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

I had started responding but real life and work intruded so you got a pardon.

Whew!

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.

For the record, I see it as a critique...but since Brand is comfortable with GNS, it's not a strongly hostile one. Break it down, though, and it basically says that GNS are arbitrary constructs.

Quote from: MelinglorHere'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

Since you retracted this one, I'll simply point out that it reminded me of being told that I'm not a Simulationist but a Narrativist.  There actually is something useful in that observation but it has to be wrestled free of the rest of the GNS to make it useful.

Quote from: MelinglorWerewolf with David Berg

In this one, I still see evidence that Ron doesn't "get" the real objective of play.  You'll also notice how much time he spends talking about non-Sim games and markers in his examples.

Quote from: MelinglorDead of Night, himself

This link is the same as the previous link.

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

The question is whether he really feels that way or not.  Those quotes I posted earlier were from 2001.  The infamous "Brain Dead" essay happened years latter.  In between, Ron made all sorts of neutral or even approving noises about Sim.  Does he really feel that way or is he just one more bad day away from blaming Simulation for dead puppies and global warming?  Have we heard any retractions of his previous rants?

But maybe the bigger issue is that I still don't see a lot of evidence that people understand what Sim is.  Oh, it gets defined and described but the descriptions contain a lot of assumptions that seem to miss what many people get out of role-playing.  The problem is that the model insists that the players have a goal and some players do not have a goal in the sense that they are looking for.  They play for the experience.  Trying to describe a roller-coaster ride in terms of the goal or, maybe even worse, as a form of travel utterly misses the point that it is an experience.  The objective is nothing more than just doing it, not reaching a goal or creating a product.

(And, yes, I expect people who don't get it or don't believe it to wonder what the goal that I'm just not seeing really is.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor the record, I see it as a critique...but since Brand is comfortable with GNS, it's not a strongly hostile one. Break it down, though, and it basically says that GNS are arbitrary constructs.

Yes, but it also praises them regardless.  I don't think it's hostile at all.  Reread the conclusions.

Quote from: TonyLBOh, you only say that because you're an Ace of Clubs.

A hit, sir, a palpable hit!

Well done TonyLB, soon, your journey to the Cheetoist Side will be complete!

Right, not hostile at all. Pleonasm, I think.

Hmmm.  I think I just realized one of the other reasons why there was so much hostility to the r.g.f.a Threefold (GDS) by people complaining about how it framed issues.  The r.g.f.a model was largely an experience model, not a goal model.  Its focus was how the GM resolved single situations and how those resolutions were experienced by the player.  I wonder if people who are primarily driven by goals or a need to create were as frustrated by people framing things in terms of individual resolutions points and the player's experience as I am by having everything framed in terms of a goal or creating something.

I think there is a viable distinction between:

1. GNS/TBM theory.
2. The dialog specifically around that theory.
3. All the dialog at The Forge.

These aren't the same things and asking about Forgey-Theory almost necessarily conflates some of them.

I think it's true that sort of ironed into the initial theory (GNS/TBM) is the concept that the game rules are responsible for things I don't think game rules can be responsible for (ongoing power struggle, promoting a paradoxical view of gaming that leaves well-intentioned readers helpless to make adult decisions about play, actual damage).

However: if you want to suggest that people have some goals or preferences and maybe there are three buckets, so long as you aren't dogmatic about it, I'm okay with that (I find GDS useful. I find the concept of Narrativist play as exemplified by DitV useful).

What I think is really rough is that a lot of people's bad experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices got encoded into the dialog (and then the 'theory') in a way that makes it really difficult to extricate. The need to have the theory be 'defended' led to some twists in the conversation that were certainly not for the better.

The one thing that John M's link has that's absolutely relevant to the 'current' state of the theory is how in 2001 there's some notes about how to defend the theory the conversational construct that gamers are not classified is created (but, um, we all know gamers *are* classified). In 2006 (5?) we see posts talking about how the brain-damage was a really bad word choice because it's a metaphor. Same stuff.

This *is* different than having some underlying insights. It's also theoretically possible to separate at least some parts of the 'theory' from the convoluted dialog: this is what Brand does with his geners post.

So there's a bunch of different stuff going on and it's never easy to clearly tell who is talking about what.

For my part I think some incredibly interesting stuff comes out of there--and Ron's not-so-long-ago discussion about the context of GM actions based on the way the game is set up was, IMO, an inspired piece of writing and insight.

So it's not all victim-y. It's not all hostile. But some of it certainly is (and, um, well, I haven't seen too many calls for people's heads on stakes from The Forge--so they don't have a monopoly on that, unfortunately).

That's too bad.

