diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/whole_model.txt --- /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 * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion * +| | |-+ *The whole model - this is it * + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 3 * ... *5 + +Author Topic: The whole model - this is it (Read 13307 times) + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« * 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? *. + +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 +* +Member + +Posts: 1464 + + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +This is my Blog + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 1732 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +* +Member + +Posts: 2126 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 / +M. J. Young Net + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 974 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +, my Finnish indie company: +Piruja miehiksi , Finnish +translation of /Dust Devils/ + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1732 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 58 + + +View Profile + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +* +Member + +Posts: 1464 + + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +This is my Blog + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 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 + + +*C. Edwards +* +Member + +Posts: 540 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 1026 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 +Moderator of Indie Netgaming + + +*Matt Snyder +* +Member + +Posts: 1142 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *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 + +"The future ain't what it used to be." +--Yogi Berra + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + * ... *5 + Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + +