Hi everyone.
So, look. I've spent 4 years on the Forge. I'm writing a fucking textbook about the theory (although I've been slacking on that lately.) I know from Forge-theory.
So if you want me to explain whatever term or concept to you, this is the thread. I reserve the right to say "shut up and go away," which you will all understand as either "I think that concept is stupid," "I think your question is stupid," or "I don't know."
I don't particularly want to get into a debate about right-ness or wrong-ness. You can believe in the theory or not. I just want to help you penetrate the fog of confusion and jargon and understand what the fuck we're talking about.
What do you say?
yrs--
--Ben
So...
What is that fucking Forge theory of gaming anyway?
Quote from: Ottomsoh the ElderlySo...
What is that fucking Forge theory of gaming anyway?
In a nutshell?
1) Role-playing games are played by people in a social group. If there's trouble with the social group itself, no change to the game will make the game fun. You have to fix the social group.
2) Games continue because everyone in the group decides to continue.
3) Different people mean different things when they talk about the activity "role-playing." Confusion about "what activity we're doing right now" is the cause of a lot of unsatisfying play.
4) Lots of other stuff that's less important.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. If you're saying "that's painfully obvious," I agree. Most theories are. To take another one of my favorite theories, the basis of all classical physics is "if you push it, it goes."
In shorter: "Roleplaying is social. The rest is commentary."
All right, I'll bite. I know some Forge theory, but there's two big things I could never figure out.
Is there any actual repository of clearly-defined "techniques" as defined in Forge theory, including explanations of their effects and potential effects on play, available anywhere online?
It seems from my reading that it's entirely possible to construct games by means of Forge theory (specifically, the big model), that don't actually involve challenge or tactical elements as found in what anyone outside of those circles might consider a game, or that does not contain actual roleplaying, in terms of taking on characterisation of a role. If my reading is correct, than how is this a theory of roleplaying games?
For those playing along at home, "techniques" is a technical Forge term, but it basically means what you probably think it means -- the techniques that we use for play.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenAll right, I'll bite. I know some Forge theory, but there's two big things I could never figure out.
Is there any actual repository of clearly-defined "techniques" as defined in Forge theory, including explanations of their effects and potential effects on play, available anywhere online?
This is historically a big bugaboo. There are old theory threads about: Stance, IIEE, probability and die mechanics, etc. These may or may not be helpful to you. They confuse the fuck out of me.
When Ron started the site, he thought that GNS was an obvious no-brainer, and that with that aside, we were going to go on to discuss techniques and their application to disparate play goals. As it turned out, GNS was not an obvious no-brainer. Ron has some stuff he's been working on, but he's decided to keep it mostly offline and between peers. Honestly, this is a good thing. The flamewars it would cause would make GNS look like a "sell me on" thread.
Emily is also working on some technique-oriented articles but, characteristic for her, she's keeping it tightly under wraps until she's very, very done with it.
So, the short answer is no, and that's why. Historically, what's happened is that the games themselves have become technique repositories -- Dogs for example has a great deal of techniques embedded in it (structured situation, "say yes or roll dice," character development as history, etc). So does Polaris (list-based prep, situation diagramming, key phrases, etc). So does almost any one of our games including and past My Life With Master.
But most of those are offline, and cost money.
QuoteIt seems from my reading that it's entirely possible to construct games by means of Forge theory (specifically, the big model), that don't actually involve challenge or tactical elements as found in what anyone outside of those circles might consider a game, or that does not contain actual roleplaying, in terms of taking on characterisation of a role. If my reading is correct, than how is this a theory of roleplaying games?
In terms of defining roleplaying games: Shut up and go away.
However, I think you are basically correct in your assessment. You can also use a literary theory of prose to analyze a play, but you're missing some of it. I think that using Forge theory to construct non-tabletop story/role-playing game things may be useful, but it will ineveitably be missing some things.
