--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/whole_model.txt	Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,1321 @@
++  *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
+|-+  *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*
+| |-+  *GNS Model Discussion <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0>*
+| | |-+  *The whole model - this is it <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.0>*
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2 3 * ... *5
+
+Author 	Topic: The whole model - this is it  (Read 13307 times)
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90112#msg90112>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90112#msg90112>*
+« * on:* November 11, 2003, 03:49:15 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hello,
+
+All the following material is supplemental to the existing essays, but
+it also overrules them as well as any of my previous comments in forum
+discussions at any point of contradiction.
+
+In other words, all of the following is the straight dope as of this
+writing. If a particular term or concept isn't mentioned here, then the
+pre-existing material stands; ask about it if that material isn't clear
+to you. If I haven't defined a term (and I define very few here), that
+means that the current definition is intended to stand.
+
+My plan is to hammer out any necessary hassles about this material in
+this thread, and then rewrite the whole damn thing in "nice and
+friendly" prose, which as far as I know is pretty much the first time
+that will have been done. For a sample of the tone/logic I'll be using,
+see *GNS - what is it? <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5860>*.
+
+THE MODEL ITSELF
+
+*[Social Contract]*
+
+Social Contract encompasses everything about role-playing, because it is
+the sum of all interactions among the people involved. If these people
+happen to be role-playing together, then Social Contract crucially
+includes "Let's play this game." This crucial element is what's further
+subdivided throughout the rest of this model.
+
+*[Social Contract [Exploration]]*
+
+The above two terms do not constitute a dichotomy. Exploration
+("imagined stuff," "shared imagined space"), as previously defined in my
+essays, is an expression or application of that particular group's
+Social Contract. One cannot say "That's just social" when discussing
+some aspect of play, nor can one write off Social Contract as "just
+being polite" with actual play being something else.
+
+Exploration is usually described as merely a list of Character, Setting,
+Situation, System, and Color. But it does have more internal/imaginary
+structure: Character + Setting make Situation, System permits Situation
+to "move," and Color affects all the others. This concept applies only
+to the imaginary causes among the elements, by the way; the actual
+effort, priority, or cause among these things, in social/creative terms,
+varies widely.
+
+*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]*
+
+Creative Agenda is the blanket term for any and all GNS modes or
+priorities of play. The Venn diagram is supposed to indicate that any
+Creative Agenda is an expression or application of Exploration among the
+real-people group. Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that
+means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, "play has begun."
+
+On paper, I draw this terms as an arrow, labelled GNS or Creative
+Agenda. This arrow is very important - this "step" or "level" in my
+model shifts out of the abstract and solidly into this group, playing
+this game, this way, at this time. The model instantly ceases to be a
+broad overview or comparative panoply, and starts to be a diagnostic or
+description of a real play-experience among real people. Unless you are
+thinking of such a case, you will be left flailing at this point in the
+discussion.
+
+For purposes of explaining the overall model, I'm profoundly
+uninterested in discusing the nuances, internal relationships,
+definitions, or anything else about the internal content of Creative
+Agenda. All I care about, at this point, is that people recognize that
+role-playing requires such a thing to exist.
+
+*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]*
+
+To understand this part, again, recognize that Creative Agenda and the
+arrow symbol are supposed to be the same thing, not two things. That
+means that we are talking about some actual play. The panoply of
+Techniques being employed in that instance, over time, either satisfy or
+fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas.
+
+It's not too off-the-wall to think of Techniques as being a direct
+expression of the more abstract concept of System (way up in
+Exploration), except that System doesn't exist all by itself - it's
+fully integrated with all the other components of Exploration. But if
+you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented by Creative
+Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.
+
+Techniques include IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling
+time, narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact,
+character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), scene framing,
+currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these
+terms represents a /range/ of potential play-methods. I consider the two
+most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE.
+
+*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques
+[Ephemera]]]]]*
+
+Ephemera is a new term, indicating the smallest-scale interactions and
+activities of role-playing: anything that gets factored into or is
+expressed by play in the space of a few seconds.
+
+Although fleeting, Ephemera are emphatically not trivial. As with every
+level/box so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or
+apply one or more Techniques. They are the internal anatomy, if you
+will, of Techniques and hence (conceptualizing upward) of System.
+
+Ephemera include individual Stances, in-character vs. out-of-character
+diction and dialogue, referring to texts, sound effects, taking or
+referring to notes, kibitzing, laughing, praise or disapproval, specific
+dice or other system-based outcome interpretations, showing pictures,
+and anything similar.
+
+*Clarification*
+Some related topics are out of the scope of this discussion. I'm happy
+to discuss them in other threads /if/ the person is completely able to
+demonstrate understanding of the material presented so far. However,
+none of them are going to occupy a whole lot of my emotional attention,
+at least not until the Narrativism essay is done.
+
+- The relationship of S to N and/or G, or any other nuances of GNS
+definitions or combinations within the [Creative Agenda] level. With any
+luck, all three essays will do a good job of at least making /myself/
+clear about this stuff. Whether that will mean a damn thing in terms of
+resolving anything for anyone else, I can't say.
