Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.

Sure, but refusing to hold people accountable for what they've said or at least asking them to confirm or deny that they still feel that way only enables that sort of behavior.

Quote from: Lee ShortFrankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.

I don't think it's even real disdain.  In many cases (as expressed in the quotes I cited above), I think the problem is that they don't even understand some of these other styles of play.  I'd be happier about their disdain if I thought they at least understood what they were hating.  

Quote from: Lee ShortThere's the occasional post where the original honesty still shines through (Brain Damage, anyone?)...but mostly its all been sublimated and intellectualized.  But anyone who thinks it isn't still there -- that person is incapable of seeing how it looks to Sim players (ie, those whose play styles are descibed using words like "dysfunction").

In my experience, that's where the person gets told that they are really a Narrativist and just don't know it.

I've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

I'd argue, in fact, that the possibility of more CAs has been admitted at least since Vincent Baker wrote this:

Quote from: Vincent BakerWhy are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars combine in an actual group of people in actual play.

An enormously influential article. But it's like January 2004. People are moving on (those who are interested might like to have a look at Brand Robins' article GNS and Genre Theory).

You're all just waaaay too precious in my view.

Quote from: John MorrowHas the Forge let the GNS model go?  Have they done a major comprehensive revision of it based on their current thinking?

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.  Sim games are still talked down to left and right, it's just that the talking-down-to is all dressed up in academic language.  Frankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.

Here's three recent Forge threads in which none other than Ron Edwards discusses Sim play positively and enthusiastically. In the last one, he's even playing what he calls a Sim-facilitating game himself, and loving it!

Rifts with Settembrini

Werewolf with David Berg

Dead of Night, himself

So at the very least, that's far from considering Sim a dumping ground or refuge of cowards or any such thing, isn't it?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogI've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

This is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.

Quote from: droogI've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

This is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.  

Of course, maybe if the criticism were engaged with in a meaningful fashion, the response might be different than it in fact has been.  But the Forge's response to criticism has never been to engage with it.

(Bah!  meant to be an edit, not a repeat).

Quote from: Lee ShortOf course, maybe if the criticism were engaged with in a meaningful fashion, the response might be different than it in fact has been.  But the Forge's response to criticism has never been to engage with it.

If by "The Forge" you mean "Ron Edwards" then ... yeah.  When people criticize him in other fora he pretty much ignores it.  It's possible, in fact, that he doesn't even read it.  Who can know?

If by "The Forge" you mean "People who are active at the Forge" then I'd really love to get you (who say the Forge people don't defend their theory online enough) and a couple of other people (who say the Forge people defend their theory online too much) together in a room and let you fight it out

Quote from: Lee ShortThis is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.

I have no empathy for you. But if you want to talk to Marxists, you learn to talk Marxism. If you want to talk to neo-liberals, you learn the language of neo-liberalism.

If you absolutely want your favourite gaming to be recognised by the Forge (and there may be various reasons for this), post about it in Actual Play.

Quote from: John MorrowI've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.

I see your point here, but I also think a good deal of what gives this whole thing legs is polarization over personal, not ideological issues. Attacking the Forge, or Forge theory, in the abstract, or over old quotes, just pisses off people who've somehow obtained something useful from it, or who have some sort of personal link back to the Forge tribe.

QuoteI'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

What I'm suggesting is that, instead of attacking the Forge or Forge theory in the abstract, it's better to respond to the nonsense as it arises--and there's still plenty of that. When someone says that your game is just dressed-up GM Fiat, and that means the players are just along for a ride on a storyline of the GM's devising, call them on it, but don't let yourself get stuck to the tar baby of debating the validity of Forge theory. Because then you do get caught up in all the myriad excuses, caveats, and latest-updates.

Quote from: droogI have no empathy for you. But if you want to talk to Marxists, you learn to talk Marxism. If you want to talk to neo-liberals, you learn the language of neo-liberalism.

Where did I say I want to talk to people at the Forge?  

Once upon a time, long long ago, I thought that I did.  I have since been rather thoroughly disabused of that notion.  Now I'm just explaining why.