You can use GNS to talk about movies (I've seen people do it, sadly) but you're really missing a big chunk about the movie when you do that. Better to use a theory more applicable to your goals.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Ben LehmanThere are old theory threads about: Stance, IIEE, probability and die mechanics, etc. These may or may not be helpful to you. They confuse the fuck out of me.
Stance is easy. IIEE isn't helpful. In general, ah, well.
Quote from: Ben LehmanIn terms of defining roleplaying games: Shut up and go away.
Oh, very well...
*Exit stage left*
:melodramatic:
What is the 'big model'? :confused:
(I'm vaguely familiar with the G/N/S categories, but understand that the 'big model' supplanted that. Or something.)
I've never bought into Forgespeak, related definitions, or that community as it stands.
If your summary of Forge-essence is correct, I finally know why -- we have a significant disconnect at a fundamental level.
http://www.plaguegames.com/index.php?id=15
That link may not last forever, since I'm currently upgrading my blog, but it's there for now.
Why was the term "Narrativist" chosen to describe a facet of the theory that--according to the Theory and it's adherents at the Forge--has nothing to do with Narrative?
double post. :-(
Quote from: AkrasiaWhat is the 'big model'? :confused:
(I'm vaguely familiar with the G/N/S categories, but understand that the 'big model' supplanted that. Or something.)
Role-playing exists at three levels: Social (interactions between real people at the table), Creative (the content of the game), and Technical (the procedures used for play -- whether mechanical or not.)
The Big Model, in short, is a model of the interactions between these three levels.
The relationship to GNS is like this: One of the categories in the Big Model is called "Creative Agenda." Basically, what it means is "what the group, as real people, wants to get out of play." Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are three broad types of Creative Agenda.
Does that answer your question? I avoided talking about the specific structure of the model because it is, honestly, pretty complicated. I don't want to get into it unless you're enthused about learning.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: rumbleI've never bought into Forgespeak, related definitions, or that community as it stands.
If your summary of Forge-essence is correct, I finally know why -- we have a significant disconnect at a fundamental level.
http://www.plaguegames.com/index.php?id=15
That link may not last forever, since I'm currently upgrading my blog, but it's there for now.
Rumble -- Nope!
See, you're talking about characters. If you look at the post above, that's the creative level.
I'm actually talking about honest-to-goodness humans at the table playing a game. The social level.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Teflon BillyWhy was the term "Narrativist" chosen to describe a facet of the theory that--according to the Theory and it's adherents at the Forge--has nothing to do with Narrative?
Stupid historical reasons. If that's good enough for you stop here.
Okay, so here's the longer one. A lot of the basis of RPG theory was done by on the rec.games.fantasy.advocacy newsgroup. They came up with the GDS model (Gamism, Dramatism, Simulationism). Ron and some folks on the Sorcerer mailing list found this stuff, loved it, and started their own discussions. However, they were also talking about Jon Tweet's work on resolution systems (Drama, Fortune, Karma), and there was some confusion about Drama resolution and Dramatism. Since the term "Drama resolution" predated "Dramatism," they decided to rename "Dramatism" into "Narrativism."
Which actually turned out to be helpful, because GNS is pretty different from GDS.
At that point, it was like six guys talking about theory on a mailing list. There was no idea that it would become as widespread as it has. The terms were pretty ad-hoc, and sometimes shitty. We've been trying to revise them, slowly. ("fiction" instead of "shared imagined space," for example.)
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. Seriously, dude, don't capitalize Theory.
Quote from: Ben LehmanRumble -- Nope!
See, you're talking about characters. If you look at the post above, that's the creative level.
I'm actually talking about honest-to-goodness humans at the table playing a game. The social level.
yrs--
--Ben
I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm derailing your thread, but your ultra-short version was, "Roleplaying is social. The rest is commentary."
My ultra-short version is, "Gaming is social. Roleplaying is personal."
Quote from: Ben LehmanP.S. Seriously, dude, don't capitalize Theory.
Alas, my capitalization is pretty random for the most part.
