The Forge Archives

I've been thinking about this topic for a little while now, actually since I had a nice chat with Alan McVey at a conference a month back, and when I briefly come back to the world of fast internet connections I find that James (jdrakeh) has restarted the Forge Hubris thread.  I read along through three pages, see it slide horribly into a discussion of who's got the most brains, and finally a very tolerant Ron closes the thing.  So I'm starting again on a slightly different basis.  I think this also makes more sense in RPG Theory rather than Site Discussion, because what interests me is how we theorize and use terms, rather than what others think of us.  But I'll start where the other thread left off.

The problem at hand, if it is a problem, is that some folks perceive The Forge as elitist.  That doesn't bother me, as such, since I don't think of elitism as necessarily a bad thing.  But the various criticisms really focus on the use and abuse of jargon, which is something that interests me a lot.  The question, as I see it, is how to evaluate jargon and decide when and whether it is useful.

We seem mostly to agree that jargon as shorthand is useful.  Instead of explaining the whole GNS theory for several paragraphs, it's handy to be able to say "GNS" and figure that the audience knows what I'm talking about.  Obviously I have to pick my audience, but that's the point of the Forge glossary and the search engine: I can check and see whether a given term really is in general use here, without guessing.

Now granted that, the point of these jargon-terms is that each refers to a specific, relatively complex concept, one not easily expressed in just a few words.  In addition, it is assumed that everyone in the discussion can make the translation from term to concept.

My first criticism, which I've made before, is that I don't think this is always true.

1. Some terms refer to quite simple concepts that could be expressed quickly.
2. Some posters could not, if asked point-blank, translate the terms they use.

The second problem here leads to the difficulty mentioned in the previous thread, where someone asks for a definition and gets several contradictory answers.  At the same time, as noted before, terms that are in flux cannot be defined simply and rigidly, because they aren't rigid.  Here it would be helpful to make clear that the term is indeed in flux.

But all of this is really secondary.  To me, the great problem with jargon as it is used here (and some other places) is that the words or acronyms are used like pins with butterflies: they nail down concepts rather than opening them up for discussion.  This leads to a lot of sterile debate about what X term "really means," or rather "should" mean.

Those debates are, if you ask me (which you didn't, I realize), pointless.  Unless someone has proprietary rights to a term, as in a sense Ron does with some GNS terms, there isn't any "really" to the meanings.  And by focusing on terms, we lose track of concepts.

Let me put it like this.  At present, much of the theoretical discussion here is about classification.  Folks see RPGs as a kind of elaborate machine, and they want to tally up the different parts and describe how they work.  Once a particular piece of the machine has been identified, explained, and labeled, it's taken as read that the piece exists as known.

But who says RPGs are machines in the first place?  Who says there can ever be a single cohesive description of how RPGs work and what they do?

Take literature, which gets a lot of play here.  There are lots of completely different ways of looking at literary works, not all compatible.  If the purpose of analysis is to help people write their own literature, the methods and structures of analysis, as well as the terms, will be quite different from those used if the purpose is to understand how a given piece of literature affected and was affected by its historical and social context.  It's not a question of which is right; the point is that you have to analyze differently for different purposes.

To my mind, a lot of the "Forge hubris" problem comes down to a continuous, low-level clash of purposes.  Almost everyone here wants to analyze games in order to design new ones.  But designing one kind of game may require different methods than does designing another kind; this would seem implied by the GNS model's success.  It is at least possible, then, that analysis for Narrativist purposes must run on somewhat different lines from analysis for Gamist purposes.  In that case, no single set of terms is going to cover everything effectively.  And, a fortiori, if your purposes do not entirely align with GNS classifications, your methods and terms and concepts will have to be quite different again.

I'm not saying that Forge terminology is useless, unhelpful, or (god help us) elitist.  What I'm saying is that there is an overemphasis on classification and labeling.  What is needed is new concepts, not reification of the ones we've already got, with cute labels to help out.

As an example, I find most of the GNS Forum discussion rather dull.  Most of it seems to fall into a few well-defined categories:

[*]I don't understand X term, can you explain?
[*]I don't like X concept, can't it change?
[*]I don't like X term, and want to substitute Y.
[*]Is my game G, N, or S?
[*]I think we should add another subdivision within X part of the Model.[/list:u]Some of this is exceptionally valuable, especially for those new to the theory.  Eventually, I expect that much of what is gained in terms of conceptual clarity will be reflected in revised GNS essays by Ron, as already happened with the move from the old essays to the three new ones, and as is presumably happening with the Glossary project.  But there's very little room for something new here: it's all a matter of cleaning up and polishing an established cluster of concepts.