+
+- Incoherence and/or dysfunctional play based on GNS incompatibilities.
+This one will be a big deal for some, but I suspect it's a matter of
+defensiveness in many cases: "You say it's incoherent but we have fun!"
+To which I can only reply, "Sounds coherent to me," or, "I suspect your
+'fun' isn't as 'fun' as you think, for everyone." I've been saddened by
+how often the latter response has proved accurate in the long run.
+
+- Commerce of any kind, especially in terms of "success." This
+discussion, unfortunately, will have to await a much broader
+understanding of game marketing and commerce than I think is the case,
+currently. Recent threads at the Forge reinforce my impression about this.
+
+Instead of going into stuff like the above, this thread is devoted to
+clarifying any aspect of the Big Picture as presented here, especially
+inter-relations among the levels, and how they are to be assessed and
+discussed. I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera
+relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques
+relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda.
+
+DESIGN, RULES, AND TEXTS
+
+Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text.
+"Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts
+are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations
+regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that
+people who read it can get that version of the model into action.
+
+Therefore the goal of design, it seems to me, is to make sense to the
+reader in terms of the whole model. It's like a musical instrument, or
+several of them, as well as instructions for how to play them, and
+finally some music or chords to work with. Seems easy? Well, here are
+the usual problems I see with role-playing texts, now that I have this
+"model" thing setting next to me as I type.
+
+Problem 1 = Simply leaving whole levels out, assuming that readers
+already know and agree exactly where you're coming from for those
+levels. It's conceivable that, for instance, a panoply of Techniques are
+simply so powerful in reinforcing some subset of Creative Agenda that
+stating the latter would be redundant, but as far as I can tell, most
+rules-sets aren't that lucky.
+
+Problem 2 = Problematic combinations of Techniques which lead to
+confusion about Creative Agenda, which in turn means a whole lot of
+local construction about "why we play." If you want to call this
+"incoherence," you can - it's what I originally meant by the term, which
+I'm considering retiring from use. And although I stand by my point that
+this issue usually is a genuine problem for role-players, don't get me
+started on early Champions or Amber, both of which turned out to benefit
+greatly from the very same phenomenon. Whole 'nother essays, waiting to
+happen.
+
+Problem 3 = Plain bad system design, which is to say, unsatisfying at
+the group level for any particular Creative Agenda. If a given
+rules-loop allows an "automatic win" in Gamist play, if it jars the
+Dream inconsistently with other features of the game, if it locks down
+Premise too tightly ... any of these "break" a game relative to a given
+goal of play. Such games tend to be instantly discarded or instantly
+repaired, often covertly (people insist that the "right" way to play
+just happens not to be textual).
+
+Problem 4 = Nonsensical prose, which might accompany perfectly good
+rules. This is far more common than is good for any hobby, I think. It's
+often associated with Creative Agenda issues, but also with many aspects
+of character creation.
+
+Here's also what I see when looking at each level of the model and
+thinking about rules texts.
+
+Social Contract and rules: This is where all those "What is
+Role-playing" sections fall flat on their face. Just to pick the most
+glaring example, I'm here to say that role-playing is not, and never
+was, "cops and robbers with dice to resolve disputes." Going by the
+model, people roll dice (or whatever) because they /agree/ about the
+imagined events, not because they /disagree/. It might be interesting to
+see whether anyone could write an introduction to a role-playing game
+that really did specify Social Contract issues in a way which set up all
+the following material in the game. Everway, perhaps? Universalis?
+
+Creative Agenda and rules: Most role-playing texts are emphatically
+silent about Creative Agendas, especially in the model's context that
+it's an expression of imaginative Social Contract. Often, especially
+when Gamist priorities seem to be invoked, one can parse out the GNS
+recommendation by looking at key words and phrasing ("When your
+character dies, you have lost the game."). The more emphatic
+Simulationist texts (Arrowflight) are often clearer, but whenever the
+term "story" gets thrown around in a vague, "You know, the /story/" way,
+I think the text becomes dramatically less helpful. I'm very impressed
+with the introduction in the Marvel Universe RPG, which provides an
+amazing textbook piece on the differences between Gamist ("The Brawl")
+and Narrativist ("With great power comes great responsibility") play,
+emphasizing that a group does well to decide which they would prefer to
+do when playing the game.
+
+Techniques and rules: Here's the most solid correspondence; I don't
+think it's difficult to see how most rules are in fact instructions for
+Techniques. The problem is that, according to the model, Techniques
+alone do not a role-playing game make.
+
+Ephemera and rules: Here's another tricky one - as with Creative Agenda,
+you have to find key phrases or little snippets scattered around the
+text in order to see whether any Ephemera are being explained or (more
+likely) assumed to be already standard for the role-players. The most
+explicit example I can think of are the frequent exhortations toward
+Actor Stance in so many games, as well as the implicit content of a "GM
+only" section.
