate from all you monkeys for one month. I'll post some rules about that, because believe me, there will be rules.

Then it'll get revised according to whatever criticisms and additions and so forth seem most helpful.

But I'll say to you all now: do not crank about how it's not the document you wanted. Write that one yourself, and I'll be the first to cite it when necessary.

Best,
Ron

anyone who feels like opting for solution number one can check out the aforelinked wiki, the Wikipedia

note that there are already entries on role-playing games and "GNS Theory"

I think that Forgites could make meaningful contributions to the former (it includes notes on the history of roleplaying), but I offer the latter as a example of what can go wrong with the wiki method, as it makes some fairly careless errors: confounding GNS with other topics, for one

(according to the ethos of wikis and wikipedia these errors simply corrected by contributors, unfortunately this sometimes leads to edit wars - in any event, I'll wait for the glossary before amending this definition, if anyone else wants to jump in early, go ahead)

I came across a roleplaying-focused encyclopaedic wiki recently which I haven't been able to find again, I *think* it was associated with rpg.net - it hadn't been updated in a while though