I think that this is the inevitable fate of terminological discussion.  You start with a great set of concepts, clarify and debate it, and eventually formulate it all cleanly and concisely; after that, it's all a question of application, or else of hammering fruitlessly at terms to produce some mythical "perfect" version.  What I see now is a lot of fruitless hammering, and not a lot of generating totally new concepts.

Where I think we tend to go astray in finding new concepts, honestly, is in moving much too rapidly toward classification with respect to established (mostly GNS/Big Model) theory.  When someone proposes something new, it's worth considering whether it might be something that simply doesn't belong in the Big Model at all.  I have periodically battered at the Big Model because I don't think its hierarchical structure is valuable, but in point of fact a non-hierarchical model simply isn't the Big Model; there's no point in de-hierarchizing the Big Model, and what would be more valuable is to formulate a model, for some particular purpose, without regard for it relation to the Big Model.

This brings me to my last point (finally!).  Terms, models, concepts, and analytical methods must have a clear purpose and function.  When we try to generate scientific-style models, we claim implicitly or explicitly that RPGs are like certain sorts of objects in the natural world.  Okay, so why would we want to claim this?  What is gained thereby?  When I wrote my essay on ritual theory, the point was that RPGs can be understood as ritual behaviors—which are not parts of the natural, phenomenal world.  In order to do that meaningfully, I had to explain (or try to) why it is valuable to think of RPGs as ritual as opposed to (for example) natural objects or systems.

At this stage of discussion, I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project, begun largely by Ron, without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be.  I think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model.  What this produces, as we've seen, is a tendency to generate increasingly arcane and narrow terms and to focus everything on Ron's work.  This, I think, more than anything, produces the criticism that The Forge is jargon-crazy and a cult of Ron.  Neither is true, really, but our overemphasis on the scientific or engineering style of modeling and analysis does make it seem so.

I have, in other places such as this thread here suggested some other kinds of theory and some other styles of analysis.  Others have been doing this too: Emily's recent thing on psychology leaps to mind.  We need to see a lot more of this, and we need to recognize that new insights and ideas may not fit into established models and structures.  The more self-aware we are about this, the less we will be focused on terms and the more we will examine ideas.  In the long run, at least, I think this will make our terminology increasingly helpful and specific, and will help convince new readers that The Forge is open, exciting, and full of ideas.

I think Chris is on the ball here.

I think that the attempt at scientific rigour has been largely negative in its impact largely because it's not been implemented properly.

Firstly, RPG theory is young and most scientific processes start with cataloguing before explaining and theorising.  GNS jumpped straight to the theorising without making a serious try at accounting for all forms of RPG... this results in people popping up and saying that GNS doesn't account for their type of game.  This is obviously most common with SIM.

Secondly, scientific or not, a theory exists within an academic tradition with its own criteria for rigour, truth and what constitutes a  good analysis. By being part descriptive, part therapeutic and part aesthetic, GNS fails to have a coherent set of criteria.  Instead there are social criteria as defined by the group... i.e. when a thread needs to be considered closed, when an issue needs to be split off into a separate topic and what constitutes a legitimate challenge to the theory.


I think the scientific language is understandable given Ron's day job but ultimately it's cosmetic, like post-modern philosophers using maths to back up their theories (affaire Sokal and all that).  GNS has a therapeutic and an aestheitc element that is not scientific strictly speaking and it's not falsifiable in any way.  There's scientific language there but frankly, not everyone here shares those scientific values.


so yeah... I agree Chris :-)

Chris, I'm not sure what to take away from you post. I have a few specific questions:

Quote1. Some terms refer to quite simple concepts that could be expressed quickly.

Which terms? If they are indeed problematic, then criticizing them without naming them isn't very helpful. If we can improve it, let's do it. If not, what's the problem?

Quote2. Some posters could not, if asked point-blank, translate the terms they use.