-Marco

Quote from: John MorrowThe question is whether he really feels that way or not.  Those quotes I posted earlier were from 2001.  The infamous "Brain Dead" essay happened years latter.  In between, Ron made all sorts of neutral or even approving noises about Sim.  Does he really feel that way or is he just one more bad day away from blaming Simulation for dead puppies and global warming?  Have we heard any retractions of his previous rants?

John, this just shows that you didn't understand the whole brain-damage furore at all. 'Brain damage' was about would-be narrativist players harmed by pseudo-narrativist games. Whether or not you thought it was a load of hogwash, it wasn't about simulationism.

I think Marco (two posts above) is spot on with his analysis. That's pretty much how I view the whole debate as well.

Quote from: MarcoHowever: if you want to suggest that people have some goals or preferences and maybe there are three buckets, so long as you aren't dogmatic about it, I'm okay with that (I find GDS useful. I find the concept of Narrativist play as exemplified by DitV useful).

I found the GDS very useful.  But as I've said above and elsewhere, the GNS has helped me understand not only why the GDS wasn't useful for others but why its use by rec.games.frp.advocacy frustrated them to the point of anger.  Trying to describe what you do in a model that doesn't describe what you do very well (or at all) is frustrating.  Having other people insist in describing what you do, incorrectly, in a model that doesn't describe what you do very well (or at  all) is maddening.

That said, I do find parts of the concept of Narrativist play not only useful but brilliant.  But they are only useful to me if I extract them from a lot of other concepts that, in the mind of many Forge people, must come as a package deal.  I understand why Vincent Baker told me that maybe I'm Narrativist and there was a valuable insight in there.  But if someone took that observation and ran with it, with all of the baggage that the GNS straps on to it, it would damage their understanding of what I want and do.

Quote from: MarcoWhat I think is really rough is that a lot of people's bad experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices got encoded into the dialog (and then the 'theory') in a way that makes it really difficult to extricate.

I think the problem may be even simpler than that.  Every model needs a place to put "bad role-playing", especially if it limits all of role-playing to only three categories.  In the case of the GDS, Gamist was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.  Why?  Because most of the people debating that model were Simulationists or Dramatists and, other than Brian Gleichman and maybe a few others, nobody tried to define or defend that style from the inside.  In the case of the GNS, Simulationism was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.  Why?  Because most of the people debating that model were Narrativists (or GDS Dramatists) and Gamists.

Quote from: MarcoThis *is* different than having some underlying insights. It's also theoretically possible to separate at least some parts of the 'theory' from the convoluted dialog: this is what Brand does with his geners post.

While I don't feel Brand successfully does that with his genres post, I do think there are some useful insights in the Forge theory.  The problem is that they are burried under piles of garbage and if you don't know what to look for, they are easy to miss.

Quote from: MarcoSo there's a bunch of different stuff going on and it's never easy to clearly tell who is talking about what.

It also didn't help that for a very long time (and still to this day, in many cases), if you ask two Forge regulars to define a word or theory, you'll get at least two different answers.  It's telling that John Kim could summarize the rec.games.frp.advocacy theories in a couple of pages of FAQs, at most, but understanding Forge theory turned into something akin to studying the Bible.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor 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.

See, you just don't know the full gamut of the discussion on this. Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction. That's not the same thing as you said. Moreover, Mike Holmes cheerfully admits to incoherency in his game and claims you can have a bit more flexibility.

The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

Quote from: droogJohn, this just shows that you didn't understand the whole brain-damage furore at all. 'Brain damage' was about would-be narrativist players harmed by pseudo-narrativist games. Whether or not you thought it was a load of hogwash, it wasn't about simulationism.

What was "pseudo-" about the "pseudo-narrativist" games?  If they weren't Narrativist, what were they?  And if they were incoherent, what other CA did they use?

Quote from: John MorrowWhat was "pseudo-" about the "pseudo-narrativist" games?  If they weren't Narrativist, what were they?  And if they were incoherent, what other CA did they use?

The 'pseudo-' bit was supposedly the focus on 'story' in the text of those games, while promoting railroad plots and empty posturing. Of course we're talking about everybody's favourite white lupine here.

I see your train of thought. Look, I'll say it again: there are no games that are simulationist. There are games that facilitate a sim agenda – i.e. if you are playing with a sim agenda, BRP or GURPS may be a good fit for you. My Life with Master probably isn't. HeroQuest might be (Mike Holmes and I think so). Simple as that, no harm, no foul.

Is it at all useful to classify these things? Well, people have been doing it for a long time. It helped me clarify my thinking and drive harder at an objective. For me, it's always been about trying things and seeing if they work.