+
+DISCUSSING THE MODEL
+
+I am listing some of the issues that people bring to discussing the
+model here at the forums and elsewhere, and including some points of
+interaction with the inherent stumbling blocks. The stumbling blocks
+usually arrive from people employing one or more of these approaches:
+
+a) reaching understanding through paraphrasing and correction,
+
+b) denying understanding as a means of defending oneself from a
+perceived threat,
+
+c) desperately trying to present one's own developed notions of some
+kind, and
+
+d) arguing in order to fit in, a common behavior among members of a
+somewhat socially stunted subculture.
+
+Role-players often arrive at the Forge in an advanced state of
+frustration regarding either play, talking about play, or both. Since
+there's no way to control (or on my part anyway, no /desire/ to control)
+what people want when they arrive, I think it's important for everyone
+to consider all of the following points about discussing the model.
+
+*Point #1:* Nearly everyone who first encounters the theory is
+predisposed to discuss Ephemera. They are also emotionally tied to
+various Ephemera, especially those combinations which reinforce certain
+Techniques, and it's hard to get people to let go of that commitment
+long enough to look at the variety available. They are often convinced
+that even looking at alternatives will destroy the entirety of whatever
+play-profile (real or idealized) that they currently hold in highest esteem.
+
+/Required point of discussion:/ Get them up to Techniques, which is what
+they really want to discuss. The key is to validate the Techniques
+they're trying to reinforce, and to acknowledge to the person that they
+are, indeed, making sense in these terms. After that point, the
+diversity of Ephemera can be discussed without the person going into
+protective-mode regarding what Techniques they prefer or are used to.
+
+*Point #2 (related to #1):* People may also take a Reductionist approach
+to trying to understand the model, which is to say, they would like the
+"particles" of (say) Stance to be themselves little chunks of GNS, and
+GNS as described simply to be collections of these chunks. This is not
+the case. Instead, for every box in the model, a category or type of
+"outer box" is always expressed/applied as a /combination/ of
+terms/categories within the inner box.
+
+/Required point of discussion:/ It's best to speak of combinations
+within an "inner" box in terms of how it affects or is affected by its
+"outer" box or boxes. Resist the extreme temptation to identify any one
+Technique, for instance, with a particular GNS category, or any one
+Ephemera-type event with a particular Technique.
+
+*Point #3:* Creative Agenda is the "verb" of the model. As a generalized
+topic, without an actual group or any role-playing to discuss, GNS
+priorities are incredibly vague and abstract, to the point of being
+uninteresting.
+
+In application, however, they are extremely concrete and easy to
+recognize. As I wrote in a recent thread,
+
+Quote
+The only variables that really make sense, in discussing GNS, are the
+social interactions and communications that go on among the real people
+at the table, during play.
+
+What is reinforced among them? Who praises whom, for doing what, and how
+often? When is a stated or proposed action disallowed, often in very
+subtle form? What gets everyone listening with undivided attention to a
+single person's announcements? When do people laugh? When do they not
+laugh, or socially squelch someone else's amusement?
+
+All of those things, and more, are the only valid variables for
+assessing a GNS profile for a given instance of play. (And by
+"instance," I mean a lot of play, at least a session, probably more.)
+
+I wish I'd made this point earlier. It's a big deal. The definitions of
+GNS are not the same variables one uses to assess GNS in action. Since
+GNS is a subset of Social Contract - indeed, it's the application of
+Social Contract to the imagined material ("Exploration") - its identity
+for that group can only be assessed in social terms.
+
+
+Furthermore, in application, a given Creative Agenda category is also
+extremely diverse in terms of possible Techniques, which is what my
+current three essays (two down, one to go) are mainly about. M.J. Young
+made a very good point recently when he said that within-Agenda
+categories (e.g. specific types of Gamism, etc) lead to more rancor and
+"not-us" distinctions among people discussing role-playing than
+among-Agenda categories, in most cases. Or to put it differently, people
+are highly committed not to "Gamism" but rather to "Gamism our way." Or
+to put it in terms of my essays, within-category synecdoche seems to be
+an extremely heartfelt, hotly-defended problem.
+
+/Required point of discussion:/ Don't get sidetracked into definitional
+descriptions when discussing actual play. If a person really is
+interested in examining the Creative Agenda(s) of his or her
+role-playing, or more accurately that of his or her group, then focus on
+social interactions, the real-people approval and disapproval during
+play itself, as quoted above.
+
+*Point #4 (related to #3:* Creative Agenda is the most troublesome level
+of the model for people to discuss, because many folks would very, very
+much like Techniques to construct a satisfying GNS-profile for them,
+without explicit reference to Social Contract. To link [Social Contract
+[Exploration]] /causally downward/ into [Techniques], emphasizing
+personal responsibility ("You get what you play for"), is frightening
+and unwanted. They want what they want without wanting (a) to say so or
+(b) actually to do that thing. Or if they are getting what they want,
+it's often through Social Contract manipulation and they don't want to
+endanger their carefully-constructed power-play.
