*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 11, 2022, 07:29:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 70 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Author Topic: Forge Glossary  (Read 13834 times)
Walt Freitag
Member

Posts: 1039


« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2004, 11:27:10 AM »

Hi Ron,

Quote
Intuitive continuity

A method of preparing role-playing sessions in which the GM uses the players' interests and actions during initial play to construct the back-story of the scenario retroactively. The term was first presented in the game Underworld.

No Myth

Intuitive Continuity which includes all Setting features (i.e. more than just Situation). An extreme version of the general principle that the Shared Imagined Space is established by people communicating with one another. Term coined by Fang Langford.


Defining No Myth in terms of Intuitive Continuity strongly implies that No Myth is, like IC, a "method of preparing role-playing sessions." I believe that's inaccurate. Fang's first post on the topic (that I could find) appears to be here, before the term "no myth" or Fang's earlier term for it "shared play" were introduced. Even there it's clear that the Technique is primarily applicable during play, based on explicitly omitting most customary pre-session preparations. (Fang sums it up as "don't plan").

This seems to me a clear inaccuracy rather than a quibble about "exact perfect phrasing," but that distinction is going to be a judgment call every single time. My apologies if it's too minor a point.

- Walt
Logged

Wandering in the diasporosphere
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2004, 11:39:09 AM »

Actually, the problem there, Walt, is that IntCon is being defined incorrectly. If I remember form Underworld, the technique is to create on the spot to match player needs. It's not about prep. I'd have to check to be sure, or somebody can mail Skarka to be sure.

In any case, that matches it up with No Myth - that being just a complete assumpotion of nothing but IntCon all the time (normal IntCon assumes that the world is set, and some normal prep will occur including "hooks").

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2004, 11:42:44 AM »

Hello,

Mike, I can't see the difference between what you just said about Intuitive Continuity and what I said. As GM, one matches "what's going on" to players' needs as they express through their character's actions ... the player says, "I follow that guy," so that guy becomes important, and you might even improvise how or about what. That's what I mean.

So yeah, in which case No Myth basically becomes hard-core Intuitive Continuity.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, everyone. As anticipated, nearly all of them (especially threads) are going to be incorporated in full.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2004, 12:18:15 PM »

Right, but you only mention session preparation in the text. Sounding like it's only done between sessions, and not at all during play on the fly. Which I believe it is.

Just how the sentence reads.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2004, 08:00:18 PM »

Ah, will fix. We are agreeing, but I didn't write it very well.

Best,
Ron
Logged
greyorm
Member

Posts: 2233

My name is Raven.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2004, 06:24:15 AM »

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I also want to emphasize that printing out the glossary and showing it to folks as a basic textbook is not consistent with the goals I brought to compiling it. Those goals begin and end with a person who wants to participate here, and who has already decided to get involved with discussions.

Will this affect creating "examples" to highlight some/most of the terms?

I ask because this is a feature I would like to see -- I'm a tactile-visual thinker, so hands-on, in-practice, doing-it examples always make more sense to me than straight definitions, no matter how clean and well written.

That is, if I can visualize it being done, I get it. If I can't, I'm lost.

As such, currently the glossary is nice, but not useful, for me. If I were to miss a term, looking it up in the glossary would do me little good without illustrative text. (I have the same problem with most programming/tech manuals -- most list what a thing is, but do not show how it's used).
Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio
pete_darby
Member

Posts: 537

Will dance with porridge down pants for food.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2004, 07:09:37 AM »

At the risk of a "me too!" post, err, Me Too!

However... there are examples of what's being discussed in the vast majority of threads being referred to in the glossary. I could certainly do with having them available in some version of the glossary, but since they are, for the most part already referred to, albeit indirectly, it's by no means priority atm.

In fact, it's a bit of an eye-opener: the useful threads have practical examples. Many threads without practical examples have ended up frustrating tarbabies, or disappeared in a cloud of hypothesis...

Keep it real.
Logged

Pete Darby
Jonathan Walton
Member

Posts: 1309


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2004, 06:41:56 PM »

I was kinda disappointed to see that "Through-Framing" didn't make it in there, but maybe I've haven't done a good enough job of establishing that term yet.  I'll have to work on that...

More thoughts when I finish reading them...
Logged

Doyce
Member

Posts: 442


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2004, 10:35:47 PM »

In the interests of honing the text:

Quote
Story Now
[...] The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story.


It occurs to me that this makes it sound as though the transcript from a Gamist or Sim game would (often) not be a story (by comparison).

