1 +  *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*

     2 |-+  *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*

     3 | |-+  *GNS Model Discussion <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0>*

     4 | | |-+  *The whole model - this is it <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.0>*

     5 

     6 *Pages:* [*1*] 2 3 * ... *5

     7 

     8 Author 	Topic: The whole model - this is it  (Read 13307 times)

     9 

    10 *Ron Edwards

    11 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*

    12 Global Moderator

    13 Member

    14 *

    15 Posts: 12610

    16 

    17 

    18 View Profile

    19 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW

    20 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>

    21 	

    22 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90112#msg90112>

    23 *The whole model - this is it

    24 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90112#msg90112>*

    25 « * on:* November 11, 2003, 03:49:15 PM »

    26 	

    27 

    28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29 Hello,

    30 

    31 All the following material is supplemental to the existing essays, but

    32 it also overrules them as well as any of my previous comments in forum

    33 discussions at any point of contradiction.

    34 

    35 In other words, all of the following is the straight dope as of this

    36 writing. If a particular term or concept isn't mentioned here, then the

    37 pre-existing material stands; ask about it if that material isn't clear

    38 to you. If I haven't defined a term (and I define very few here), that

    39 means that the current definition is intended to stand.

    40 

    41 My plan is to hammer out any necessary hassles about this material in

    42 this thread, and then rewrite the whole damn thing in "nice and

    43 friendly" prose, which as far as I know is pretty much the first time

    44 that will have been done. For a sample of the tone/logic I'll be using,

    45 see *GNS - what is it? <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5860>*.

    46 

    47 THE MODEL ITSELF

    48 

    49 *[Social Contract]*

    50 

    51 Social Contract encompasses everything about role-playing, because it is

    52 the sum of all interactions among the people involved. If these people

    53 happen to be role-playing together, then Social Contract crucially

    54 includes "Let's play this game." This crucial element is what's further

    55 subdivided throughout the rest of this model.

    56 

    57 *[Social Contract [Exploration]]*

    58 

    59 The above two terms do not constitute a dichotomy. Exploration

    60 ("imagined stuff," "shared imagined space"), as previously defined in my

    61 essays, is an expression or application of that particular group's

    62 Social Contract. One cannot say "That's just social" when discussing

    63 some aspect of play, nor can one write off Social Contract as "just

    64 being polite" with actual play being something else.

    65 

    66 Exploration is usually described as merely a list of Character, Setting,

    67 Situation, System, and Color. But it does have more internal/imaginary

    68 structure: Character + Setting make Situation, System permits Situation

    69 to "move," and Color affects all the others. This concept applies only

    70 to the imaginary causes among the elements, by the way; the actual

    71 effort, priority, or cause among these things, in social/creative terms,

    72 varies widely.

    73 

    74 *[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]*

    75 

    76 Creative Agenda is the blanket term for any and all GNS modes or

    77 priorities of play. The Venn diagram is supposed to indicate that any

    78 Creative Agenda is an expression or application of Exploration among the

    79 real-people group. Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that

    80 means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, "play has begun."

    81 

    82 On paper, I draw this terms as an arrow, labelled GNS or Creative

    83 Agenda. This arrow is very important - this "step" or "level" in my

    84 model shifts out of the abstract and solidly into this group, playing

    85 this game, this way, at this time. The model instantly ceases to be a

    86 broad overview or comparative panoply, and starts to be a diagnostic or

    87 description of a real play-experience among real people. Unless you are

    88 thinking of such a case, you will be left flailing at this point in the

    89 discussion.

    90 

    91 For purposes of explaining the overall model, I'm profoundly

    92 uninterested in discusing the nuances, internal relationships,

    93 definitions, or anything else about the internal content of Creative

    94 Agenda. All I care about, at this point, is that people recognize that

    95 role-playing requires such a thing to exist.

    96 

    97 *[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]*

    98 

    99 To understand this part, again, recognize that Creative Agenda and the

   100 arrow symbol are supposed to be the same thing, not two things. That

   101 means that we are talking about some actual play. The panoply of

   102 Techniques being employed in that instance, over time, either satisfy or

   103 fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas.

   104 

   105 It's not too off-the-wall to think of Techniques as being a direct

   106 expression of the more abstract concept of System (way up in

   107 Exploration), except that System doesn't exist all by itself - it's

   108 fully integrated with all the other components of Exploration. But if

   109 you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented by Creative

   110 Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.

   111 

   112 Techniques include IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling

   113 time, narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact,

   114 character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), scene framing,

   115 currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these

   116 terms represents a /range/ of potential play-methods. I consider the two

   117 most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE.

   118 

   119 *[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques

   120 [Ephemera]]]]]*

   121 

   122 Ephemera is a new term, indicating the smallest-scale interactions and

   123 activities of role-playing: anything that gets factored into or is

   124 expressed by play in the space of a few seconds.

   125 

   126 Although fleeting, Ephemera are emphatically not trivial. As with every

   127 level/box so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or

   128 apply one or more Techniques. They are the internal anatomy, if you

   129 will, of Techniques and hence (conceptualizing upward) of System.

   130 

   131 Ephemera include individual Stances, in-character vs. out-of-character

   132 diction and dialogue, referring to texts, sound effects, taking or

   133 referring to notes, kibitzing, laughing, praise or disapproval, specific

   134 dice or other system-based outcome interpretations, showing pictures,

   135 and anything similar.