+
+Here's the biggie: people have often come to idealize "rules" or "lack
+of rules," whichever, in order to cement into play the Techniques that
+they are used to or that they think will get them what they want. This
+is the source of Rules and/or Setting Fetishim, as well as the source of
+System Doesn't Matter. It's also the source of the /failure/ of both
+tactics, neither of which stand up well in the long term. Cries of "it's
+just a game" or "I just play to have fun" are signs of these tactics in
+a state of final breakdown. Excessive arguing about details of GNS-stuff
+is sometimes a defense mechanism.
+
+/Required point of discussion/: Stress Creative Agenda as the absolutely
+necessary bridge from "we all like Star Trek" (Exploration) to "this is
+how we role-play Star Trek" (Techniques). And just as importantly, be
+prepared for the possibility that the person may /not/ be coming from
+the position described in this point, and may well be perfectly comfy
+with the concept of Creative Agenda once they get it properly explained
+in terms of the levels of the model. So over-defensiveness on your part
+should be acknowledged as a potential problem too.
+
+*Point #5:* Techniques express and satisfy Creative Agenda, whether
+unsuccessfully or successfully. However, the relation between these
+levels is not a tautology. You cannot discuss some abstract "real
+Simulationism," for instance, in terms of Techniques which define it,
+and especially not in terms of whatever the imaginary characters did to
+or with whomever they fictionally encountered. Instead, you must
+investigate whether X Techniques as applied and socially reinforced in Y
+role-playing group are coalescing around (e.g.) a Simulationist
+aesthetic. This is related to Point #3 in that applying Creative Agenda
+is highly specific to a group of people: their personalities and
+interactions, and their habits of play. But my current point is that
+Techniques don't "compose" a Creative Agenda in a definitional way.
+
+/Required point of discussion/: Details of Creative Agenda may not be
+the necessary point of discussion anyway; it might just be a matter of
+letting the person know you get where they're coming from. For point #4,
+getting GNS into the light is crucial. For this point, however, you just
+might need to acknowledge that the Techniques being described, by this
+person, do nail the GNS priority he or she prefers. It's very similar to
+the "wants-Techniques, talks-Ephemera" issue mentioned for Point #1. In
+this case, it's "wants-GNS, talks-Techniques." Again, the point of
+discussion relies on acknowledging the person's valid combination so
+they know they are being heard.
+
+Also, a person who's confounded over this issue probably needs to hear
+that Creative Agenda categories (GNS) are not principles to live up to,
+but rather just a vocabulary that helps describe the whole-model profile
+for that particular group (or rather, an instance of that group's play
+in action).
+
+*Point #6:* Rules, Techniques, and System are now carefully
+distinguished from one another in the model. System is a fairly abstract
+term that indicates that the imagined Situation and other elements
+actually change through the activity of role-playing. As a term, I
+suggest thinking of it as "/a/ or /any/ system" rather than "/the/
+system." Techniques are extremely concrete and observable methods of
+actual play. Rules are textual guides or instructions about any aspect
+of role-playing at any level of the model.
+
+/Required point of discussion:/ It's going to take some work to help
+people understand that "rules" are not part of the model at all. People
+usually say "rules" when they mean Techniques or System. Instead, they
+are texts, used to greater or lesser extent as a way to establish any
+aspects of the model that the group wants to be established. This is the
+Lumpley Principle in action. Discussion of the Principle got a little
+wonky when I was working out "rules" vs. "system," but now I think it's
+nailed.
+
+*Point #7:* In discussing Techniques, one person's mind-blowing,
+door-opening example is another person's ho-hum or still another
+person's deal-breaker. One of the most difficult problems with a
+multi-user forum discussion is when Person X explains something about
+the GNS-level to Person Y using a specific Techniques example, and then
+person Z gets the idea that this Technique /is/ the GNS term. And if
+they hate the Technique, then they fall right off the cognitive
+mountain, sometimes irretrievably.
+
+/Required point of discussion/: Fear is a serious problem when dealing
+with a third-party's reaction to these discussions. It's very common for
+someone literally to flip out when reading a Techniques example, as the
+example may represent (rightly or wrongly) everything that is Horribly
+Wrong with Other Role-Players in this person's mind. Whereas for the
+person to whom the example is addressed, the Horribly Wrong Thing might
+be just what they're looking for; or more likely, the Techniques example
+only works in the very localized context of that person's game being
+discussed (which is why it was used as an example in the first place).
+So managing these third-party reactions can be a major issue and take a
+lot of time.
+
+Some final bits about discussion ... we are not talking about minor
+issues at the Forge. We're dealing with how people socialize, how they
+express their creative drives, and how they self-identify in a highly
+technical subculture. The very fact that people register and post
+denotes that they feel a /need/ to communicate about it. So the main
+watchwords are /care/, and yet also, /detach/. The times to detach are
+easy to recognize - whenever any of the following phrases start getting
+thrown around.
+
+- "But my character would do this ..." Characters are fictional and
+cannot make decisions in the absence of a real person's creative input.
+
+- "System doesn't matter, all you need is a good GM / group" ... All
+role-playing utilizes System, and "good" in this context usually means
+"what I want."
+
+- "That upsets balance ..." Balance is a red herring unless it's defined
+in highly specific terms. See my Gamism essay for details.
