Quote from: JimBobOzThe third is something no-one does past the age of 13.

Y'know, thanks for reminding me, I meant to address that point: you really think that nobody in roleplaying engages in "competition amongst the participants" past the age of 13? :confused:

As far as the other two go, I don't think "a story that isn't boring" is an issue to be marginalized ("just"); I'd say the reason the issue became such a GNS to-do is that there a lot (how much, I dunno) of roleplaying has produced stories that are boring, at least to some people, so there was examination of, "OK, what IS it that makes a story 'not boring'?" As far as Simulation goes. . .well, you're pretty insistent that it's not defined, even when others in this thread have noted that the Glossary definition actually isn't bad, and instead complain that the definition isn't applied that way in pratice. So if you're gonna keep claiming Sim is "undefined," more power to you. "Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements" at least says something to me, especially having sat through a lot of game sessions where nothing fun or interesting happens, simply because nothing "should" be happening, based on "in-game causes."

Quote from: JimBobOzI didn't say that. You're falling for the old "fallacy of the excluded middle" again.

Maybe. But look at your statement: "So when someone categorises and describes your experience for you, they're revealing far more about themselves than they are about your experience." That sounds an awful lot to me like a blanket statement about all patterns (not just "this pattern") to the effect that they don't really tell us much about what they apply them to.

Quote from: JimBobOzOffer me any particular class of things, real or imaginary, and I can categorise gamers using those things as a reference. Go on, try it. Could be anything - types of freshwater fish, kinds of shoe, subatomic particle, whatever you like.

Here I'd say you're mischaracterizing GNS by comparing it to things that are obviously nonsensical and a complete non sequiter to gaming. GNS at least discusses concepts that relate to roleplaying. It may be bollocks, but we can't really talk meaningfully about HOW it is or isn't bollocks if the claim is "GNS is as nonsensical as comparing roleplaying to fish."

Quote from: JimBobOzI've not declared war on anybody..

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you personally with that remark; I meant to direct it more at the thread participants in general, figured everyone would know who I'm contrasting with (Sett IS posting here, after all).

I know you're more moderate than the "war" folks" though again I caution you against slipping toward a position that's just as extreme, if not as venomous.

Peace,
-Joel

Arguing between d20 and Forge is like the following:

Billy Madison:  Shampoo's bedda, it goes on first.
Billy Madison:  No, conditioner's bedda...it makes the hair all nice and silky.

Problem is...I'm bald!(so to speak)

Sean2099

QuoteSett, who's a foam-at-the-mouth conservative, would be mortified. He'd switch parties.

No. I´m not conservative, I´m reactionary. Ole´s party is not to my liking anyway, I vote yellow whenever it makes sense.

And Ole van Beust, don´t get me started. I know someone who works in Hamburg´s Staatsschutz-he told me stories about him, if half of it is true...

EDIT:

 @scheming and plotting: there´s a time for sneakiness and there is a time for war.

Quote from: MelinglorAs far as the other two go, I don't think "a story that isn't boring" is an issue to be marginalized ("just"); I'd say the reason the issue became such a GNS to-do is that there a lot (how much, I dunno) of roleplaying has produced stories that are boring, at least to some people, so there was examination of, "OK, what IS it that makes a story 'not boring'?" As far as Simulation goes. . .well, you're pretty insistent that it's not defined, even when others in this thread have noted that the Glossary definition actually isn't bad, and instead complain that the definition isn't applied that way in pratice. So if you're gonna keep claiming Sim is "undefined," more power to you. "Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements" at least says something to me, especially having sat through a lot of game sessions where nothing fun or interesting happens, simply because nothing "should" be happening, based on "in-game causes."

That definition is a pretty bad one IMHO. When I think of simulation, I am thinking of trying to model something in game in an accurate way; being true to reality or the source material. It has nothing to do with a preoccupation with cause and effect or with "thematic elements" to most people. It is this disconnect with terminology that makes GNS inaccessable to most gamers, among other things. Really, most events of play have in-game causes, but that doesn't mean they simulate anything.

While you may be able to derive something useful to your gaming from that, it still really doesn't say anything about what most gamers would call simulation. The example you cite is telling, seeing as you equate "sim" with "boring". Not to pick on you here, cuz I think your heart is in the right place, but I have played in some games that were all about the "story" that were pretty dull. Boring games are the enemy, not a particular playstyle.

If the words in GNS meant what they mean in the dictionary rather than the faux-academic forgespeak definitions, maybe they could communicate something meaningful to more people. As it is, I think any would be RPG theory types would be better off starting from scratch.

Quote from: GabrielBecause they decided long ago that Simulationist play was impossible and illusory, and Gamism is immature and not "real" gaming.  Narrativism is the one true way.  Everything else is either illusory or the result of brain damage.

There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

Thread killed one post in. Oh well.

Quote from: MelinglorY'know, thanks for reminding me, I meant to address that point: you really think that nobody in roleplaying engages in "competition amongst the participants" past the age of 13? :confused:

Nobody does that as the main or sole reason they're gaming. Remember that these three categories are not merely, "a description of stuff that sometimes happens". The idea is that in any "coherent" game, one and only one of Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism happens. Just one. And to make a gamer happy, figure out if they're G, N or S, and then find a game which is only G, N or S, and then give them just that one in the game session.

So that's saying that there are people - "Gamists" - who are interested in and enjoy only "competition among the participants." Nothing else. "Nope! No story with a point to it! Nope! None of that "feeling the setting" rubbish! Just competition! I'll totally PWN that geek!" I think it's fair to say almost no-one does that after the age of 13.

Quote from: MelinglorAs far as the other two go, I don't think "a story that isn't boring" is an issue to be marginalized ("just"); I'd say the reason the issue became such a GNS to-do is that there a lot (how much, I dunno) of roleplaying has produced stories that are boring, at least to some people, so there was examination of, "OK, what IS it that makes a story 'not boring'?"

A GM and players who aren't crap. The group should talk to each-other, and find out what they like. And no, GNS doesn't help this, because individuals aren't so easily categorised. Despite the assertions of the theory, nobody sticks to just one style of play forever.

If the theory were true, then narrowly-focused games would be extremely popular. And in fact, games which allow for a wide variety of playstyles - D&D, GURPS, WoD - are the most popular. The best the rest can hoep for is to be much-praised but rarely-played.

Quote from: MelinglorAs far as Simulation goes. . .well, you're pretty insistent that it's not defined, even when others in this thread have noted that the Glossary definition actually isn't bad, and instead complain that the definition isn't applied that way in pratice.

It doesn't count as "a definition" if even the original writer of its definition doesn't use it that way.

There's the Glossary definition, and there's the definition Ron Edwards uses when talking to people who call themselves "Narrativists" like he does, and the definition Ron Edwards uses when talking to people who say "Simulationism is fun", and the definition Clinton Nixon uses, and the definition we see tossed around at rpg.net, and, and, and... Each of those definitions is vague, sloppy, and not consistent with others.

It's simply that they made up this thing called "Narrativism", and said, "all gaming which is good, is Narrativism, the rest is shit," so they focused on the "Narrativism." It's sort of like doing a painting of a chainmail bikini chick in the mountains, and leaving the mountains blurry, but showing her nipple erection through her chainmail - you give the detail to the area which interests you the most, and leave the rest vague.

[quot=Melinglor]Here I'd say you're mischaracterizing GNS by comparing it to things that are obviously nonsensical and a complete non sequiter to gaming. GNS at least discusses concepts that relate to roleplaying. It may be bollocks, but we can't really talk meaningfully about HOW it is or isn't bollocks if the claim is "GNS is as nonsensical as comparing roleplaying to fish."[/quote]
But I have talked about exactly why GNS is bollocks. I already gave you a link to the Socratic dialogue. Fuck, I just about got banned from rpg.net for talking about GNS being crap - in the end, it was something else, but I sure risked it for that.