Quote from: TonyLBIf by "The Forge" you mean "Ron Edwards" then ... yeah.  When people criticize him in other fora he pretty much ignores it.  It's possible, in fact, that he doesn't even read it.  Who can know?

If by "The Forge" you mean "People who are active at the Forge" then I'd really love to get you (who say the Forge people don't defend their theory online enough) and a couple of other people (who say the Forge people defend their theory online too much) together in a room and let you fight it out

Engaging with criticism is a very special case of "defending the theory."  The general case of "defending the theory" certainly doesn't qualify as such.  So consider that for a minute before you answer to yourself how often you've seen this happen.  

Ah, well, enough about this...I've got a game of Shock to prepare for.

Quote from: Lee ShortAh, well, enough about this...I've got a game of Shock to prepare for.

Now that's a good comeback. Let us know how it went.

Quote from: droogPeople are moving on (those who are interested might like to have a look at Brand Robins' article GNS and Genre Theory).

I'm sorry but I just don't see how that's moving on.  Seriously.  Looks like it's embracing and trying to validate the existing GNS to me.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sorry but I just don't see how that's moving on.  Seriously.  Looks like it's embracing and trying to validate the existing GNS to me.

That it is. The old language of GNS has the old assumtions and ideas built into it. If you use the GNS-language, you cannot help but conclude that GNS is, broadly-speaking, correct. Which of course is why they insist we use the GNS language.

Whereas if you use words in their everyday sense, you quickly realise the banality and inaccuracy of much of GNS and The Big Model. Much the same applies for droog's other examples of Marxism and economic liberalism.

Those who favour GNS and scorn Simulationism are quite correct that Simulationism, as described by them, would make for crap gaming, and probably doesn't even exist. Thing is, the same applies to Gamism and Narrativism. Or Social Contract, etc.

That people have observed some matches does not mean much. I could take western or Chinese astrology and get matches to people's game styles, or a deck of cards. Here's my Cardist Theory,

   Some people are Diamondists (interested in xp and treasure), others are Heartists (most interested in character relationships), some are Spadeists (digging down into the depths of conflict and nastiness), and some Clubbists (they just game to hang out with friends). The number on the card represents how intensely they feel this urge. If it's a Jack, they are a minor leader in their group and try to swing it that way; if a Queen, they try to manipulate the group that way, but aren't overt; if a King, they dominate the group and try to force it that way openly; if an Ace, they GM. By taking your set of cards and matching it to the personality of your players, you will be better able to design a game which matches what they play like.

There you go, JimBobOz's Cardist Theory. It's a load of old bollocks, of course, but it sounds vaguely plausible, and you can probably match some of the description to the people you've gamed with. That's because the human mind seeks patterns. That's why when you stare into the darkness, sometimes you see shapes - your mind's trying to make sense of the dark, so you end up seeing things that aren't actually there. We also look for evidence to reinforce the point of view we already have, and tend to ignore or not notice evidence against it. So for example if you don't like GNS, it's because you don't understand it.

*shrug*

But hey, go read the essays for yourselves, and judge for yourselves. You shouldn't criticise it unless you've read it - but you shouldn't support it, either. And I see that many of its supporters plainly don't understand it. For example, many of the supporters of GNS are unaware that the three of G, N and S are supposedly incompatible. If you try to put them together in one game, that game's "Incoherent" and won't be any fun.

Quote from: JimBobOzThere you go, JimBobOz's Cardist Theory. It's a load of old bollocks, of course

Oh, you only say that because you're an Ace of Clubs.

Hey, I need to correct myself from earlier--I just had the sudden realization that I'd made a totallyfalse statement.

to wit: Settembrini's Rifts game that he and Ron discussed on the Forge was diagnosed as Gamist, not Simulationist. I was mixing up a couple of issues in my mind fromthis and other current threads, and so lumped the Rifts account in with the others. I do still think it's relevant in tht it's a pretty trad piece of play that Ron speaks very positively about. But it's not Sim.

So, sorry, Sett! And sorry to anyone I may have confused. Hopefully, since nobody's responded to tht post yet, there's no harm done.

Peace,
-Joel