+
+- "That's not realistic!" Realism cannot be mandated by "rules," and
+like balance, must be locally defined with care. No one "just knows"
+what realism is, in actual play.
+
+- "The Storyteller Golden Rule ..." This rule is a big puff job, because
+it leaves "fun" undefined, nor does it specify who can mandate when a
+rule is to be ignored.
+
+However, rather than using these responses as comebacks, use them as a
+foundation from which to defuse the potential fight. And make no
+mistake, when a person says stuff like this, they're almost certainly
+fighting, in response to being upset with you or with someone from the
+past. The only solutions involve removing the confrontation, rather than
+meeting it - all that'll get you is a headache.
+
+WRAP-UP
+
+Any ideas for this section, anyone? I have some, but I thought I'd
+save'em until you all stomp and shatter all of the above material into
+more useable form.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+	Logged
+
+*Ben Lehman
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1464
+
+
+<callto://benlehman/>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW
+<http://www.tao-games.com/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90115#msg90115>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90115#msg90115>*
+« *Reply #1 on:* November 11, 2003, 04:11:21 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Thanks.  That clears a lot up for me.  Still needs more digestion, but
+at this point I can say that this matches my beliefs pretty closely...
+ Still many quibbles about other (not included in this post) details,
+but that's what makes life interesting, isn't it?
+
+A few points and questions:
+
+1)  Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue?
+ I was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that
+it might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and
+Emily style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the
+highest level...
+
+2)  I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is
+where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play.  Saying that it
+should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.
+
+3)  The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an
+apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me.  I
+would change it if you want this to be a reference document for people
+who do not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.
+
+Thanks again.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>
+This is my Blog <http://benlehman.thesmerf.com/>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90119#msg90119>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90119#msg90119>*
+« *Reply #2 on:* November 11, 2003, 05:11:39 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hi Ben,
+
+Quote
+1) Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue? I
+was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that it
+might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and Emily
+style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the
+highest level...
+
+
+Don't forget that every single level exists /within/ the levels above it
+- those brackets are a big deal. If you touch "Stance," you're reaching
+through Social Contract, Exploration, Creative Agenda, and Technique to
+do it.
+
+Apparently for you, tracing the patch of that "reach" or "touch" is very
+easy and even essential. For others, Stance variations may be nearly a
+complete non-issue.
+
+Quote
+2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is
+where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it
+should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.
+
+
+I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one
+point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and
+how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy
+your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only
+thing to discuss."
+
+As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no
+one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's
+/all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have
+to say over and over and over.
+
+Quote
+3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an
+apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would
+change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do
+not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.
+
+
+I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than
+immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing
+in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the
+water regarding the basic points?
+
+Best,
+Ron
+	Logged
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1732
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90131#msg90131>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90131#msg90131>*
+« *Reply #3 on:* November 11, 2003, 06:33:22 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I'm still digesting it. I think it's an excellent effort. I'll have to
+consider it more before having a real, cooked, response.
+
+I would separate the "problems in design" and "discussion or entry
+points" for another document, possibly with the section on incoherence
+being left in as a historical note.
+
+I would religiously avoid using words like "desparately" and "fear" in
+the description people who approach the theory.
+
+I would remove the "literally" from the "flip-out" section unless ...
+well ... yeah.
+
+-Marco
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*M. J. Young
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 2126
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712> WWW
+<http://www.mjyoung.net/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90136#msg90136>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90136#msg90136>*
+« *Reply #4 on:* November 11, 2003, 07:18:05 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wonderful document, Ron; I look forward to the completed piece.
+
+I think Ben's point was that this starts out as an explanation of GNS
+theory and then becomes a document about how to deal with people who
+don't understand it. A solid concise explanation of the theory in
+present form--a sort of revision of previous documents to incorporate
+developments from forum discussions in a concise reference document--is
+definitely needed at this point (there are just too many places at which
+we're saying, /read this article, but understand that the use of this
+word has changed since it was written/), but referring newcomers to a
+document which also discusses how to deal with newcomers isn't the best
+approach.
+
+The latter half is also important; but it might work best if it were
+changed from telling us how to do it to attempting to do it through example.
+
+I'll follow this thread with interest; unfortunately, I'm staring down
+the barrel of a long away game at Rochester's UNY-con, so I'm going to
+miss several days of posts and have to catch up again--but I've managed
+to catch up before, so it shouldn't be too problematic.
+
+--M. J. Young
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Check out /Multiverser <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/>/
+M. J. Young Net <http://www.mjyoung.net/>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90156#msg90156>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90156#msg90156>*
+« *Reply #5 on:* November 11, 2003, 09:00:16 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hello,
+
+Thanks folks! (Although "... excellent effort ..." isn't a phrase I
+associate with much merit, being a prof and all. Digression; ignore.)
+
+I should clarify: the eventual document I'm thinking about will
+encompass only the first section, the model itself, and maybe a very
+friendly section on rules/design, with examples of text. The current
+post is not an outline for that document - it's intended to set up /our
+/understanding, /now/, of what the hell I am trying to say.
+
+So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that
+person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the
+post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/.