Is this a problem with the terms or with the posters? Both? Seems to me to be a problem with posters, not with the terms. Are we blaming terminology for posters' ignorance? (And, yeah, this is where some of the elitism claims and ensuing derision comes from. People hate "You just don't get it" replies, and I can understand that. But, of course, that's an entirely plausible scenario. There must be cases where we chime in and say, "You're not getting it." But those actual cases are ones in which the terms aren't in question; peoples feelings about the terms and the community are.)

QuoteAt this stage of discussion, I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project, begun largely by Ron, without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be.

Are you saying that Ron has created this model without much thought as to its point or purpose? Or, are you saying that people who pick up Ron's writings don't have a point in mind? I'm earnestly asking; it can't tell what you're saying here.

And, has the point become so unclear? I see the following points from where I'm typing -- there are likely more that I don't consider or recognize.

1) Analyze and remedy social dysfunction in role-playing game groups.

2) Recognize processes by which people play role-playing games, thus creating a goal or end-point for designing new role-playing games.

3) Appreciate other viewpoints and interests in role-playing that one individual cannot enjoy or understand otherwise.

And, finally:

QuoteI think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model.

That's all we can do from the standpoint of creating new models or greatly, significantly expanding or changing the Big Model. But, of course, it's not all we can do in applying the Big Model to actual play. Isn't that enough? Or, is that not what you're saying at all? Isn't it ok to accept and use the Big Model in actual play to make it worthwhile, worth discussing, and to accept its style? (I say this with my own given: that it has actually worked for myself and many other people participating here.)

Chris, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I recognize and value that you're looking for new things. That's great! Knock me out, please!

I'm not really disagreeing with your intentions or aims at all, just more so puzzled by language you use about the existing theory. I sense (but am definitely not certain!) that you don't find much value in the Big Model as presented and discussed to date. Your post includes language (some of which I quoted here) that either isn't very interested in practical applications of the Big Model or outright dismisses them as the wrong means to proceed (and perhaps -- indeed is likely -- you're saying that it's "wrong" for your own personal case, i.e. you are looking for some new way of thinking about concepts as "big" as the Big Model but that have more value to you, yes?).

Quote from: MR. AnalyticalRPG theory is young and most scientific processes start with cataloguing before explaining and theorising.  GNS jumpped straight to the theorising without making a serious try at accounting for all forms of RPG.

Part of this is that GNS is helping to define what it is we're cataloguing. I don't think it would have been remotely possible to account for "all forms of RPGs" because that's meaningless without some sort of taxonomy of design (something that lets us differentiate "this form" from "that form" so they can be catalogued).

To me, this criticism is akin to complaining that the biological taxonomy of all life forms is broken because we began using it without cataloguing all forms of life.

With RPGs, the differences between life forms are even less visible to the passing observer, and even the trained observer, so we need to discuss what we have and determine those differences as we go, just so we have some starting reference to expand upon.

(I could also get into the problem with comparing it to "real science" and how that "wouldn't have done it this way" because there's this conception of science as this pure, analytical, logical thing where B simply procedes from A obviously and frictionlessly...which, in practice, it isn't and doesn't, especially when you get into making and testing and proving theories. The arguments around GNS would be par for the course in any "real" scientific discipline.)

Rev...

Your point about taxonomies is well made, a taxonomy is inherrently about imposing a conceptual grid on the world therefore there's some element of theorising in cataloguing.  Fine.

Clearly theory-ladeness is a spectrum with sociology at one end and physics at the other.  GNS models itself upon high-end natural sciences where there are observable and naturally clear and distinct categories of entity. Sociology has largely rejected such an approach because, if taken to its logical conclusion you're wasting your time.

Science is largely a matter of rules... conditions for what is a good argument, what constitutes proof, when is a theory verified.  As you yourself say, RPG phenomena aren't easily separated from our perceptions.  You seem to suggest that the response to this is to be less demanding.  The other way is to say little at all or nothing because verification is so difficult.  Sociology has gone the first way by opening the door to various ideologies that allow for the kind of special pleading you're doing.  I have no real problem with this... Sociology knows its place.  GNS doesn't... GNS talks about rigour and natural sciences.  But then fails to live up to scientific ideals and methods.  The inclusion of a therapeutic and aesthetic side of GNS is a living monument to this.


Clearly GNS has not lived up to Ron's hopes for it in terms of rigour.  It's nobody's fault, a social scientist might say it was doomed to happen given the subject matter.  So I agree with Chris' point.  