Quote from: Ben LehmanDoes that answer your question? ...
Well enough, thanks! :)
What, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively? And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions. I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.
Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively? And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions. I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.
The correct definitions are those which do not challenge the legitimacy of the Big Model.
Actually, the useful way to understand them would be as the primary focus of one's play style. What these actually are has mutated more to fit the interest of the kinds of games Forge folks like to make, so Narratavism in particular has become less about the desire to have one's game make sense as a story and more about playing within a story that has already been determined by the structure inherent in the game.
Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively? And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions. I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.
An incomplete and certainly incorrect definition, but this is how I look at them in my head. Gamism is interest in how the character interacts with the rule system, Simulationism is how the character interacts with the setting, and Narrativism is how the character interacts with other characters.
Like I said, this isn't a Forge-approved definition or anything, and there's certainly more to the three than this. And I'm sure some would say that I'm completely wrong about one or more of them. But to me it grabs the basic idea of each.
Quote from: BrantaiAnd why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
Go to another forum, one with really high traffic and ask for a definition of science fiction, wuxia, dark fantasy or high fantasy and see how many different responses and varied answers come back.
Hey, Brantai -- Sorry for the wait. I've been starting a new job, finding a new apartment, all the bullshit of moving to a new city.
Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are three types of Creative Agenda, in Big Model terms.
Basically, they are three totally different activities that someone might mean when they talk about playing a role-playing game. These are totally different and seperate activities. This isn't a difference in "play style" nor is it a matter of the imagined content of the game. We're talking about the real people sitting around the table, and what sort of activity they're engaged in.
For specifics, I'm going to quote from an essay I wrote, if you don't mind.
QuoteBasically, GNS seperates out into three different broad categories the things that players mean by "play a role-playing game." This is emphatically not about the fictional level of play at all rather ("I like combat" is not a GNS-level preference), it is about the interactions between the players, the actual activities of the human beings playing the game. What GNS says is that, when people talk about playing role-playing games, they are actually talking about a wide variety of activities at this human level. So, without further ado, let's give a brief introduction to each of these three activities. (The links are links to Ron's long essays about each activity.)
Gamism is an activity where the participants show off their guts, tactical thinking, drive and luck, and gain social esteem for doing these things well. It is comparable to activities such as card games, board games, sports, or car racing.
Narrativism is an activity where the participants make a story which is personally affecting, and gain social esteem for contributing to the story in impressive and thematic manners. It is comparable to activities such as theatre, poetry slams, freestyle (multi-participant) rap, shared stories, and writer's workshops which aren't publication focused.
Simulationism is an activity where the participants revel in another place, another time, or another world, and gain social esteem from contributing to the sense of place, whether from reiteration of canonical details or from whole-cloth creation being a matter of local taste. It is comparable to activities such as historical re-enactment, model rail-roading, or many fandoms, especially science fiction fandoms such as Star Wars and Star Trek.
It's pretty clear that these are dramatically different and generally incompatible activities. If I show up and try to strategize a writer's workshop, or to get a coherent and dramatic story out of a bridge game, or play insist on playing Risk with historical Napeleonic empires, I am clearly just being clueless at best and willfully disruptive at worst.
And, I know the question that comes next, so I'll just prepare an answer to it right away.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively? And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
One of the reasons is that there has been a number of models very similar to GNS. Most didn't get much air time as it were, but the original one from rec.games.frp.advocacy did.
That model was simpler and easier to understand. It also wasn't presented to the world with quite the pretentions that marks GNS. And it was the first. As a result it made something of impact not withstanding the fact that the model (and usenet group) is basically as dead as a doornail.
That impact carries over today in that many people mistake it's defintions for the GNS ones.
The other is that the GNS model seems almost intentionally written to cause these types of mistakes. You can take your choice of cause for this, ranging from "Such overwhelming minds have trouble expressing these complex matters to common people" to "it's done that way on purpose so as to cloud how stupid and pointless the model is in the first place".