   136 

   137 *Clarification*

   138 Some related topics are out of the scope of this discussion. I'm happy

   139 to discuss them in other threads /if/ the person is completely able to

   140 demonstrate understanding of the material presented so far. However,

   141 none of them are going to occupy a whole lot of my emotional attention,

   142 at least not until the Narrativism essay is done.

   143 

   144 - The relationship of S to N and/or G, or any other nuances of GNS

   145 definitions or combinations within the [Creative Agenda] level. With any

   146 luck, all three essays will do a good job of at least making /myself/

   147 clear about this stuff. Whether that will mean a damn thing in terms of

   148 resolving anything for anyone else, I can't say.

   149 

   150 - Incoherence and/or dysfunctional play based on GNS incompatibilities.

   151 This one will be a big deal for some, but I suspect it's a matter of

   152 defensiveness in many cases: "You say it's incoherent but we have fun!"

   153 To which I can only reply, "Sounds coherent to me," or, "I suspect your

   154 'fun' isn't as 'fun' as you think, for everyone." I've been saddened by

   155 how often the latter response has proved accurate in the long run.

   156 

   157 - Commerce of any kind, especially in terms of "success." This

   158 discussion, unfortunately, will have to await a much broader

   159 understanding of game marketing and commerce than I think is the case,

   160 currently. Recent threads at the Forge reinforce my impression about this.

   161 

   162 Instead of going into stuff like the above, this thread is devoted to

   163 clarifying any aspect of the Big Picture as presented here, especially

   164 inter-relations among the levels, and how they are to be assessed and

   165 discussed. I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera

   166 relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques

   167 relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda.

   168 

   169 DESIGN, RULES, AND TEXTS

   170 

   171 Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text.

   172 "Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts

   173 are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations

   174 regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that

   175 people who read it can get that version of the model into action.

   176 

   177 Therefore the goal of design, it seems to me, is to make sense to the

   178 reader in terms of the whole model. It's like a musical instrument, or

   179 several of them, as well as instructions for how to play them, and

   180 finally some music or chords to work with. Seems easy? Well, here are

   181 the usual problems I see with role-playing texts, now that I have this

   182 "model" thing setting next to me as I type.

   183 

   184 Problem 1 = Simply leaving whole levels out, assuming that readers

   185 already know and agree exactly where you're coming from for those

   186 levels. It's conceivable that, for instance, a panoply of Techniques are

   187 simply so powerful in reinforcing some subset of Creative Agenda that

   188 stating the latter would be redundant, but as far as I can tell, most

   189 rules-sets aren't that lucky.

   190 

   191 Problem 2 = Problematic combinations of Techniques which lead to

   192 confusion about Creative Agenda, which in turn means a whole lot of

   193 local construction about "why we play." If you want to call this

   194 "incoherence," you can - it's what I originally meant by the term, which

   195 I'm considering retiring from use. And although I stand by my point that

   196 this issue usually is a genuine problem for role-players, don't get me

   197 started on early Champions or Amber, both of which turned out to benefit

   198 greatly from the very same phenomenon. Whole 'nother essays, waiting to

   199 happen.

   200 

   201 Problem 3 = Plain bad system design, which is to say, unsatisfying at

   202 the group level for any particular Creative Agenda. If a given

   203 rules-loop allows an "automatic win" in Gamist play, if it jars the

   204 Dream inconsistently with other features of the game, if it locks down

   205 Premise too tightly ... any of these "break" a game relative to a given

   206 goal of play. Such games tend to be instantly discarded or instantly

   207 repaired, often covertly (people insist that the "right" way to play

   208 just happens not to be textual).

   209 

   210 Problem 4 = Nonsensical prose, which might accompany perfectly good

   211 rules. This is far more common than is good for any hobby, I think. It's

   212 often associated with Creative Agenda issues, but also with many aspects

   213 of character creation.

   214 

   215 Here's also what I see when looking at each level of the model and

   216 thinking about rules texts.

   217 

   218 Social Contract and rules: This is where all those "What is

   219 Role-playing" sections fall flat on their face. Just to pick the most

   220 glaring example, I'm here to say that role-playing is not, and never

   221 was, "cops and robbers with dice to resolve disputes." Going by the

   222 model, people roll dice (or whatever) because they /agree/ about the

   223 imagined events, not because they /disagree/. It might be interesting to

   224 see whether anyone could write an introduction to a role-playing game

   225 that really did specify Social Contract issues in a way which set up all

   226 the following material in the game. Everway, perhaps? Universalis?

   227 

   228 Creative Agenda and rules: Most role-playing texts are emphatically

   229 silent about Creative Agendas, especially in the model's context that

   230 it's an expression of imaginative Social Contract. Often, especially

   231 when Gamist priorities seem to be invoked, one can parse out the GNS

   232 recommendation by looking at key words and phrasing ("When your

   233 character dies, you have lost the game."). The more emphatic

   234 Simulationist texts (Arrowflight) are often clearer, but whenever the

   235 term "story" gets thrown around in a vague, "You know, the /story/" way,

   236 I think the text becomes dramatically less helpful. I'm very impressed

   237 with the introduction in the Marvel Universe RPG, which provides an

   238 amazing textbook piece on the differences between Gamist ("The Brawl")

   239 and Narrativist ("With great power comes great responsibility") play,

   240 emphasizing that a group does well to decide which they would prefer to

   241 do when playing the game.

   242 

   243 Techniques and rules: Here's the most solid correspondence; I don't

   244 think it's difficult to see how most rules are in fact instructions for

   245 Techniques. The problem is that, according to the model, Techniques

   246 alone do not a role-playing game make.