Beyond give a veneer of intellectual authority, it's not clear what the scientific posture actually does for GNS.  Some might argue here that the result of this is to look for other methodologies... like sociology GNS might flourish under less of a commitment to reason and truth and more of an atmosphere of monography and subjective experience.   As a social scientist though I'm less forgiving :-)

Thanks, Chris, for posting this particular discussion. I'm still chewing on aspects, so I'm not quite ready to give an intelligent response, nor am I entirely sure that I'm capable of an intelligent response.

Still, I want to pick the following out of the mass:

Quote from: clehrich...the great problem with jargon as it is used here (and some other places) is that the words or acronyms are used like pins with butterflies: they nail down concepts rather than opening them up for discussion.

Yes, it is really a thing of beauty. It hits me as 'true,' even though I'm not sure how I can articulate how.

Any chance you'd grace us with a specific example? Point at some discussion here where the concept in question was restrained instead of explored?

Erick

Matt,

Thanks for that response.  You clarified for me some places where I was not at all clear, and where I think I'm really failing to communicate.

Quote from: Matt SnyderWhich terms [could be expressed quickly]? If they are indeed problematic, then criticizing them without naming them isn't very helpful. If we can improve it, let's do it. If not, what's the problem?

As I'll explain in a minute, this is really a side issue for me; the goal wasn't particularly to attack the Big Model or its particular terms.  Personally, I think that a lot of the acronyms (SIS, IC, OOC, etc.) are a pain and really do pose a barrier to newcomers' understanding and participation.  But I'd have to sit down with the whole Glossary and pick out terms -- and as I say, that's not really my object here.

Quote[If posters can't always explain the terms they use,] Is this a problem with the terms or with the posters? Both? Seems to me to be a problem with posters, not with the terms. Are we blaming terminology for posters' ignorance?

You're exactly right -- it's a problem with the posters, or more accurately, with the style of posting.  It's not the terms that are at fault here, but jargon as a stylistic strategy.

Quote

Quote from: I... I think too much time is spent trying to continue a natural-scientific project ... without there being a lot of thinking about what the point of such a model would be.

Are you saying that Ron has created this model without much thought as to its point or purpose? Or, are you saying that people who pick up Ron's writings don't have a point in mind? I'm earnestly asking; it can't tell what you're saying here.

No no, it's a very good question.  This is something I need to be very clear about, and since you're asking I wasn't clear enough.  This is going to take a little time—I hope you've got a minute!

Ron (I honestly believe) had and has a point in developing the Big Model, or rather several points.  As I understand it, the primary goal was a model that would assist in diagnosing and fixing problems in actual play, with the further object of improving design methods so as to prevent such problems in advance.  For this purpose, Ron chose, quite possibly because of his scientific training, a scientific-style semi-taxonomic system, based on a hiearchical series of categories.  This allows rapid classification of games and play, and thus permits diagnosis and correction to get straight to the heart of the matter.  [Ron, would you accept this description?]

For the most part, this model has succeeded.  Not only have many players (like yourself, and me) used the model effectively to diagnose their own games, but a number of excellent new games have been designed with conscious awareness of Big Model criteria.

BUT...

The overwhelming success of the Big Model has, to my mind, entailed that a number of its initial axioms are now taken for granted, "naturalized" to use one sort of jargon.  When new theorizing occurs, it tends to do so within the frame of these axioms, such that most new theory around here seems to respond directly to, challenge, bend, or tinker with the Big Model.  In short, the Big Model has itself begun to be naturalized here; it is accepted as "known" rather than as a particular, motivated, historical structure with specific goals and purposes.

By "axioms" I mean assumptions in a formal sense.  I do not mean that Ron necessarily assumes these things to be true; rather, he laid them out -- consciously or otherwise -- as axioms upon which to found a model.  As we all know, I think, such axioms are unchallengeable from within the model itself, assuming we want the model to be fully self-consistent.  Bear that strongly in mind throughout what follows, ok?

Some Big Model axioms (in no particular order, and not an exhaustive list):

[*]Analysis begins with classification
[*]Classification is hierarchical
[*]RPGs are essentialy freestanding systems, of which social behavior is one of many parts
[*]Categories should, whenever possible, be absolute: things can't be half-in and half-out of a category[/list:u]All of these axioms are perfectly reasonable.  To judge by the success of the Big Model, they are also workable.  But they are not necessary assumptions, i.e. not simply facts.