Simply, I think there are more accurate terms for what it is that Narrative play produces besides "story".

Quote
sto·ry    n.
An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious


Frankly, unless you literally did nothing at all in a game session, any game session in any game style would result in a story, by the textbook definition.  Could you recite an event or series of events?  If yes, then story.

1. Everything that happens produces story.  (I washed my dog today -- a transcript of the events would produce a story.)
2. That's not (necessarily) the same thing as the-thing-that-narrative-play-produces.

Therefore, there's got to be a better way of saying it.
Logged

--
Doyce Testerman ~ http://random.average-bear.com
Someone gets into trouble, then get get out of it again; people love that story -- they never get tired of it.
Ian Charvill
Member

Posts: 377


« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2004, 02:58:00 AM »

Doyce

I'm kind of having this conversation with Ron and Eric over here.  The ultimate problem is there is a standard english word that conveys exactly what Ron is trying to convey with "Story Now" or, of late, "narrative".  It's in every day common use in the world, and it's in every day common use at the Forge.  However, its Forge use has become jargonized - it's in the glossary meaning something other than it does out there on the street.

And the world would be blatantly obvious and easy to guess for anyone who doesn't have the Forge vocabulary embedded in their minds.

I mean, think about it, Egri didn't write "The Art of Narrative Writing" now did he?

But unfortunately because "drama" has a term has been co-opted in Tweets DKF triad - and also because historically one might wish to differentiate Ron's model from GDS - it's seemingly impossible to use the commonplace word for the commonplace thing.

Try it in a couple of sentences:

Quote
Narrativist techniques will reliable produce a dramatic narrative.  Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.


See how straightforward it is, how intuitively right it feels?  See how the apparatus of jargon prevents this clear formulation and use?
Logged

Ian Charvill
Garbanzo
Member

Posts: 108


« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2004, 03:35:09 AM »

Hey, Ron.

I'd like to have the Hairy Chest Gambit slipped in (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6255&highlight=).

It's not one of the jargon cornerstones, but I think it is a concise, useful, and catchy way of referencing a common issue - the "If I allow my players Director Power, all of my GM effort will go straight to hell" concern.

Christopher Kubasik (the coiner) defines it as "'accidentally' shattering the GM's reality with color," but it seems to me to be a bit broader than that: it's the clash of director-power strength between GM and Player.  Balance of Director Power.  This is an essential issue for any game apportioning director power across the GM screen, and a prime instance when social contract needs to be butressed by some meat in the rules.

-Matt



-as a p.s.: I'd like to second greyorm's suggestion for examples, whenever possible.  It seems that the purpose of this document is to increase clarity and provide a strong reference for new and continuing Forgers to ensure they're on the same page.  As I see it, brief examples can only aid with this.  (referencing two games for vanilla vs pervy; an illustration of points of contact in action; an example of a weave).
Logged
Doyce
Member

Posts: 442


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2004, 06:09:56 AM »

Quote from: Ian Charvill
But unfortunately because "drama" has a term has been co-opted in Tweets DKF triad - and also because historically one might wish to differentiate Ron's model from GDS - it's seemingly impossible to use the commonplace word for the commonplace thing.


That presumes that the new person trying to get into and understand the Forge has encountered any theory at all, I doubt that's likely -- I think it's much more likely that they're here simply because they bought, played, or read a review of My Life with Master, Sorcerer, Inspectres, Donjon, Dust Devils, Universalis, TRoS, et cetera, and they want to find out more.

It's not our theory that they're unfamiliar with, it's all theory.  To them Story means... Story.  And more importantly, "Dramatic Narrative" means... Story.

Quote from: Ian Charvill
Try it in a couple of sentences:

Quote
Narrativist techniques will reliable [sic] produce a dramatic narrative.  Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.


See how straightforward it is, how intuitively right it feels?


Not to be curt or argumentative, but... no.  It feels alienating, off-putting, and superior -- or, more to the point, I believe it will seem that way to people coming into the Forge, which is not (I think) what the aim is.

"Oh, so you're saying only Narrativists reliably produce dramatic narrative?  Let me tell you something, bub... [insert impassioned retelling of dramatic Sim moment here]."

[Begin flame-war.  Repeat.]


We'd be eating that stuff for months.

Now, I'm not saying that, within the framework of the jargon of Game Theory, you're not right -- or that Ron wasn't right with original version.  I'm not even saying I don't agree with it -- I am saying that we can't rely on anything even vaguely like jargon for such incredibly well-trod words as "story" or "dramatic narrative".  We don't have the influence (or, frankly, the right) to redefine such terms.