+
+Or rather, that's what I'm hoping for. If you want to contribute to the
+thread in some mind-opening fashion that I haven't anticipated, please
+feel free.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+	Logged
+
+*Eero Tuovinen
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2228>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 974
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2228> WWW
+<http://www.arkkikivi.net>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90166#msg90166>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90166#msg90166>*
+« *Reply #6 on:* November 12, 2003, 12:36:10 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+
+So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that
+person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the
+post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/.
+
+
+Makes perfect sense to me, I've been hoping for a concise overview of
+the main points in one place. I'd like to pick one specific place in the
+text that delighted me especially:
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+
+Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text.
+"Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts
+are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations
+regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that
+people who read it can get that version of the model into action.
+
+
+This is something that has for a long time been a crucial part of my
+personal interpretation of roleplaying texts. I absolutely love seeing
+it in writing by one of my favourite rpg theorists. I'm firmly convinced
+that my first published game will carry the words "Guide to roleplaying
+in [something]" on the cover.
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The latest publication of Arkenstone Publishing
+<http://www.arkkikivi.net>, my Finnish indie company:
+Piruja miehiksi <http://www.arkkikivi.net/pirujamiehiksi/>, Finnish
+translation of /Dust Devils/
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1732
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90191#msg90191>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90191#msg90191>*
+« *Reply #7 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:07:47 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+By excellent effort, I meant "looks good, I'll have to put some real
+analsis in to see how successful at hitting all of its goals I think it
+was--It'll take me some time." Not: 'nice try, try again.'
+
+I think the post is (at least in proto-form) exactly what GNS needs.
+Splitting the content into a few documents is a good idea too. That
+wasn't clear to me until you said it.
+
+On splitting them up:
+I would formally separate theory,  ramifications for game design, and
+utility and implementation from the basic theory meaning:
+
+1. Have a section on the theory very similar to the first part of what
+is there, if not identical.
+
+2. Have a secion on GNS analysis of play (I'd be interesting in seeing
+what the purpose, value, and method of GNS analysis of play is)
+
+3. Have a section on "this is what I/we think the ramifications of GNS
+are for game-design" (using what's up there)
+
+4. Have a secion on "Here's how I/we think this perspective could be
+used to help solve what I/we think are some common problems during
+play." (with the perspective and vocabulary notes and a discussion of
+dysfunction seen from a GNS POV).
+
+This write up does most (or at least some) of this very well
+already--separating them formally would help to see what pieces are seen
+as theory and what pieces are seen as ramification or utility (I see the
+mxing of these as a major stumbling block to the understanding of GNS as
+a whole).
+
+Also:
+
+I need to carefully examine the arrows in the Venn Diagram. I get thay
+they mean sort of "follow from" but I'm not sure how that's different
+than "composed from."
+
+And:
+For each section maybe a formal:
+*Description * [what's there]
+*Example*: ["Fortune resolution, for example, rolling the dice to see if
+an action is judged successful by the group is an example of a technique." ]
+[/b]Definition of important terms[/b] [Karma, Drama, and Fortune,
+discussed in depth here are three major techniques for outcome resolution.]
+*Caveats*: [Note: there has been discussion of GNS modes lining up with
+resolution techniques so that one would say "Narrativist mode is best
+facilitated by Drama Technique." While that may sound reasonable for a
+variety of reasons, examination of the that theory has shown it to be
+false. A given Drama technique might or might not be good for
+Narrativist play-mode--but so might any other technique. Thus Techniques
+are said to be node-agnostic."]
+
+The Creative Agenda section isn't clear to me (which, I think is my
+fault--I'm not saying it's not clear or poorly written). I'm not sure
+who you're talking to when you say you're profoundly uninterested in
+discussing nuances: me as someone reviewing the document or me as
+someone coming to it at the first time. If the latter, I'd change it. To
+me that section looks like a placeholder for a real description of G/N/S
+modes.
+
+Also: There's an issue of GNS as a description of play (we watched play
+and this is what it looked like to us--we saw three basic categories).
+For me (and maybe only me) there's a lot of question about that (as I've
+said, from an internal standpoint the theory makes a lot of sense to
+me--from an observational standpoint, it's not as clear to me).
+
+A discussion of that in the Creative Agenda session would be good (I see
+the three essays speaking to internal intent--I don't know what
+step-on-up looks like distinct from exploration of situation and
+character but I can tell when I'm doing it--and maybe no one has a clear
+textual discription (although I'd be surprised if that's the case)--but
+addressing that would help with the GNS-is-about-intent/no-it-isn't issue).
+
+-Marco
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*The GM <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1821>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 58
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1821>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90196#msg90196>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90196#msg90196>*
+« *Reply #8 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:20:09 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ron says:
+
+>>(snip) I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera
+relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques
+relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda.<<
+
+Neato. This (I think) is what I?ve been trying to get some input about,
+although I didn?t say it quite like this in my recent thread.