How long do I have to keep explaining exactly why it's nonsense? Shall I have some lengthy discussions with the creationists and global-warming deniers, too? At what point do I get to say, "okay, that's dealt with. We've established what is not true, let's talk about what we think is true"? I thought this forum was for that. That's in the Game Design & Theory forum's statement of purpose,

Quote from: RPGPunditSo I'm going to ask if the participants on this forum could try to stop talking about GNS, or the Forge, and start ponying up with new ideas instead.

I wanted to make this the one place on the entire fucking internet where you can talk about theory without having to talk about GNS on the Forge's terms. So that's what we're going to do.

If you want to talk about GNS, go to The Forge. No wait, there's no theory discussion there. Surely that has to tell you something? Even the guys who invented the theory don't want to talk about it. ENOUGH.

You didn't even read the Socratic dialogue, you lazy bugger. "But surely we should discuss this thoroughly." "Here's where I discussed it thoroughly." "But I don't want to read where you discussed it thoroughly." Lazy sod. Go read that, otherwise I'm not talking to you about it anymore. GNS is a load of shite. I already did that.

Come up with something new. I have.

I think it's very telling that I learn more about gaming theory from threads like this than I do actually going and reading all of the theory stuff on the dedicated theory sites. Someday I'll have enough to actually say in a coherent matter that's more than just a paragraph or two on gaming theory, which I also think is very telling about gaming theory. What that tells, I really don't know yet.

I'm going to do something disgusting and unseemly. Balbinus, forgive me. I'm going to introduce a fact or two.

Quote from: What JBO saysRemember that these three categories are not merely, "a description of stuff that sometimes happens". The idea is that in any "coherent" game, one and only one of Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism happens. Just one. And to make a gamer happy, figure out if they're G, N or S, and then find a game which is only G, N or S, and then give them just that one in the game session.

So that's saying that there are people - "Gamists" - who are interested in and enjoy only "competition among the participants." Nothing else. "Nope! No story with a point to it! Nope! None of that "feeling the setting" rubbish! Just competition! I'll totally PWN that geek!" I think it's fair to say almost no-one does that after the age of 13.

Quote from: What the actual source says...the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing.

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time.

Jim,
You're obviously a smart guy with a keen intellect. But you've got a hate-on for this shit. I don't even necessarily disagree with some of your points, but the truth of the matter is right there, man.

-L

Leaving alone that by that quote, GNS has never once (IMXP) been used properly...

...yeah, great. Same Forge shit, different bucket.

Step One: Internet gamer relates his account of gameplay, stating within that his play has always served all three of the bullshit categories, because that's how a goddamn roleplaying game works.

Step Two: Big Uncle Ronny tells him what he really means and how he's actually playing, by pointing out that his theory is correct and the player is wrong about his experience. His play was not about all three, it was about using stuff from two bullshit categories to support the third bullshit category. If B.U.R. likes the AP report, it's N; otherwise it gets some other label depending on whether it's closer to a) not laser-focused on hard decisions about fake people (S) or b) roll-heavy with lots of high-fives at the table(G). Probably posts some links.

Step 3 (likely):Gamer argues his experience is not invalidated by GNS, but rather that the theory might not be all inclusive. Is then shouted out of the forum, almost certainly with links provided to "get up to speed so you can discuss this with us". Further argument may see his posts editted or account banned.


Do you guys even read the shit you quote from first?

As fun as JimBob's arguments have been, I do buy into the basics of GNS.  I don't think it's shit at all.  I think it's probably near something that will be very cool soon, but it's not there.  Ron Edwards hamstringing the theory discussion to cut off its evolution is the one action that made me personally dislike his online persona.

It's almost there.  But then again, that's not really germane to my question.