Quote from: When II think that until we get out of the notion that the style of the Big Model is a given, all we can do is go around in circles looking for a few new wrinkles in the Model.

What I really meant, to use this language of axioms and such, was that theorizing about RPGs needs to be aware of the fundamentally -- and appropriately -- limited nature of the Big Model and its axioms.  The style of that Model, as noted before, is scientific; I use the word "style" because I'm not interested in an argument about whether it "really" is scientific or not.  My point is that this scientific, classifying, binary type of model or theory is by no means the only kind or type of model, nor necessarily the most valuable for purposes other than those of the Big Model as such.

Here's where I start to get cranky, you see.  There is this constant drive to classify, to nail things down.  People keep throwing actual play into the Big Model in order to classify this or that.  This leads not only to classification of elements or aspects of the game, but also to continual fine-tuning of the categories of the Big Model.  Where this leads is into discussions of what, let's say, Narrativism "really" is. [Some of this "let's classify X" stuff is about somebody making sure he or she understands the Model accurately, which is fine and useful on that basis.]

Narrativism "really" is an abstract category constructed by Ron and a whole lot of discussions over the years, that can be used to label some practices for particular purposes.  Narrativism isn't a thing -- it doesn't exist.  It's just a set of glasses we put on when we want to look at real behavior in particular ways.

That may not seem like a problem, and so long as everyone bears in mind the various purposes of putting on those glasses, it isn't a problem.  But where I see discussion going, quite a lot, is toward a problem we have all the time in intellectual history and the study of religion, i.e. my day job.  That problem: people keep insisting that religion, ritual, myth, science, and the like are things, real things, that we can go out and analyze.  We can't -- they're constructs, abstract categories like Narrativism.  There is no religion out there; there is only behavior that we can, if we choose, for particular reasons, classify in that way.  Just so, there is no Narrativism out there; there are only games, and we can choose to classify them with respect to the category "Narrativism" if we want to, for particular reasons.

But when you have placed a game or system or whatever into the box marked "Narrativism," you have not done anything.  That is, you have not yet analyzed anything.  All you've done is asserted that by labeling the thing "Narrativism," you will analyze it in a relatively specific fashion.

One mode of such analysis is practical: by deciding that what you're looking at can be labeled Narrativism, you can go on to say that certain elements of the game are relatively strange, unimportant, or broken by that standard.  So you might change the game to make that not true, and thereby move toward greater coherence.  Fine -- but classifying the thing as Narrativism was a preliminary, not itself an achievement.

So to get back to the issue of axioms and so forth, I find that a lot of discussion is increasingly focused on correct classification and concomitantly less focused on making that classifying activity serve a function.  As you say, the Big Model does have a number of purposes, and it serves them well.  But I think that the strong naturalization of that model and its style is leading into the logical cul-de-sac of classifying instead of analyzing.  

I think the healthiest thing for the Big Model itself, and also for RPG theorizing more broadly, is to take a big step back from the Model.  Recognize it for what it is, what it does, and what's so good about it.  If it has intrinsic problems -- internal inconsistencies, etc. -- those are worth fixing.  If it can be added to and thereby made to achieve some of its goals better, that should be done.  But the fact that things can be made to fit into the Big Model proves nothing at all, and the procedure of classifying by those means must not be allowed to distract from actual analysis.

In short, I find that folks keep assuming that classification is necessary -- it isn't.  They keep assuming that classification should be a hierarchical matter, that things have to fit into or contain other things -- it needn't be so.  They keep assuming that classificatory taxa should be binary, or absolute, i.e. that classified objects should be either in or out of a taxon -- that's not required.

I think that a lot of the constant attempt to add little subdivisions and fillips into the Big Model is so much wasted effort, effort that would be better devoted to starting afresh or drawing new insights from elsewhere, i.e. adding something new to the theoretical conversation.  The Big Model runs just fine, thanks; don't keep messing with it all the time.

Does this mean we should discard the Model?  Hell, no.  But that's another common (implicit) assumption around here, that "there can be only one", i.e. only one coherent theoretical model can operate successfully.