   247 

   248 Ephemera and rules: Here's another tricky one - as with Creative Agenda,

   249 you have to find key phrases or little snippets scattered around the

   250 text in order to see whether any Ephemera are being explained or (more

   251 likely) assumed to be already standard for the role-players. The most

   252 explicit example I can think of are the frequent exhortations toward

   253 Actor Stance in so many games, as well as the implicit content of a "GM

   254 only" section.

   255 

   256 DISCUSSING THE MODEL

   257 

   258 I am listing some of the issues that people bring to discussing the

   259 model here at the forums and elsewhere, and including some points of

   260 interaction with the inherent stumbling blocks. The stumbling blocks

   261 usually arrive from people employing one or more of these approaches:

   262 

   263 a) reaching understanding through paraphrasing and correction,

   264 

   265 b) denying understanding as a means of defending oneself from a

   266 perceived threat,

   267 

   268 c) desperately trying to present one's own developed notions of some

   269 kind, and

   270 

   271 d) arguing in order to fit in, a common behavior among members of a

   272 somewhat socially stunted subculture.

   273 

   274 Role-players often arrive at the Forge in an advanced state of

   275 frustration regarding either play, talking about play, or both. Since

   276 there's no way to control (or on my part anyway, no /desire/ to control)

   277 what people want when they arrive, I think it's important for everyone

   278 to consider all of the following points about discussing the model.

   279 

   280 *Point #1:* Nearly everyone who first encounters the theory is

   281 predisposed to discuss Ephemera. They are also emotionally tied to

   282 various Ephemera, especially those combinations which reinforce certain

   283 Techniques, and it's hard to get people to let go of that commitment

   284 long enough to look at the variety available. They are often convinced

   285 that even looking at alternatives will destroy the entirety of whatever

   286 play-profile (real or idealized) that they currently hold in highest esteem.

   287 

   288 /Required point of discussion:/ Get them up to Techniques, which is what

   289 they really want to discuss. The key is to validate the Techniques

   290 they're trying to reinforce, and to acknowledge to the person that they

   291 are, indeed, making sense in these terms. After that point, the

   292 diversity of Ephemera can be discussed without the person going into

   293 protective-mode regarding what Techniques they prefer or are used to.

   294 

   295 *Point #2 (related to #1):* People may also take a Reductionist approach

   296 to trying to understand the model, which is to say, they would like the

   297 "particles" of (say) Stance to be themselves little chunks of GNS, and

   298 GNS as described simply to be collections of these chunks. This is not

   299 the case. Instead, for every box in the model, a category or type of

   300 "outer box" is always expressed/applied as a /combination/ of

   301 terms/categories within the inner box.

   302 

   303 /Required point of discussion:/ It's best to speak of combinations

   304 within an "inner" box in terms of how it affects or is affected by its

   305 "outer" box or boxes. Resist the extreme temptation to identify any one

   306 Technique, for instance, with a particular GNS category, or any one

   307 Ephemera-type event with a particular Technique.

   308 

   309 *Point #3:* Creative Agenda is the "verb" of the model. As a generalized

   310 topic, without an actual group or any role-playing to discuss, GNS

   311 priorities are incredibly vague and abstract, to the point of being

   312 uninteresting.

   313 

   314 In application, however, they are extremely concrete and easy to

   315 recognize. As I wrote in a recent thread,

   316 

   317 Quote

   318 The only variables that really make sense, in discussing GNS, are the

   319 social interactions and communications that go on among the real people

   320 at the table, during play.

   321 

   322 What is reinforced among them? Who praises whom, for doing what, and how

   323 often? When is a stated or proposed action disallowed, often in very

   324 subtle form? What gets everyone listening with undivided attention to a

   325 single person's announcements? When do people laugh? When do they not

   326 laugh, or socially squelch someone else's amusement?

   327 

   328 All of those things, and more, are the only valid variables for

   329 assessing a GNS profile for a given instance of play. (And by

   330 "instance," I mean a lot of play, at least a session, probably more.)

   331 

   332 I wish I'd made this point earlier. It's a big deal. The definitions of

   333 GNS are not the same variables one uses to assess GNS in action. Since

   334 GNS is a subset of Social Contract - indeed, it's the application of

   335 Social Contract to the imagined material ("Exploration") - its identity

   336 for that group can only be assessed in social terms.

   337 

   338 

   339 Furthermore, in application, a given Creative Agenda category is also

   340 extremely diverse in terms of possible Techniques, which is what my

   341 current three essays (two down, one to go) are mainly about. M.J. Young

   342 made a very good point recently when he said that within-Agenda

   343 categories (e.g. specific types of Gamism, etc) lead to more rancor and

   344 "not-us" distinctions among people discussing role-playing than

   345 among-Agenda categories, in most cases. Or to put it differently, people

   346 are highly committed not to "Gamism" but rather to "Gamism our way." Or

   347 to put it in terms of my essays, within-category synecdoche seems to be

   348 an extremely heartfelt, hotly-defended problem.

   349 

   350 /Required point of discussion:/ Don't get sidetracked into definitional

   351 descriptions when discussing actual play. If a person really is

   352 interested in examining the Creative Agenda(s) of his or her

   353 role-playing, or more accurately that of his or her group, then focus on

   354 social interactions, the real-people approval and disapproval during

   355 play itself, as quoted above.