+Specifically, I?m looking for hard and fast guidelines to facilitate
+this ?stuff? in such a manner that it fits our troupe?s style of agreed
+play. Now, is that goal realistic considering the vast potential for
+various in game outcomes when you start mixing and matching all of these
+elements together? I firmly think so, although I may not know how to do
+that just yet. This is why I?ve been taking a hard look at communication
+techniques that would yield specific results (those results being ?the
+game? that we?ve all agreed we want to play.)
+I know that in RL, certain words used in a certain order will result in
+a very specific outcome. Politicians are masters of what we typically
+call spin. For instance, if you hear a politician say, ?If we do not win
+the war on terror abroad at all costs, then we will become victims of
+fear in our own homes, our country will falter.? What he?s really just
+done is employed a conversation technique called a Closing Triplicate of
+Choice. Really, when you hear that, what automatically happens is that
+you run through the options and pick the lesser of the evils. ?Hmmm?I
+don?t want to be a victim; I don?t want the country to falter, so I
+guess we have to win the war at all costs.? That way of conversing is
+designed to put your mind in a specific frame of thinking. This kind of
+communication is far from new, but it works to provoke a specific
+response, (in this example, support for an agenda.) Could the same be
+done for creating an atmosphere where a game stays on track? Again, I
+think so.
+Now, I?m not saying that I want to have to use a script to run or play
+in a game. Blah, boring. It would, however, be helpful to have something
+firm to refer back to in order to keep a game from identity crisis.
+I think about this topic a lot lately.
+;)
+
+I'll be interested to follow this discussion and see where it leads.
+
+Warm Regards,
+Lisa
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Warm Regards,
+Lisa
+
+*Ben Lehman
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1464
+
+
+<callto://benlehman/>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW
+<http://www.tao-games.com/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90210#msg90210>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90210#msg90210>*
+« *Reply #9 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:30:26 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+
+Quote
+2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is
+where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it
+should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me.
+
+
+I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one
+point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and
+how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy
+your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only
+thing to discuss."
+
+As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no
+one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's
+/all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have
+to say over and over and over.
+
+
+BL>  Yup.  Imagine so.  On reread, I think I misread some stuff.  Apologies.
+
+Quote
+3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an
+apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would
+change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do
+not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing.
+
+
+I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than
+immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing
+in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the
+water regarding the basic points?
+
+
+BL>  Your own later posts regarding the "mission objectives" of this
+layout cleared things up a bit.  MJ expressed my viewpoint much better
+than I ever could.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>
+This is my Blog <http://benlehman.thesmerf.com/>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90215#msg90215>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90215#msg90215>*
+« *Reply #10 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:47:34 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hello,
+
+Further reflection has clarified my own goals for this thread.
+
+You know, I think that I'm not interested in suggestions for editing and
+presenting. That was a bad thing even to mention.
+
+I'm interested in whether /you/, the Forge folks, understand what I'm
+saying. If there's anything you need clarified about the model as
+presented, or anything you think doesn't hold up, then now's the time to
+say it.
+
+I'm very committed to reviewing and refining the material in the
+Discussing the Model section. Those are phrased as recommendations for a
+reason, and presented in the post for a reason. I would very much like
+to get confirmation and/or attempts at refutation about all seven of the
+points.
+
+I don't mind mentioning that quibbles about internal issues of Creative
+Agenda are right out the window. I'm profoundly sick of GNS talk,
+frankly. I'm convinced that once the model as a whole is better
+understood, then dozens upon dozens of "GNS issues" will simply evaporate.
+
+I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge
+from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as
+an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this
+claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and
+publishers in the hobby.
+
+I'm also interested in what I mentioned in the essay about
+Techniques-to-Creative Agenda, and Ephemera-to-Techniques. Lisa's post
+is, in my view, the most valuable one so far to develop in this thread.
+I have plenty of thoughts on this issue and would appreciate some input
+about yours.
+
+So from now on, please, no more editing or presentation suggestions.
+Talk about the material. This thread is not about what some hypothetical
+other people will think and feel about the model, but about /you/. Say,
+"YES, I AGREE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT X," or, "NO, YOU MAKE NO SENSE AND
+HERE'S WHY," or "GEE, WHAT ABOUT THIS PART HERE." That sort of thing.
+
+Without that kind of dialogue for a while, I'm considering closing up
+the whole forum. That's not a threat, but rather a statement that I
+don't see any point to public/forum GNS-wrangling without a strong and
+easily-reinforced shared understanding of the big picture.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+	Logged
+
+*Valamir <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 4859
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36> WWW
+<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90219#msg90219>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90219#msg90219>*
+« *Reply #11 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:08:33 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote
+I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge
+from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as
+an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this
+claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and
+publishers in the hobby.
+
+
+I think you rightly point out that this is the crux of the entire model.
+ I don't think you'll find anyone who games (even without spending much
+time thinking about it) who will disagree with the idea that social
+issues impact game experience.  I don't think you'll find anyone who
+hasn't found mechanics and techniques that work profoundly well (and
+others that work poorly) to deliver the kind of game they want.
+
+The issue then is this idea of a Creative Agenda beyond simply "having
+fun sharing a hobby with my friends" and much deeper than "I don't like
+dice pool mechanics or hard scene framing".