Based on what everyone has said so far, I'm inclined to think that the Forge scene has simply lost its bearings.  Instead of being a community for the creation of independent games and fostering the independent publishing scene, it has become a community of people interested in Narrativist focused games.  This is not a bad thing, necessarily, as they produce some great Narrativist games, but the punk/DIY aesthetic they had originally has moved into a specific genre.  In effect, they have BECOME one of the Big Publishers they despised so much, at the beginning, albeit an informal organization.  They are like a company that produces Narrativist games, mostly.

I want to know, through inquiries such as the one that started this thread, why they can't return to a more open and friendly organization for the independent publisher?  It seems to me the most useful part of the Forge for the independent publisher is the physical aspects: marketing, format, layout, etc.

Joe: Thats like what I said, but less rude.

The whole GNS thing used to actually mean something. Now it's a marketing tool.

The thing is:
You can go out and see people who play roleplaying games for the game part, or who mainly play roleplaying games for the story, and who mainly play for the simulation of a given thing.

So like, if you really wanted simulate a television series, you'd play Prime Time Adventues. Which is a game about (I know) simulating a television series. And you can see how people who prefer long campaigns play for the story. Because that's what a campaign is-- a story. And the game thing is obvious too- I interface a lot with D&D guys and I can instantly spot someone who totally revels in mastery of the mechanics and rules and tactics. And of course in reality it's non excusive and shifting. So you can have all three. You can have a long campaign focused story that involves highly tactical situations and simulates Classical Roman historical drama.. or whatever.

That's fucking dirt simple and non controversial... but it doesn't help market Sorcerer.

That's why GNS (or what it has become) is bullshit. And the fun irony of the forgies making it so that "simulation" is shorthand for "sucks" is this:


The primary goal of what forgies call "narrativism" is to simulate a certain type of moral parable. Most of the games they love so much don't create stories emergently, but rather they simulate them from the outside in, the same way Once Upon A Time does.  The result are these disposable story simulations that aren't truly about the player characters, (since character ownership itself is suspect under these terms, and even the GM's role as moderator is suspect).

Not that there's anything wrong with that. The truth is: forgies couldn't figure out simulation because it was too close to them all along.

Semantic Sting folks :

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=53058#post53058

QuoteThe semantic sting is the misconception that the language of the law can be meaningful only if lawyers share such criteria. It is fatal to a legal theory because it leads theorist to think that people cannot have any deep (or substantive or genuine) disagreement about the law.

They can only disagree about empirical questions (as to what words were used in a statute), or about how penumbral cases should be resolved, or whether the law should be changed. Disagreeing about the criteria for application of the language of the law would be like using the same words for different meanings. People who disagree in that way are only talking past each other.

Regards,
David R

I agree with the general, broad idea of GNS.  Gamers are variously interested in Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulation.  I define the terms as follows:

Gamism: The players are interested in playing a game.  They want competition either between each other, the GM, or both.  They want to grow more powerful through achievements.  They want challenges.  They want good gameplay to be rewarded.  I definitely think this is the overwhelmingly most common form of play, and it's definitely not something "only people under 13 do."

Simulationism: This is the act of creating the game in such a way that a sense of verisimilitude is achieved.  Most commonly, it can represent "realism."  However, it can also be representative of genre emulation.  This takes place both in mechanics and play style.

Narrativism: This is quite simply telling a story in the game.  It prioritizes the story.  For example, it creates a situation where it's more important the villain dies dramatically  rather than the players simply defeat him.

All areas have their good points.  Gamism brings a feeling of reward for accomplishment.  Simulationism creates immersion in the setting.  Narrativism tells a good yarn.  

All areas also have their bad points.  Gamism can result in killer GMs and dysfunctional groups full of intraparty conflict.  Simulationism can result in "setting nazis."  Narrativism can easily devolve into blatant railroading.