Let me conclude with an example.  There are periodic RPG Theory threads [no, I'm not going to name names or point to threads, that's not the point] in which a poster, usually a newcomer but not always, posts a new model, something quite different in many respects from the Big Model.  What is the appropriate response, given that the Big Model is not (as Ron happily admits) the only possible legitimate model?

1. What is this new model supposed to do?
2. What is the intended range of the model, i.e. what's it supposed to cover?
3. Okay, given that, how does it work?
4. How well (if at all) does it work?[/list:u]I find that the usual first response is instead, "The Big Model already does that, so this isn't new."  Admittedly, the vast majority of such models are classification systems based on similar axioms to the Big Model's, but I don't see a lot of thinking or asking about what these models are

for, and whether that might be valuable or interesting in its own right.

Similarly, when people occasionally post strange new things that are way outside the Big Model, in purposes and assumptions, one common response (by no means the only one, let me emphasize) is to classify the elements in Big Model terms, and then see how the Big Model does or does not change as a result.  If the point is to do this as a preliminary to really understanding the new material, i.e. making a tentative comparison to a known model as a step toward fully grasping an unknown one, that seems reasonable.  But what I find usually happens instead is that most of the effort goes into explicating how X term from the new stuff is equivalent to Y term in the Big Model, and in the end all that's left is the Big Model.  Whatever was really different from the Big Model, i.e. the cool new stuff, seems to get ground away in this process.

Obviously I'm going on far too long here, but I'm trying to be very clear – and probably failing. I hope I've clarified, at the least, that my point is emphatically not to criticize the Big Model.  My point is instead to criticize the way in which that Model and its axioms have become naturalized to the point that it is impeding the development of new theories.

Now I'll shut up and let somebody else talk.

Quote from: Erick WujcikAny chance you'd grace us with a specific example? Point at some discussion here where the concept in question was restrained instead of explored?

On the one hand, that's a very reasonable request; it would probably clarify things a good deal if I said, "Here, look at this discussion.  It's an example of spending a lot of time nailing down terms and not really achieving anything analytically."

On the other hand, that really feels to me like a kind of flame-bait.  Not your post, I mean, but I worry that if I said that some discussion demonstrated my point, it would essentially also say that certain people were good examples of something I dislike.  And I have a reaaallly bad feeling about that.

I'm going to ask for a call from Ron on this one.  Ron, what do you think?  Would pointing to and remarking on a couple of other threads be a useful clarification or is it likely just to drag up old fights and probably start some new ones?

Chris,

Quote from: Money Quote!!!My point is instead to criticize the way in which that Model and its axioms have become naturalized to the point that it is impeding the development of new theories.

I'm following you now. You are not failing to explain. Much clearer now, thanks. In fact, wholly clear. No head-scratchers for me now. I think you're making a valid point, and it's a good first step in clearing away some potential theorist's mental "cobwebs." I'm all for that.

Two observations:

First, in the situation you posed, in which someone's thoughts are dismissed because GNS has "been there, done that." I actually think that's a pretty fair criticism of their theory. If we have something that works, we don't really need something new that works equally well. We need something better or different. So, I think theories that do cover the same ground on the Big Model will fail on the Forge. They are, of course, free to flourish anywhere, and I think they will if there's merit and dedication there.

Obviously, if the Forger who says "Been there, done that" is wrong, then there's something new or different in what the new theory says. Great! And, also obviously, any new theorist must have the gumption to stick with it when the Forgers are wrong or missing something.

I think that to be accepted at this community, the burden falls on the new theorist to show how they are different or better in approach. The burden falls on the new theorist to show those points you're raising (What is this new model supposed to do? Etc.), not necessarily on the Forge to ask them. That's my take on it, anyway.

Second, it seems to me the style of a theory, as you use that term, isn't as important as the content within that style. If you went out, found a new, non-hierarchical theory that covered, oh, 90% (or, worse, 100%) of the same ground the Big Model does, I wouldn't be very interested in it, style or otherwise. I don't care overly much about the style; I care about what the theory tells me. I don't care so much how it tells me. I'm willing to learn to think in that "style" if there's merit in what it says. God knows I struggled with some of Ron's stuff early on!

Put simply: I (like you it seems) think all this talk about "scientific language" and whether it's science or not isn't useful. I'm interested in seeing something offer something significant and new. I'm not interested in someone re-writing GNS to rebel against patriarchy (I kid!).