   356 

   357 *Point #4 (related to #3:* Creative Agenda is the most troublesome level

   358 of the model for people to discuss, because many folks would very, very

   359 much like Techniques to construct a satisfying GNS-profile for them,

   360 without explicit reference to Social Contract. To link [Social Contract

   361 [Exploration]] /causally downward/ into [Techniques], emphasizing

   362 personal responsibility ("You get what you play for"), is frightening

   363 and unwanted. They want what they want without wanting (a) to say so or

   364 (b) actually to do that thing. Or if they are getting what they want,

   365 it's often through Social Contract manipulation and they don't want to

   366 endanger their carefully-constructed power-play.

   367 

   368 Here's the biggie: people have often come to idealize "rules" or "lack

   369 of rules," whichever, in order to cement into play the Techniques that

   370 they are used to or that they think will get them what they want. This

   371 is the source of Rules and/or Setting Fetishim, as well as the source of

   372 System Doesn't Matter. It's also the source of the /failure/ of both

   373 tactics, neither of which stand up well in the long term. Cries of "it's

   374 just a game" or "I just play to have fun" are signs of these tactics in

   375 a state of final breakdown. Excessive arguing about details of GNS-stuff

   376 is sometimes a defense mechanism.

   377 

   378 /Required point of discussion/: Stress Creative Agenda as the absolutely

   379 necessary bridge from "we all like Star Trek" (Exploration) to "this is

   380 how we role-play Star Trek" (Techniques). And just as importantly, be

   381 prepared for the possibility that the person may /not/ be coming from

   382 the position described in this point, and may well be perfectly comfy

   383 with the concept of Creative Agenda once they get it properly explained

   384 in terms of the levels of the model. So over-defensiveness on your part

   385 should be acknowledged as a potential problem too.

   386 

   387 *Point #5:* Techniques express and satisfy Creative Agenda, whether

   388 unsuccessfully or successfully. However, the relation between these

   389 levels is not a tautology. You cannot discuss some abstract "real

   390 Simulationism," for instance, in terms of Techniques which define it,

   391 and especially not in terms of whatever the imaginary characters did to

   392 or with whomever they fictionally encountered. Instead, you must

   393 investigate whether X Techniques as applied and socially reinforced in Y

   394 role-playing group are coalescing around (e.g.) a Simulationist

   395 aesthetic. This is related to Point #3 in that applying Creative Agenda

   396 is highly specific to a group of people: their personalities and

   397 interactions, and their habits of play. But my current point is that

   398 Techniques don't "compose" a Creative Agenda in a definitional way.

   399 

   400 /Required point of discussion/: Details of Creative Agenda may not be

   401 the necessary point of discussion anyway; it might just be a matter of

   402 letting the person know you get where they're coming from. For point #4,

   403 getting GNS into the light is crucial. For this point, however, you just

   404 might need to acknowledge that the Techniques being described, by this

   405 person, do nail the GNS priority he or she prefers. It's very similar to

   406 the "wants-Techniques, talks-Ephemera" issue mentioned for Point #1. In

   407 this case, it's "wants-GNS, talks-Techniques." Again, the point of

   408 discussion relies on acknowledging the person's valid combination so

   409 they know they are being heard.

   410 

   411 Also, a person who's confounded over this issue probably needs to hear

   412 that Creative Agenda categories (GNS) are not principles to live up to,

   413 but rather just a vocabulary that helps describe the whole-model profile

   414 for that particular group (or rather, an instance of that group's play

   415 in action).

   416 

   417 *Point #6:* Rules, Techniques, and System are now carefully

   418 distinguished from one another in the model. System is a fairly abstract

   419 term that indicates that the imagined Situation and other elements

   420 actually change through the activity of role-playing. As a term, I

   421 suggest thinking of it as "/a/ or /any/ system" rather than "/the/

   422 system." Techniques are extremely concrete and observable methods of

   423 actual play. Rules are textual guides or instructions about any aspect

   424 of role-playing at any level of the model.

   425 

   426 /Required point of discussion:/ It's going to take some work to help

   427 people understand that "rules" are not part of the model at all. People

   428 usually say "rules" when they mean Techniques or System. Instead, they

   429 are texts, used to greater or lesser extent as a way to establish any

   430 aspects of the model that the group wants to be established. This is the

   431 Lumpley Principle in action. Discussion of the Principle got a little

   432 wonky when I was working out "rules" vs. "system," but now I think it's

   433 nailed.

   434 

   435 *Point #7:* In discussing Techniques, one person's mind-blowing,

   436 door-opening example is another person's ho-hum or still another

   437 person's deal-breaker. One of the most difficult problems with a

   438 multi-user forum discussion is when Person X explains something about

   439 the GNS-level to Person Y using a specific Techniques example, and then

   440 person Z gets the idea that this Technique /is/ the GNS term. And if

   441 they hate the Technique, then they fall right off the cognitive

   442 mountain, sometimes irretrievably.

   443 

   444 /Required point of discussion/: Fear is a serious problem when dealing

   445 with a third-party's reaction to these discussions. It's very common for

   446 someone literally to flip out when reading a Techniques example, as the

   447 example may represent (rightly or wrongly) everything that is Horribly

   448 Wrong with Other Role-Players in this person's mind. Whereas for the

   449 person to whom the example is addressed, the Horribly Wrong Thing might

   450 be just what they're looking for; or more likely, the Techniques example

   451 only works in the very localized context of that person's game being

   452 discussed (which is why it was used as an example in the first place).

   453 So managing these third-party reactions can be a major issue and take a

   454 lot of time.

   455 

   456 Some final bits about discussion ... we are not talking about minor

   457 issues at the Forge. We're dealing with how people socialize, how they

   458 express their creative drives, and how they self-identify in a highly

   459 technical subculture. The very fact that people register and post

   460 denotes that they feel a /need/ to communicate about it. So the main

   461 watchwords are /care/, and yet also, /detach/. The times to detach are

   462 easy to recognize - whenever any of the following phrases start getting

   463 thrown around.