+
+I think the fact of the existance of "something" going on in that
+Creative Agenda space is pretty irrefutable.  Enjoying RPGs must require
+something more than the sum of Social conciderations plus Techniques or
+there wouldn't continue to be dysfunctional play.  If all that is
+required is selecting some powerful favorite techniques and then making
+sure everyone at the table is on good civil terms and committed to each
+others enjoyment...then nearly every game would be a rageing success.
+
+Clearly there's something else going on there, and for purposes of this
+model we call that something else "Creative Agenda".
+
+I'm particularly impressed with the fact that this format of
+presentation (speaking of the article overall here) is quite powerful at
+identifying and seperating out the component part.  At being able to set
+aside the specifics of the component parts altogether and just talk
+about the processes of the model.
+
+This enables us to look at and "approve" (if you will) of the overall
+framework of the model, without getting caught up (again, and again, and
+again) in debating trivial nuance ad naseum (guilty).  It focuses
+attention on the "forest" so we can all agree that we are, indeed,
+looking at a forest, before delving deep into the individual trees.
+
+I'm envisioning the final version of this document as a sort of master
+article that we can be reasonably confident is about as final and
+finished as likely to get.  Each box on the Venn can then be hyperlinked
+to an article talking deeper about each item, and ideally serve as a
+place to list links to appropriate threads on the topic.  In this way
+the sub articles can be more easily updated to reflect "current thinking
+on the nature of Techniques.  See also <these 6 threads> for additional
+thoughts and the development of the concepts.
+
+To make Mike happy these sub articles could be ideal to set up as a Wiki
+where it becomes trivial for various parties to submit links and add to
+content (supposedly...I can't figure the think out), with links from
+them to other articles (such as the 3 GNS ones, etc.)
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ralph Mazza
+Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Stories
+<http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com>
+
+*C. Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=354>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 540
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=354> WWW
+<http://www.livejournal.com/users/thickenergy/>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90221#msg90221>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90221#msg90221>*
+« *Reply #12 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:19:40 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hey Ron,
+
+Looks great to me. It's nice to see so much of the current thought all
+together on the same page. I particularly like that you repeatedly point
+out that System reaches down and through the lower level boxes. (I've
+been thinking of it like the funnel of a tornado.)
+
+Oh, have you considered changing the name of the model? The current
+moniker seems to cause quite a bit of focus on particulars of Creative
+Agenda, often resulting in tunnel-vision in regards to the model as a whole.
+
+-Chris
+	Logged
+
+*Lxndr <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1659>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 1026
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1659> WWW
+<http://www.twistedconfessions.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90225#msg90225>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90225#msg90225>*
+« *Reply #13 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:54:07 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I am very glad to see "Creative Agenda" replace "G/N/S".  Granted, I'm
+aware G/N/S is still a popular construction, but your new Venn Diagram
+allows for alternative theories on Creative Agenda in particular (like
+the ever-popular "Beeg Horseshoe") without implicit contradiction.
+
+That said, I agree with Chris that it'd be nice to see the entire theory
+no longer be called "the GNS model" since, well, the name itself brings
+an unhealthy amount of focus on that one part of the model...
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Alexander Cherry, Master of the Inkstained Robes
+Twisted Confessions Game Design <http://www.twistedconfessions.com>
+Moderator of Indie Netgaming
+<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming/>
+
+*Matt Snyder
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=234>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1142
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=234> WWW
+<http://www.chimera.info>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90232#msg90232>
+*The whole model - this is it
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg90232#msg90232>*
+« *Reply #14 on:* November 12, 2003, 11:19:39 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote
+I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge
+from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as
+an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this
+claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and
+publishers in the hobby.
+
+
+Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. In light of my own group's recent
+discussions, this was the key issue. While I don't expect my fellow
+group members to be able right now to write an essay on Creative Agenda,
+I do think they have recognized their right and need to understand just
+what /exactly/ it is we as a group are going to sit down and do for our
+enjoyment.
+
+I'll say that again. Each /person/ who choses to play a role-playing
+game with other people has a /right/ to understand just what it is that
+he will be doing when the group actually plays the game. Similarly, with
+right comes responsibility. It is a person's responsibility to recognize
+what his group's Creative Agenda is. Failure to do so absurdly risks
+one's enjoyment, and one's right to enjoyment.
+
+While many publishers aren't, to my mind, openly fighting against that
+right, what they are doing is either clumsily ignoring that right OR
+disingenuinely undermining that right with inconsistent positions on
+what the /act/ of role-playing is versus the /act/ of maintaining the
+industry and/or culture is.
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Matt Snyder
+www.chimera.info <http://www.chimera.info>
+
+"The future ain't what it used to be."
+--Yogi Berra
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.15> 3
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.30> * ... *5
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.60> 	Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=8655.0> 
+
+« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655;prev_next=next>
+
+Jump to:  
+
+
+Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
+<http://www.php.net/> 	The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
+<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
+*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> 	Valid XHTML 1.0!
+<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
+<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>
+