Quote from: Matt SnyderSecond, it seems to me the style of a theory, as you use that term, isn't as important as the content within that style. If you went out, found a new, non-hierarchical theory that covered, oh, 90% (or, worse, 100%) of the same ground the Big Model does, I wouldn't be very interested in it, style or otherwise. I don't care overly much about the style; I care about what the theory tells me. I don't care so much how it tells me. I'm willing to learn to think in that "style" if there's merit in what it says.

We're totally on the same page, Matt.  Just one little odd point of interest here.

Suppose, hypothetically, that someone proposed a new, non-hierarchical theory that covered 100% of the same ground as the Big Model.  Your hypothetical, obviously.  Now one point is that this is in a sense an impossibility.  If it's not hierarchical, it cannot be equivalent to the Big Model.  What the new theory might do is to propose a different classification system that has slots for all the same objects as are classified in the Big Model.  What the author of this new theory would have to do, to justify its existence (and the time of those reading it), would be to argue that the new classification system produces different sorts of results from the Big Model.  I don't mean that the classification is different, but that the result is different.  See, the Big Model, as we've discussed, has a purpose; all the classification and whatnot is a means to an end, not in itself valuable.  If the Big Model doesn't produce results (and it does), then it's a waste of time.  If the new non-hierarchical model doesn't produce results that aren't already produced by the Big Model, then it's a waste of time.

My feeling is that new theory isn't going to happen by classification at all.  It's not going to go out and find new objects that the Big Model doesn't classify.  If you want classification, so far as I'm concerned the Big Model does a fine job.  Rather, new theory is going to be interested in the dynamics of things, in how stuff happens, how things interact.  And since the Big Model already exists as a kind of glossary, it's going to be helpful to use its terminology rather than define new words for the same old categories.

But here's the trick, i.e. where it's going to be difficult to communicate successfully -- on every side.  If a new theory that does not operate on the same structures as the Big Model, and does not have the same goals or purposes or intended results, nevertheless goes ahead and uses Big Model terminology, then what I think will happen is that people will respond by saying, "No, you're misunderstanding X and Y term from the Big Model."  What they will mean, in that case, is that the new theory is using those terms in relation to structures and dynamics quite different from those of the Big Model.  What the theorist would mean, ideally, is that he or she doesn't feel like inventing new terms for, let's say, Shared Imaginary Space and Actor Stance, and is simply using them in a totally different structural context.  Do you see how that's going to be a difficult discussion?  In fact, I think I've seen this happen several times, though quite possibly not consciously on the theorist's part.

One obvious solution is not to use the same terms as the Big Model.  But that's going to lead to wild proliferation of jargon, which takes us back to where this whole thread started.  Is there a solution?  No, probably not, but I do think that the theorist has got to be exceedingly careful about explaining, when a term is borrowed from the Big Model, that he is making a modification by taking it at least partly out of its usual context.

Anyway, just a thought.

Far out. Total agreement here, Chris. That last issue you raise will be a touchy one -- that is, appropriating obvious terms from the Big Model for a new model of some kind. Good luck on the poor bastard who enters those waters!

I disagree.

One of the strong points of the Big Model, and really of the glossary in general, is that much of the vocabulary--while commonly understood in terms of how particular words relate to the Model--actually creates a common roleplayer's vocabulary.  I propose that, aside from the terms necessarily defined in relation to some aspect of the Model, lifting words like stance and creative agenda out of the Model is easier than we all think.

Tim, to my mind that is, at present, a collateral benefit, which has arisen as much out of the moderation and debating style of the Forge as the big model itself. Which isn't to say that it isn't valuable, or indeed that any common vocabulary doesn't also express the assumptions of the arena in which the vocabulary arose, but the creation of the vocabulary would have happened pretty much regardless of the form of the big model.

I'm also slightly threadjacking, in order to use the above to post a muted "me too". In my opinion, far too much effort has been spent (I'm tending to think wasted) on "classify my game" threads. For my purposes, when the big model classifies the thrust of games as, say Narrativist, it's not saying that other Creative agenda are excluded, it's not saying that all N games, frex, follow a precise pattern or form, it's saying that it shares a common, broad motivation for play that other N games do. No more, no less.