Think about the difficulties inherent in people misunderstanding what we mean by relatively high-use words like "Simulationist", and imagine that ten-fold.

Yikes.

Now, since I don't want to propose a problem without at least taking a shot at a solution, here's my stab:

Quote
Narrativist techniques will reliably produce a story that focuses on and 'answers' the game's Premise.  Simulationist and Gamist techniques will produce a story focused on other significant elements of play.


I know that "Story Now" claims (accurately) that story will be created in a much more focused and meaningful way using Narr techniques, but that doesn't mean a "small-s" story doesn't happen in other styles.

Note that I say "a story" (use of common language), not "Story" (jargon).  I think using Jargon to illustrate/define other Jargon is something to avoid as much as possible by writing a definition "out" as clearly as possible.
Logged

--
Doyce Testerman ~ http://random.average-bear.com
Someone gets into trouble, then get get out of it again; people love that story -- they never get tired of it.
greyorm
Member

Posts: 2233

My name is Raven.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2004, 06:49:20 AM »

Quote from: Ian Charvill
Narrativist techniques will reliable produce a dramatic narrative.  Simulationist and gamist techniques will not reliably produce a dramatic narrative.

See how straightforward it is, how intuitively right it feels?  See how the apparatus of jargon prevents this clear formulation and use?

No, no, and no. I don't.

In fact, while reading your post, I could already hear the "was too" arguments ("my Sim game's story 'was too' dramatic!") Maybe "drama" means something different to you than it does to me, but I see "drama" in your sentence and I don't see a straightforward or intuitive means of describing the difference. I see more of the same arguments.

And I'm not just saying this to be argumentative, or because I'm "blinded by jargon" -- I'm saying it because it's how I reacted to it. I'd bet money it would become just another bit of jargon, argued over because we use it that way as opposed to the claim that the world uses it another way.
Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio
Valamir
Member

Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2004, 08:30:11 AM »

Quote
Not to be curt or argumentative, but... no. It feels alienating, off-putting, and superior -- or, more to the point, I believe it will seem that way to people coming into the Forge, which is not (I think) what the aim is.

"Oh, so you're saying only Narrativists reliably produce dramatic narrative? Let me tell you something, bub... [insert impassioned retelling of dramatic Sim moment here]."

[Begin flame-war. Repeat.]

We'd be eating that stuff for months.


Not "would be eating" it.

"Have Eaten it"


That battle has already been been painfully and bloodily fought in the very first year of the Forge's existance.

The Jargon arose precisely because terms like "Drama" and "Story" DON'T make things clear or intuitive for precisely the reasons Doyce has outlined.

Bottom line is, if the word appears to have an "intuitive and straightforward" definition to you, you can guarentee two things.

1) that it will have an intuitive and straight forward definition for most people.

2) But their intuitive and straight forward definition will be completely different and ultimately unreconcileable with your intuitive and straight forward definition.

Then you will spend 5000 posts argueing over whose intuitive and straight forward definition is more intuitive and straight forward.


I love the idea Ian, but "been there, done that"
Doesn't work.


That's why it became imperitive to us to say "Look...we don't CARE what your intuitive and straightforward definition for this word is.  In order for discussion to move forward...this is the definition we are using, and this is the short hand label we've attached to that definition.  When you use this word here, it will mean X".

Applying a single unique definition to each word was the only way to move discussion forward.  Guess what...that very act of making communication possible created Jargon.  

Trust me when I say that I lived throught the Forge's pre Jargon days.  It was not pretty.  I remember entering that bear pit argueing over the proper definition of Simulation because simulation was such an intuitive and straight forward word that has a wide use outside of the Forge.

Gaahh.  What a nightmare.

The Jargon is essential.  It may be nice to wish that it weren't, but it is.  I was here when we tried to talk about high level stuff using conventional english definitions.  Its a non starter.
Logged

Jason Lee
Member

Posts: 729


« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2004, 10:11:19 AM »

Well, I'm on record challenging the definition of Social Contact - I don't consider this challenge refuted as of yet.

I've been using Fidelity from Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited.

I've also challenged the validity of IIEE, Search Time, and Handling Time - though I don't think that should in any way affect the definitions of those terms.  However, I do think you should include CPVI from that same thread.

I love the inclusion of a big model picture!
Logged

- Cruciel
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!