   464 

   465 - "But my character would do this ..." Characters are fictional and

   466 cannot make decisions in the absence of a real person's creative input.

   467 

   468 - "System doesn't matter, all you need is a good GM / group" ... All

   469 role-playing utilizes System, and "good" in this context usually means

   470 "what I want."

   471 

   472 - "That upsets balance ..." Balance is a red herring unless it's defined

   473 in highly specific terms. See my Gamism essay for details.

   474 

   475 - "That's not realistic!" Realism cannot be mandated by "rules," and

   476 like balance, must be locally defined with care. No one "just knows"

   477 what realism is, in actual play.

   478 

   479 - "The Storyteller Golden Rule ..." This rule is a big puff job, because

   480 it leaves "fun" undefined, nor does it specify who can mandate when a

   481 rule is to be ignored.

   482 

   483 However, rather than using these responses as comebacks, use them as a

   484 foundation from which to defuse the potential fight. And make no

   485 mistake, when a person says stuff like this, they're almost certainly

   486 fighting, in response to being upset with you or with someone from the

   487 past. The only solutions involve removing the confrontation, rather than

   488 meeting it - all that'll get you is a headache.

   489 

   490 WRAP-UP

   491 

   492 Any ideas for this section, anyone? I have some, but I thought I'd

   493 save'em until you all stomp and shatter all of the above material into

   494 more useable form.

   495 

   496 Best,

   497 Ron

   498 	Logged

   499 

   500 *Ben Lehman

   501 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*

   502 Member

   503 

   504 Posts: 1464

   505 

   506 

   507 <callto://benlehman/>

   508 View Profile

   509 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW

   510 <http://www.tao-games.com/>

   511 	

   512 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90115#msg90115>

   513 *The whole model - this is it

   514 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90115#msg90115>*

   515 « *Reply #1 on:* November 11, 2003, 04:11:21 PM »

   516 	

   517 

   518 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   519 Thanks.  That clears a lot up for me.  Still needs more digestion, but

   520 at this point I can say that this matches my beliefs pretty closely...

   521  Still many quibbles about other (not included in this post) details,

   522 but that's what makes life interesting, isn't it?

   523 

   524 A few points and questions:

   525 

   526 1)  Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue?

   527  I was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that

   528 it might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and

   529 Emily style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the

   530 highest level...

   531 

   532 2)  I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is

   533 where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play.  Saying that it

   534 should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.

   535 

   536 3)  The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an

   537 apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me.  I

   538 would change it if you want this to be a reference document for people

   539 who do not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.

   540 

   541 Thanks again.

   542 

   543 yrs--

   544 --Ben

   545 	Logged

   546 

   547 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   548 These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>

   549 This is my Blog <http://benlehman.thesmerf.com/>

   550 

   551 *Ron Edwards

   552 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*

   553 Global Moderator

   554 Member

   555 *

   556 Posts: 12610

   557 

   558 

   559 View Profile

   560 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW

   561 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>

   562 	

   563 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90119#msg90119>

   564 *The whole model - this is it

   565 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90119#msg90119>*

   566 « *Reply #2 on:* November 11, 2003, 05:11:39 PM »

   567 	

   568 

   569 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   570 Hi Ben,

   571 

   572 Quote

   573 1) Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue? I

   574 was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that it

   575 might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and Emily

   576 style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the

   577 highest level...

   578 

   579 

   580 Don't forget that every single level exists /within/ the levels above it

   581 - those brackets are a big deal. If you touch "Stance," you're reaching

   582 through Social Contract, Exploration, Creative Agenda, and Technique to

   583 do it.

   584 

   585 Apparently for you, tracing the patch of that "reach" or "touch" is very

   586 easy and even essential. For others, Stance variations may be nearly a

   587 complete non-issue.

   588 

   589 Quote

   590 2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is

   591 where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it

   592 should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.

   593 

   594 

   595 I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one

   596 point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and

   597 how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy

   598 your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only

   599 thing to discuss."

   600 

   601 As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no

   602 one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's

   603 /all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have

   604 to say over and over and over.

   605 

   606 Quote

   607 3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an

   608 apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would

   609 change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do

   610 not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.

   611 

   612 

   613 I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than

   614 immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing

   615 in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the

   616 water regarding the basic points?

   617 

   618 Best,

   619 Ron

   620 	Logged

   621 

   622 *Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*

   623 Member

   624 

   625 Posts: 1732

   626 

   627 

   628 View Profile

   629 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW

   630 <http://www.jagsrpg.org>

   631 	

   632 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90131#msg90131>

   633 *The whole model - this is it

   634 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90131#msg90131>*

   635 « *Reply #3 on:* November 11, 2003, 06:33:22 PM »

   636 	

   637 

   638 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   639 I'm still digesting it. I think it's an excellent effort. I'll have to

   640 consider it more before having a real, cooked, response.

   641 

   642 I would separate the "problems in design" and "discussion or entry

   643 points" for another document, possibly with the section on incoherence

   644 being left in as a historical note.

   645 

   646 I would religiously avoid using words like "desparately" and "fear" in

   647 the description people who approach the theory.

   648 

   649 I would remove the "literally" from the "flip-out" section unless ...

   650 well ... yeah.