Furthermore, to expande on Chris Lerich's point, to a great extent classification of these games has been restricted to GNS classification. As Chris said, mounting them on pins, with the only debate being what colour of pin we're going to use. Which to me yields essentially dull results. It doesn't tell me what worked, what didn't, and what that tells us about enjoyable play and, indeed, about the big model itself.

As for the continued cry that the big model, and GNS in particular, is supposed to diagnose the causes of dyfunctional play, not worry about funcitonal play... sorry, but I hate to see this fall into the same error that many diagnostic disciplines are trying to drag themselves out of. Psychiatric medicine has only relatively recently bothered to research what is "normal" psychiatry, for example. When they found out that over a quarter of the population have heard a voice in their head in their lives, it should have shaken up diagnosis of schizophrenia more than it did...

Excuse the rambling, but I'd like the model to be able to say something meaningful about good play as well as bad. At the moment, it seems ot be slipping into stamp collectors mode...

Chris,
Mostly I agree with what you've said. A few minor quibles.

First, you may well be right that the next theory will not classify. In fact, that sounds plausible for psychological reasons (need to differentiate clearly from the Big Model). But it is not, I think, necessary. The Big Model slices things one way; in something as complex as RPGs there have to be other ways to slice (think of slicing bread vertically or horizontally; are you eating "normal" sandwiches or a sub sandwich?).

As for the jargon recycling, I think there's two acceptable cases:

- The word means exactly the same thing in the Big Model (BM) and the New Theory (NT).

- The NT use of the word extends the BM use in a consistent way. (As in what happened when people started talking about electromagnetic energy, extending a concept previously applied only to things mechanical.)

Otherwise, come up with a new word. If you think your concept is really close to a BM concept, come up with a really similar word.

But, prior to all that, there's got to be purpose to the exercise. To tell people to go forth and theorize is as pointless as ordering them to be funny. You come up with a new theory because you have this burr up your ass, not because there's this neat forum where you could post it. So, switching metaphors in mid-paragraph, what we're doing here is clearing the leaves, dirt and maybe the occasional fallen tree from the path. Cool. Worthwhile to do.

But it doesn't really get me on the edge of my seat. Not until I see somebody actually walking down that path. Which makes this into a really long-winded way of asking whether you started this thread in general or to facilitate a specific new theory?

SR
--

Quote from: clehrichDo you see how that's going to be a difficult discussion?  In fact, I think I've seen this happen several times, though quite possibly not consciously on the theorist's part.

But this is basically inevitable in ALL forms of human communication.  I remember having a discussion with someone about tantric sex and our disagreement boiled down to having different definitions of "orgasm" :-)

Basically it strikes me that all you're really saying is that GNS dominates these boards far too much and that space should be allowed for alternative theories that compete with GNS either directly (by sharing its assumptions) or indirectly (by wanting to be the way people think about RPGs).  So you're advocating stepping back from GNS and allowing other GNS-Independent theories to spawn without people trying to refute them from a GNS position, explain them away in GNS terms or reject them out of hand as failed attempts at understanding GNS.


And for the record, I don't think whether or not it's science is irrelevant at all.  By identifying itself with natural science GNS effectively binds itself to certain rules and standards of debate.  The behaviour you're criticising is actually very similar to non-critical Kuhnian scientific study, where new discoveries are systematically incorporated into the dominant theory.   If you buy into GNS as science then that effectively binds GNS, and these boards,  to some of the assumptions you talk about.  If GNS isn't science then there's no reason for it to follow scientific rules.  If people got over the science thing I think the state of affairs YOU want would come about much more easily.  In a way the question isn't whether or not it IS a science but whether or not it's worth treating it as if it is.  You argued that treating it as if it is is holding back the development of theory, I added that it isn't a science anyway so you're right... a different set of rules would probably be a good thing.



Tim -- The problem is that it doesn't A) the glossary's misleading as a lot of the concepts are still under contention and B) even among the hardcore gamers outside of the Forge GNS is FAR from the lingua-franca.  I think you'll find that your average gamer would be incapable of following forge discussions.  Forge terms simply aren't a universal RPG language... they're a forge language but that's it.  One of the main criticism of the Forge and GNS is that it ignores most pop-RPG theoretical terms (crunch being an excellent example of this... it means one thing at the Forge and another everywhere else).