All areas bump up against each other from time to time.  "Killing the main bad guy by a lucky roll in the first adventure is stupid!"  (Gamism versus Narrativism)  "I know the transporter can beam through the other ship's shields if you know the shield window of the other ship.  I still have half the adventure to go though, so it doesn't work."  (Simulationism verus Narrativism)  ETC.

It's obvious that, generally speaking, the best games combine all three.  Gamism is needed to give a context for the activity, an objective structure, and a drive for the players.  Simulationism is needed to create verisimilitude and a feeling of being there.  Narrativism is needed to make adventures seem like a random string of activities.

Some players are more skewed toward one thing or another.  I believe I'm pretty skewed toward Simulationism.  When playing or GMing Robotech, I want things to feel like I'm in an episode.  Simulationism is my primary concern, although I'm also interested in there being an interesting story (Narrativism) and cool challenges (Gamism).  For players so skewed, their enjoyment rests more on one element than another.  But a mix is usually preferable, and I believe most prefer a pretty stable balance of all three.

Where the Forge has gone completely awry is they have prioritized and made distinct value judgements on each style.  They've proclaimed Narrativism as the only valid goal.  Gamism is pretty much the same in their eyes as JimBob characterizes it: "something no one over 13 does."  Simulationism doesn't exist, because, well... quite honestly it seems to not exist to them because they've denied one of the basic qualities of an RPG being an RPG: imagining your character being in the setting and acting through his eyes.  Those who enjoy one of the most basic qualities of fictional entertainment, immersing oneself in the world of the characters, are seen as insane by the Forge theorists.

It doesn't hurt that several of the theory forgers seem to have extremely negative and dysfunctional gaming histories (and if I can say that about someone else's gaming, there's reason to worry).  Of all things, my recent play with Star Wars action figures illustrated this to me.  Instead of assuming participants WANT to tell a story in their gaming, they create rules to create a gamist enviornment where a participant MUST tell a story to accomplish anything.  Playing their games becomes more about gaming the system than telling a story.  It's extremely ironic.

One final interesting thing is the Forge tendency to create games with very limited focus.  The other day something dawned on me (which may be obvious to everyone else, but was a minor revelation to me).  Games have historically had the marketability problem of unlimited play with minimal purchases.  The games have wide focus and you can do anything.  But, by narrowing the focus and limiting the activity, as the Forge does in its games, then gamers into Forge games more quickly expend the games in question and want to move on to the next work of theory genius.  By limiting the games, they've encouraged a sort of disposability to RPGs, and a saleability for the recurring authors beyond a single work.  Whether this has actually worked or not, I don't know.  But it's an interesting idea for a marketing model.

Quote from: GabrielI agree with the general, broad idea of GNS.  Gamers are variously interested in Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulation.  I define the terms as follows:

Gamism: The players are interested in playing a game.  They want competition either between each other, the GM, or both.  They want to grow more powerful through achievements.  They want challenges.  They want good gameplay to be rewarded.  I definitely think this is the overwhelmingly most common form of play, and it's definitely not something "only people under 13 do."

Simulationism: This is the act of creating the game in such a way that a sense of verisimilitude is achieved.  Most commonly, it can represent "realism."  However, it can also be representative of genre emulation.  This takes place both in mechanics and play style.

Narrativism: This is quite simply telling a story in the game.  It prioritizes the story.  For example, it creates a situation where it's more important the villain dies dramatically  rather than the players simply defeat him.

All areas have their good points.  Gamism brings a feeling of reward for accomplishment.  Simulationism creates immersion in the setting.  Narrativism tells a good yarn.  

All areas also have their bad points.  Gamism can result in killer GMs and dysfunctional groups full of intraparty conflict.  Simulationism can result in "setting nazis."  Narrativism can easily devolve into blatant railroading.

All areas bump up against each other from time to time.  "Killing the main bad guy by a lucky roll in the first adventure is stupid!"  (Gamism versus Narrativism)  "I know the transporter can beam through the other ship's shields if you know the shield window of the other ship.  I still have half the adventure to go though, so it doesn't work."  (Simulationism verus Narrativism)  ETC.