   651 

   652 -Marco

   653 	Logged

   654 

   655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   656 ---------------------------------------------

   657 JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)

   658 a free, high-quality, universal system at:

   659 http://www.jagsrpg.org

   660 *Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*

   661 

   662 *M. J. Young

   663 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712>*

   664 Member

   665 

   666 Posts: 2126

   667 

   668 

   669 View Profile

   670 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712> WWW

   671 <http://www.mjyoung.net/>

   672 	

   673 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90136#msg90136>

   674 *The whole model - this is it

   675 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90136#msg90136>*

   676 « *Reply #4 on:* November 11, 2003, 07:18:05 PM »

   677 	

   678 

   679 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   680 Wonderful document, Ron; I look forward to the completed piece.

   681 

   682 I think Ben's point was that this starts out as an explanation of GNS

   683 theory and then becomes a document about how to deal with people who

   684 don't understand it. A solid concise explanation of the theory in

   685 present form--a sort of revision of previous documents to incorporate

   686 developments from forum discussions in a concise reference document--is

   687 definitely needed at this point (there are just too many places at which

   688 we're saying, /read this article, but understand that the use of this

   689 word has changed since it was written/), but referring newcomers to a

   690 document which also discusses how to deal with newcomers isn't the best

   691 approach.

   692 

   693 The latter half is also important; but it might work best if it were

   694 changed from telling us how to do it to attempting to do it through example.

   695 

   696 I'll follow this thread with interest; unfortunately, I'm staring down

   697 the barrel of a long away game at Rochester's UNY-con, so I'm going to

   698 miss several days of posts and have to catch up again--but I've managed

   699 to catch up before, so it shouldn't be too problematic.

   700 

   701 --M. J. Young

   702 	Logged

   703 

   704 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   705 Check out /Multiverser <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/>/

   706 M. J. Young Net <http://www.mjyoung.net/>

   707 

   708 *Ron Edwards

   709 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*

   710 Global Moderator

   711 Member

   712 *

   713 Posts: 12610

   714 

   715 

   716 View Profile

   717 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW

   718 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>

   719 	

   720 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90156#msg90156>

   721 *The whole model - this is it

   722 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90156#msg90156>*

   723 « *Reply #5 on:* November 11, 2003, 09:00:16 PM »

   724 	

   725 

   726 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   727 Hello,

   728 

   729 Thanks folks! (Although "... excellent effort ..." isn't a phrase I

   730 associate with much merit, being a prof and all. Digression; ignore.)

   731 

   732 I should clarify: the eventual document I'm thinking about will

   733 encompass only the first section, the model itself, and maybe a very

   734 friendly section on rules/design, with examples of text. The current

   735 post is not an outline for that document - it's intended to set up /our

   736 /understanding, /now/, of what the hell I am trying to say.

   737 

   738 So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that

   739 person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the

   740 post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/.

   741 

   742 Or rather, that's what I'm hoping for. If you want to contribute to the

   743 thread in some mind-opening fashion that I haven't anticipated, please

   744 feel free.

   745 

   746 Best,

   747 Ron

   748 	Logged

   749 

   750 *Eero Tuovinen

   751 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2228>*

   752 Acts of Evil Playtesters

   753 Member

   754 *

   755 Posts: 974

   756 

   757 

   758 View Profile

   759 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2228> WWW

   760 <http://www.arkkikivi.net>

   761 	

   762 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90166#msg90166>

   763 *The whole model - this is it

   764 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90166#msg90166>*

   765 « *Reply #6 on:* November 12, 2003, 12:36:10 AM »

   766 	

   767 

   768 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   769 Quote from: Ron Edwards

   770 

   771 So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that

   772 person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the

   773 post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/.

   774 

   775 

   776 Makes perfect sense to me, I've been hoping for a concise overview of

   777 the main points in one place. I'd like to pick one specific place in the

   778 text that delighted me especially:

   779 

   780 Quote from: Ron Edwards

   781 

   782 Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text.

   783 "Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts

   784 are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations

   785 regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that

   786 people who read it can get that version of the model into action.

   787 

   788 

   789 This is something that has for a long time been a crucial part of my

   790 personal interpretation of roleplaying texts. I absolutely love seeing

   791 it in writing by one of my favourite rpg theorists. I'm firmly convinced

   792 that my first published game will carry the words "Guide to roleplaying

   793 in [something]" on the cover.

   794 	Logged

   795 

   796 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   797 The latest publication of Arkenstone Publishing

   798 <http://www.arkkikivi.net>, my Finnish indie company:

   799 Piruja miehiksi <http://www.arkkikivi.net/pirujamiehiksi/>, Finnish

   800 translation of /Dust Devils/

   801 

   802 *Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*

   803 Member

   804 

   805 Posts: 1732

   806 

   807 

   808 View Profile

   809 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW

   810 <http://www.jagsrpg.org>

   811 	

   812 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90191#msg90191>

   813 *The whole model - this is it

   814 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90191#msg90191>*

   815 « *Reply #7 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:07:47 AM »

   816 	

   817 

   818 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   819 By excellent effort, I meant "looks good, I'll have to put some real

   820 analsis in to see how successful at hitting all of its goals I think it

   821 was--It'll take me some time." Not: 'nice try, try again.'

   822 

   823 I think the post is (at least in proto-form) exactly what GNS needs.

   824 Splitting the content into a few documents is a good idea too. That

   825 wasn't clear to me until you said it.

   826 

   827 On splitting them up:

   828 I would formally separate theory,  ramifications for game design, and

   829 utility and implementation from the basic theory meaning:

   830 

   831 1. Have a section on the theory very similar to the first part of what

   832 is there, if not identical.

