+  *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>