Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Anywhere you want to put it. Or nowhere, if you'd prefer. Ron Edwards' theories are incoherent (real world meaning, not Ron Edwards double-talk), meaning that trying to get consistent answers out of them is a waste of effort. Since all the GNS definitions are long rambling essays that say opposite, or at least incompatible, things about all kinds of stuff.

The entire point is the Ron Edwards' tirades parse down to contradictions. They are so long because he's trying to make it an all inclusive model, so he has to encompass what are essentially opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately once you do that, you no longer have a thesis statement, a consistent worldview, or even definitions for your words.

Words like Narratavism only make any sense, only convey any meaning when you take them away from Ron Edwards' pseudo-intellectual bullshit terminology and return them to the natural English that people assume the theory is talking about before they read into his actual works and get disappointed. That's the entire point of discussions involving the terms today. Any time anyone is attempting to use the terminology of Ron Edwards it is for using it without Ron Edwards' actual definitions. And for that purpose, Narratavism is the portion of the game dedicated to storytelling. And yes, it's not particularly desirable to separate Narratavist elements from Gamist or Simulationist elements except in extremely obscure magical teaparty circumstances (see Munchhausen).

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;467246*snip*

I'm sorry. I didn't realise your name was Peregrin. I specifically asked him because he said it wasn't incoherent as he sees it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466509I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

Wow. Someone that f'n gets it.

This here folks. Seriously. I used to have a sig that said this I dealt with so many impressionable young gets who didn't know what I meant when I talked about simulationism.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Despite the fact that I play "story-games" and don't really care for a divide between them and "regular" RPGs, if I had to use this site's generalized opinion, Burning Wheel sits firmly in the story-game camp because the core engine of the game is extremely Narrativist by Big Model standards.  Play in BW is solely centered around players making beliefs, and then having those beliefs challenged through play to make a statement of some kind.  Everything else in the system, while it may give the game the facade of being more "traditional" than other Nar games because of certain aesthetics about it (equipment lists, lifepath chargen, detailed combat, skill lists), ties in with the core of the system and serves to push play forward towards testing and resolving beliefs.  Everything in the game has to take place within that context or it all falls apart, and in my brief foray into the system, I think that's where a lot of people can't get it to work for them -- they're assuming it's "like" a trad RPG because of all the minutiae and familiar bits, but it does not gel at all if you try to push the game away from the core structure of the Nar skeleton that it all hinges on.

So yes, you could play bits and pieces of BW with Gamist or Simulationist priorities, but when you take a look at the long-term play that Burning Wheel is designed for -- the type of play that allows you to sort it out into one of the agendas, the only type of play Burning Wheel functionally supports as a primary creative goal is Narrativism, mostly because of how all of those game and sim bits interlock with the core system.

Anyway, that's all I really have to say on BW and GNS/The Big Model.  I was on a kick for a while where it really helped me sort out some thinking I had done about games prior to actually bothering to read or post on online RPG fora, but I've been trying to move away from it towards more generalized game design concepts that are more universally and practically applicable.  TBM offers an interesting lens to look through, and has produced some conceptually neat stuff, but I don't like the idea of resting on one's laurels or limiting design to a single model -- I think multiple models and approaches help to diversify and expand our understanding, whereas relying on a single model has the tendency to create a very narrow FOV.

Quote from: PeregrinBurning Wheel sits firmly in the story-game camp because the core engine of the game is extremely Narrativist by Big Model standards.

Narrativist means even less than the other terms in the big model.

Selected hilarity from the "actual" Ron Edwards definition of Narratavism:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).

Quote from: Landon DarkwoodIn Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used.

Quote from: Ron Edwards, in response to the above"In a word," I replied, "Yes."

Quote from: Ron Edwards(1) the actions of the players (2) teach the players something

Since the whole point of Narrativist play is apparently that you don't have anything coherent and can contradict yourself at will, I guess you could classify anything as Narrativist.

-Frank

*sigh*

I didn't mean story-game in any Forge or Edwards sense of the word, I was using it to distinguish it based on the criteria set forth on this site.  You can easily take out the first half of my sentence and the rest of the post still stands.

What Ron's talking about in regards to "the story" is something different.

*edit*

Regardless, if you really dislike GNS that much, just strip out all of the jargon, and just keep the core concept of "Play is focused on addressing and resolving character Beliefs, and the system does not function properly if you attempt to redirect play away from that."  That's it.  Dom asked me to sort it into a hat, and so I entertained that notion and did working within the context of TBM, using my own judgment based on my reading of the game text and actual play experience I've had with the system.  Doesn't mean I have to agree with anyone about the overall usability of the model, it was just an intellectual exercise I was asked to do.

Quote from: Peregrin;467346*snip*

Thank you. That was insightful and I am inclined to agree.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games.

So...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

Ah, so you're some kind of hipster then!  Enjoy being a special snowflake, brosieve.  One day, someone just might love you enough to let you realize that being special for special's sake is just...pathetic.

Hey, I can do that, too!

QuoteSo...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

So you consider the pursuit of profit and the quality of a product to be intrinsically tied?  

Although, I think Dom meant something slightly different.  More like, Twilight and Transformers outselling other movies is something we can expect regardless of their competitor's quality.  I also doubt that when Eminem made the comment that "most" mainstream hip-hop and rap sucks, he was doing so to fill up his hipster-cred account.

Comon' now, peoples.  We can use the thread for geek-sniping eachother, or, you know, let it die (you can imagine it dying in a fire if that makes it any better for you).  Unless someone actually has something profound to say regarding GNS still being a "thing"...which it's not.

Quote from: Peregrin;467479So you consider the pursuit of profit and the quality of a product to be intrinsically tied?  

Before I got snippy, I was actually asking a question.  I felt he answered himself.  I offered no opinion, but for the record, I don't believe quality can be completely objective.

GNS, since I should say something productive, is an interesting theory which was conceived and "codified" by technical people unused to qualitative theory.  The same goes with Threefold and Big Model.  One of the biggest issues I had with the Forge, and with really anyone who wants to come up with e decent theory of RPG design, is that they are confusing scientific phenomenology with philosophical/psychological phenomenology.  When you get a bunch of folks used to evaluating things quantitatively, they tend to look at theory as a quantitative pursuit.  Even Edwards himself is a scientist, not a literary analyst...he doesn't even have formal training in qualitative phenomenology!  I feel that he is the rule, not the exception, given that most gamers are from scientific background.

I don't think a qualitative approach is not possible when it comes to game theory, but roleplaying is unique in that there are both qualitative and quantitative elements.  The quantitative can be handled with statistical games theory, while the qualitative cannot reasonably be assessed by either literary theory or phenomenology.  

I'm not sure what educational background would be best applied to RPG theory, I know it's not mine, I'm a historian.  While I'm very comfortable and experienced with qualitative data, I've never applied it to anything current.

QuoteGNS, since I should say something productive, is an interesting theory which was conceived and "codified" by technical people unused to qualitative theory. The same goes with Threefold and Big Model. One of the biggest issues I had with the Forge, and with really anyone who wants to come up with e decent theory of RPG design, is that they are confusing scientific phenomenology with philosophical/psychological phenomenology

Which is funny, because despite Edwards' background, the discussions on the Forge regarding actual-play map better to broader general game design than anything else I've read.  Not all of it, mind you, but some of the insights in those discussions aren't nearly as controversial in general game-theory, and are almost spot-on regarding actual academic discussions into play-theory when it comes to games.

Really, though, GNS, along with broader game-design theory focused on actual play, is more concerned with the social and psychological aspects of gaming.  It's not going to give you direct insight into actually designing a game -- number theory and the quantitative stuff is something else entirely.  If anyone approaches GNS or TBM thinking it's going to instantly help them "design" a better game, they're sorely mistaken.  The only thing it's good for, like a lot of game theory, is analyzing how play functions so that you can then work on making your design better suit its purpose and provide more satisfying play.

IMO, the notion that RPGs are special-snowflakes with regards to how people interact when gaming/playing something and thus exempt from any game-theory is more of a problem (and potentially damaging to the hobby in the long-run) than crazy folk like Edwards attempting to model it.  For whatever reason, some people see "theory" and they think that people are trying to cram RPGs in with zero-sum game design, when that's not what modern game theory is about.  It's much more broad now, and much more focused on actual-play than number-theory.

Anyway, a really good book that I've started to read is called Rules of Play (Salen and Zimmerman, MIT Press).  While it only briefly mentions D&D/TTRPGs (because historically, a lot of RPGs are not games by their definition -- something that got some tabletop theorists in trouble for claiming), the rest of the book is an interesting take on the theory of play.

*edit*

Also, IIRC, I don't think Edwards is mistakenly confusing scientific/psychologic/philosophic -- I think he takes the stance that the sciences are a subset of the liberal arts.  Which is another topic unto itself.

Quote from: Peregrin;467479Although, I think Dom meant something slightly different.  More like, Twilight and Transformers outselling other movies is something we can expect regardless of their competitor's quality.  I also doubt that when Eminem made the comment that "most" mainstream hip-hop and rap sucks, he was doing so to fill up his hipster-cred account.

That is indeed and obviously what I aimed at, but on this forum people are usually too busy sniping each other to read someone else's post with even an ounce of good will. Case in point. Some random fellow tried to play the "you are a hipster"-card.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467484That is indeed and obviously what I aimed at, but on this forum people are usually too busy sniping each other to read someone else's post with even an ounce of good will. Case in point. Some random fellow tried to play the "you are a hipster"-card.

I'm not some random guy, I have a name you know.  Also, I was being a dick.  I didn't try to play the hipster card, I was just calling it like I see it.  Matters of taste are not universal, or else Michael Bay's films would never exist.  I just don't like it when people say things like "Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap," since it sounds like someone desperately trying to be cool.  I'm not putting motivations on you, I'm just letting you know why I got snippy.

I also asked you a serious question before the snark...you know, because I read the entire post.

I've read Rules of Play.  I don't think it's very useful to RPGs, no one has come up with something useful for RPGs.  TBM and GNS are of limited utility, because RPGs are some kind of special snowflake in the gaming sense.  So far, the only decent analyses of computer based RPGs that relate to Tabletop are those articles related to free-form "sandbox"
style games.  

I happen to agree with Salen and Zimmerman's old view (Rules of Play is showing its age). Tabletop RPGs are usually not games in any kind of gameplay theory...because we don't yet have a cohesive vocabulary.  Perhaps some young rhetorician or literary analyst will write the definitive book on the subject and we can stop having discussions about half-baked, mostly useless "theory."

Quote from: joewolz;467478So...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

Sorry, I just ignored you because, like you yourself said, you were being a dick.

I don't consider successful and quality mutually exclusive, but I do recognize that in pop culture successful and quality definitely are not one and the same thing. Quite the opposite indeed.
Look at our own hobby. D&D and pathfinder outsell everything and yet for my money they represent everything that is wrong with the hobby (well they and the people who have way more games than they play, but that is a different rant alltogether).