It's obvious that, generally speaking, the best games combine all three.  Gamism is needed to give a context for the activity, an objective structure, and a drive for the players.  Simulationism is needed to create verisimilitude and a feeling of being there.  Narrativism is needed to make adventures seem like a random string of activities.

Some players are more skewed toward one thing or another.  I believe I'm pretty skewed toward Simulationism.  When playing or GMing Robotech, I want things to feel like I'm in an episode.  Simulationism is my primary concern, although I'm also interested in there being an interesting story (Narrativism) and cool challenges (Gamism).  For players so skewed, their enjoyment rests more on one element than another.  But a mix is usually preferable, and I believe most prefer a pretty stable balance of all three.

Where the Forge has gone completely awry is they have prioritized and made distinct value judgements on each style.  They've proclaimed Narrativism as the only valid goal.  Gamism is pretty much the same in their eyes as JimBob characterizes it: "something no one over 13 does."  Simulationism doesn't exist, because, well... quite honestly it seems to not exist to them because they've denied one of the basic qualities of an RPG being an RPG: imagining your character being in the setting and acting through his eyes.  Those who enjoy one of the most basic qualities of fictional entertainment, immersing oneself in the world of the characters, are seen as insane by the Forge theorists.

It doesn't hurt that several of the theory forgers seem to have extremely negative and dysfunctional gaming histories (and if I can say that about someone else's gaming, there's reason to worry).  Of all things, my recent play with Star Wars action figures illustrated this to me.  Instead of assuming participants WANT to tell a story in their gaming, they create rules to create a gamist enviornment where a participant MUST tell a story to accomplish anything.  Playing their games becomes more about gaming the system than telling a story.  It's extremely ironic.

One final interesting thing is the Forge tendency to create games with very limited focus.  The other day something dawned on me (which may be obvious to everyone else, but was a minor revelation to me).  Games have historically had the marketability problem of unlimited play with minimal purchases.  The games have wide focus and you can do anything.  But, by narrowing the focus and limiting the activity, as the Forge does in its games, then gamers into Forge games more quickly expend the games in question and want to move on to the next work of theory genius.  By limiting the games, they've encouraged a sort of disposability to RPGs, and a saleability for the recurring authors beyond a single work.  Whether this has actually worked or not, I don't know.  But it's an interesting idea for a marketing model.

QFT, brother.  QFT.

No, guys.

The basic flaw is that gamers want different kinds of things. This is bullshit.
A game has many dimensions, roleplaying games have several dimensions of being fun.

People are multi-dimensional, too. They want it all at once.

You can´t possibly have all at once at the same time.

So the DM has to set priorities, as long as every aspect is incorporated in some way, the game is functioning and will go on.

The theory is flawed for several other reasons. For example, even if a person had a set of preferences etched in stone, nearly 99% game what they know, because they know it.

There is no fully-informed market in RPGs.
There´s not even a fully-informed market on ways how to play RPGs.

So the choices made are an artifact of exposure and random chance.

You might want to check out something real instead.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies

Also seek out the four dimensions of fun in games:

Roger Caillois
1958
 „Agon“ = Competition (e.g. Football)
 „Alea“ = Chance (e.g. Roulette)
 „Mimikry“ = Identity-Play (e.g. let´s pretend Mama-Papa-Child, theatre)
 „Ilinx“ = Inebriation (Rollercoaster, Swing on the playground)

See how RPGs have the power to combine three or all four dimensions, and see why people who can make them work can be "addicted for a lifetime.

Being only into Mimikry is counter-civilizatory, as it defeats the purpose and strength of RPGs =

To cater for most dimensions at the same instant of playing! Compare Roulette to D&D, and you´ll see why D&D is the more wholesome experience. Roulette is more "coherent" for sure, but it is the weaker design, the primitive version.