   833 

   834 2. Have a secion on GNS analysis of play (I'd be interesting in seeing

   835 what the purpose, value, and method of GNS analysis of play is)

   836 

   837 3. Have a section on "this is what I/we think the ramifications of GNS

   838 are for game-design" (using what's up there)

   839 

   840 4. Have a secion on "Here's how I/we think this perspective could be

   841 used to help solve what I/we think are some common problems during

   842 play." (with the perspective and vocabulary notes and a discussion of

   843 dysfunction seen from a GNS POV).

   844 

   845 This write up does most (or at least some) of this very well

   846 already--separating them formally would help to see what pieces are seen

   847 as theory and what pieces are seen as ramification or utility (I see the

   848 mxing of these as a major stumbling block to the understanding of GNS as

   849 a whole).

   850 

   851 Also:

   852 

   853 I need to carefully examine the arrows in the Venn Diagram. I get thay

   854 they mean sort of "follow from" but I'm not sure how that's different

   855 than "composed from."

   856 

   857 And:

   858 For each section maybe a formal:

   859 *Description * [what's there]

   860 *Example*: ["Fortune resolution, for example, rolling the dice to see if

   861 an action is judged successful by the group is an example of a technique." ]

   862 [/b]Definition of important terms[/b] [Karma, Drama, and Fortune,

   863 discussed in depth here are three major techniques for outcome resolution.]

   864 *Caveats*: [Note: there has been discussion of GNS modes lining up with

   865 resolution techniques so that one would say "Narrativist mode is best

   866 facilitated by Drama Technique." While that may sound reasonable for a

   867 variety of reasons, examination of the that theory has shown it to be

   868 false. A given Drama technique might or might not be good for

   869 Narrativist play-mode--but so might any other technique. Thus Techniques

   870 are said to be node-agnostic."]

   871 

   872 The Creative Agenda section isn't clear to me (which, I think is my

   873 fault--I'm not saying it's not clear or poorly written). I'm not sure

   874 who you're talking to when you say you're profoundly uninterested in

   875 discussing nuances: me as someone reviewing the document or me as

   876 someone coming to it at the first time. If the latter, I'd change it. To

   877 me that section looks like a placeholder for a real description of G/N/S

   878 modes.

   879 

   880 Also: There's an issue of GNS as a description of play (we watched play

   881 and this is what it looked like to us--we saw three basic categories).

   882 For me (and maybe only me) there's a lot of question about that (as I've

   883 said, from an internal standpoint the theory makes a lot of sense to

   884 me--from an observational standpoint, it's not as clear to me).

   885 

   886 A discussion of that in the Creative Agenda session would be good (I see

   887 the three essays speaking to internal intent--I don't know what

   888 step-on-up looks like distinct from exploration of situation and

   889 character but I can tell when I'm doing it--and maybe no one has a clear

   890 textual discription (although I'd be surprised if that's the case)--but

   891 addressing that would help with the GNS-is-about-intent/no-it-isn't issue).

   892 

   893 -Marco

   894 	Logged

   895 

   896 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   897 ---------------------------------------------

   898 JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)

   899 a free, high-quality, universal system at:

   900 http://www.jagsrpg.org

   901 *Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*

   902 

   903 *The GM <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1821>*

   904 Member

   905 

   906 Posts: 58

   907 

   908 

   909 View Profile

   910 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1821>

   911 	

   912 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90196#msg90196>

   913 *The whole model - this is it

   914 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90196#msg90196>*

   915 « *Reply #8 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:20:09 AM »

   916 	

   917 

   918 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   919 Ron says:

   920 

   921 >>(snip) I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera

   922 relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques

   923 relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda.<<

   924 

   925 Neato. This (I think) is what I?ve been trying to get some input about,

   926 although I didn?t say it quite like this in my recent thread.

   927 Specifically, I?m looking for hard and fast guidelines to facilitate

   928 this ?stuff? in such a manner that it fits our troupe?s style of agreed

   929 play. Now, is that goal realistic considering the vast potential for

   930 various in game outcomes when you start mixing and matching all of these

   931 elements together? I firmly think so, although I may not know how to do

   932 that just yet. This is why I?ve been taking a hard look at communication

   933 techniques that would yield specific results (those results being ?the

   934 game? that we?ve all agreed we want to play.)

   935 I know that in RL, certain words used in a certain order will result in

   936 a very specific outcome. Politicians are masters of what we typically

   937 call spin. For instance, if you hear a politician say, ?If we do not win

   938 the war on terror abroad at all costs, then we will become victims of

   939 fear in our own homes, our country will falter.? What he?s really just

   940 done is employed a conversation technique called a Closing Triplicate of

   941 Choice. Really, when you hear that, what automatically happens is that

   942 you run through the options and pick the lesser of the evils. ?Hmmm?I

   943 don?t want to be a victim; I don?t want the country to falter, so I

   944 guess we have to win the war at all costs.? That way of conversing is

   945 designed to put your mind in a specific frame of thinking. This kind of

   946 communication is far from new, but it works to provoke a specific

   947 response, (in this example, support for an agenda.) Could the same be

   948 done for creating an atmosphere where a game stays on track? Again, I

   949 think so.

   950 Now, I?m not saying that I want to have to use a script to run or play

   951 in a game. Blah, boring. It would, however, be helpful to have something

   952 firm to refer back to in order to keep a game from identity crisis.

   953 I think about this topic a lot lately.

   954 ;)

   955 

   956 I'll be interested to follow this discussion and see where it leads.

   957 

   958 Warm Regards,

   959 Lisa

   960 	Logged

   961 

   962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   963 Warm Regards,

   964 Lisa

   965 

   966 *Ben Lehman

   967 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*

   968 Member

   969 

   970 Posts: 1464

   971 

   972 

   973 <callto://benlehman/>

   974 View Profile

   975 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW

   976 <http://www.tao-games.com/>

   977 	

   978 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90210#msg90210>

   979 *The whole model - this is it

   980 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90210#msg90210>*

   981 « *Reply #9 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:30:26 AM »

   982 	

   983 

   984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   985 Quote from: Ron Edwards

   986 

   987 Quote

   988 2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is

   989 where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it

   990 should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.

   991 

   992 

   993 I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one

   994 point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and

   995 how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy

   996 your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only

   997 thing to discuss."

   998 

   999 As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no

  1000 one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's

  1001 /all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have

  1002 to say over and over and over.

  1003 

  1004 

  1005 BL>  Yup.  Imagine so.  On reread, I think I misread some stuff.  Apologies.

  1006 

  1007 Quote

  1008 3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an

  1009 apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would

  1010 change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do

  1011 not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.

  1012 

  1013 

  1014 I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than

  1015 immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing

  1016 in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the

  1017 water regarding the basic points?

  1018 

  1019 

  1020 BL>  Your own later posts regarding the "mission objectives" of this

  1021 layout cleared things up a bit.  MJ expressed my viewpoint much better

  1022 than I ever could.

  1023 

  1024 yrs--

  1025 --Ben

  1026 	Logged

  1027 

  1028 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1029 These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>

  1030 This is my Blog <http://benlehman.thesmerf.com/>

  1031 

  1032 *Ron Edwards

  1033 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*

  1034 Global Moderator

  1035 Member

  1036 *

  1037 Posts: 12610

  1038 

  1039 

  1040 View Profile

  1041 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW

  1042 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>

  1043 	

  1044 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90215#msg90215>

  1045 *The whole model - this is it

  1046 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90215#msg90215>*

  1047 « *Reply #10 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:47:34 AM »

  1048 	

  1049 

  1050 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1051 Hello,

  1052 

  1053 Further reflection has clarified my own goals for this thread.

  1054 

  1055 You know, I think that I'm not interested in suggestions for editing and

  1056 presenting. That was a bad thing even to mention.

  1057 

  1058 I'm interested in whether /you/, the Forge folks, understand what I'm

  1059 saying. If there's anything you need clarified about the model as

  1060 presented, or anything you think doesn't hold up, then now's the time to

  1061 say it.

  1062 

  1063 I'm very committed to reviewing and refining the material in the

  1064 Discussing the Model section. Those are phrased as recommendations for a

  1065 reason, and presented in the post for a reason. I would very much like

  1066 to get confirmation and/or attempts at refutation about all seven of the

  1067 points.

  1068 

  1069 I don't mind mentioning that quibbles about internal issues of Creative

  1070 Agenda are right out the window. I'm profoundly sick of GNS talk,

  1071 frankly. I'm convinced that once the model as a whole is better

  1072 understood, then dozens upon dozens of "GNS issues" will simply evaporate.

  1073 

  1074 I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge

  1075 from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as

  1076 an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this

  1077 claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and

  1078 publishers in the hobby.

  1079 

  1080 I'm also interested in what I mentioned in the essay about

  1081 Techniques-to-Creative Agenda, and Ephemera-to-Techniques. Lisa's post

  1082 is, in my view, the most valuable one so far to develop in this thread.

  1083 I have plenty of thoughts on this issue and would appreciate some input

  1084 about yours.

  1085 

  1086 So from now on, please, no more editing or presentation suggestions.

  1087 Talk about the material. This thread is not about what some hypothetical

  1088 other people will think and feel about the model, but about /you/. Say,

  1089 "YES, I AGREE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT X," or, "NO, YOU MAKE NO SENSE AND

  1090 HERE'S WHY," or "GEE, WHAT ABOUT THIS PART HERE." That sort of thing.

  1091 

  1092 Without that kind of dialogue for a while, I'm considering closing up

  1093 the whole forum. That's not a threat, but rather a statement that I

  1094 don't see any point to public/forum GNS-wrangling without a strong and

  1095 easily-reinforced shared understanding of the big picture.

  1096 

  1097 Best,

  1098 Ron

  1099 	Logged

  1100 

  1101 *Valamir <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36>*

  1102 Member

  1103 

  1104 Posts: 4859

  1105 

  1106 

  1107 View Profile

  1108 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36> WWW

  1109 <http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>

  1110 	

  1111 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90219#msg90219>

  1112 *The whole model - this is it

  1113 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90219#msg90219>*

  1114 « *Reply #11 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:08:33 AM »

  1115 	

  1116 

  1117 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1118 Quote

  1119 I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge

  1120 from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as

  1121 an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this

  1122 claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and

  1123 publishers in the hobby.

  1124 

  1125 

  1126 I think you rightly point out that this is the crux of the entire model.

  1127  I don't think you'll find anyone who games (even without spending much

  1128 time thinking about it) who will disagree with the idea that social

  1129 issues impact game experience.  I don't think you'll find anyone who

  1130 hasn't found mechanics and techniques that work profoundly well (and

  1131 others that work poorly) to deliver the kind of game they want.

  1132 

  1133 The issue then is this idea of a Creative Agenda beyond simply "having

  1134 fun sharing a hobby with my friends" and much deeper than "I don't like

  1135 dice pool mechanics or hard scene framing".