Quote from: James J SkachNot that I don't believe you (god knows I do), I'm just curious if you have links.  I'd love to see the entire discussions (I'm a glutton).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

There are some other gems in there (e.g., using the GNS to classify gamers).  What I think that discussion shows, more than anything, is that Ron never really "got" the Simulationist label he lifted from the r.g.f.a Threefold so it became a sort of dumping ground that meant "bad role-playing".  To Ron's credit (and I honestly mean that), he's never deleted that thread.

[EDIT: Added Material Below]

It's not that difficult to find more examples of blind people trying to describe clouds (or claiming that they don't exist because they can't see them).

For example, the Forge Provisional Glossary defines the "Beeg Horseshoe Theory" as "A proposed visual model for the relationship among the three Creative Agendas around a flat circle, with an 'open space' for Simulationist play, because it may not exist. First proposed by Jared Sorensen as a criticism of Simulationist play (or pseudo-play), then re-proposed by Mike Holmes in an effort to validate Simulationist play."  In other words, it often looks like they spent more time trying to define Simulationist play away than trying to understand it, perhaps because they weren't able to understand it.

Quote from: John MorrowTo Ron's credit (and I honestly mean that), he's never deleted that thread.

Yeah ... wow, that's old stuff.  I've never seen a link that has a topic number as low as 24.  The 24th thread ever made on that board, way back in 2001.  You do have a long memory.

Ron doesn't delete threads at all to my knowledge, he closes them sure but he doesn't delete them.

That stuff dates back to 2002 I think, whether it remains relevant I leave to others.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah ... wow, that's old stuff.  I've never seen a link that has a topic number as low as 24.  The 24th thread ever made on that board, way back in 2001.  You do have a long memory.

It's old, but there was discussion on Gaming Outpost before that.  

Yes, I do have a long memory (I often reference threads from a decade or more ago on rec.games.frp.advocacy, too -- Google Groups helps there).  I can remember being in my crib and baby carriage and hearing crickets outside for the first time as a child.

The way dialogue works is that people propose things and weigh them. Nobody says 'pervy' at the Forge any more (they'd stopped before I started reading), and nobody is talking in these terms about sim.

You guys really need to let some of this go.

I agree. I still think there are serious problems with Forge theory as it currently exists (which is hard to put a finger on since it's really just whatever the speaker of the moment says), but unless you want a public apology for everything dumb someone's said in the past, it'd be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Or rather if someone says something dumb now, you can call them on it. (Particularly if it's said to your face. If I worried about people saying dumb things out of earshot I'd be very busy, living in a university town as I do.)

Quote from: BalbinusRon doesn't delete threads at all to my knowledge, he closes them sure but he doesn't delete them.

Still, given that he could delete potentially embarassing comments but doesn't is worth noting.  

Quote from: BalbinusThat stuff dates back to 2002 I think, whether it remains relevant I leave to others.

I think it remains relevant for a few reasons.  First, that's the end of the period in which the GNS was formed and it reflects the thinking (or lack of thinking) that went into that model.  Second, there has been a great deal of resistence to any sort of major revisions to the model since that period, so that sort of thinking (or lack of thinking) still persists in the structure of the model.  Third, the Beeg Horseshoe and later discussions containing similar comments suggest that the same sort of thinking persisted for a long time and may never have gone away.  So my vote is for, "Yes, it remains relevant."

Quote from: droogThe way dialogue works is that people propose things and weigh them. Nobody says 'pervy' at the Forge any more (they'd stopped before I started reading), and nobody is talking in these terms about sim.

This thinking is still embedded in the GNS model and the definitions surrounding it.

Quote from: droogYou guys really need to let some of this go.

Has the Forge let the GNS model go?  Have they done a major comprehensive revision of it based on their current thinking?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI agree. I still think there are serious problems with Forge theory as it currently exists (which is hard to put a finger on since it's really just whatever the speaker of the moment says), but unless you want a public apology for everything dumb someone's said in the past, it'd be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

I've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.  

I'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

Quote from: John MorrowI've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.  

I'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

The real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.  Sim games are still talked down to left and right, it's just that the talking-down-to is all dressed up in academic language.  Frankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.  

There's the occasional post where the original honesty still shines through (Brain Damage, anyone?)...but mostly its all been sublimated and intellectualized.  But anyone who thinks it isn't still there -- that person is incapable of seeing how it looks to Sim players (ie, those whose play styles are descibed using words like "dysfunction").

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there

Absolutely -- and don't forget: the long period of a (poorly) hidden agenda came  *between* the original GNS essay and the Brain Damage.

Guys: theory is all about how the kinds of games I like to play cause on-going powerstruggle and brain damage, and how indie games with reduced GM control are required for functional gaming...

Not all theory guys (even some of the diehards) believe that.

But a lot of them certainly appear to.

Because a lot of them had on-going power struggle and, instead of saying, "Hey. This is absurd. I need to grow up." they said, "It can't have been *me* -- it must have been that evil game that made me fight with my friends!"

Absurd.

And even worse -- serious discussion about gaming gets stuck there because for most of the people participating it's either about how their early gaming experiences scared them or how their current gaming approach is superior -- gaming 'theory' without critical thought or insight.

J. Kim -- who is *not* one of those guys, and who has done far more for RPG theory than The Forge -- mentioned that he'd prefer a theory with a point-of-view to a theory without one:

John -- I know you dislike points-of-view that are exclusive ("Games of this sort aren't real RPG's") and you seem to have a low tolerance for some of the conspiracy theories or faulty logic I've seen you speak up against.

Forge theory is just more of the same. I have no problem with a point of view made as part of a rigorous and good-faith argument... but there are several very telling points about this stuff that suggests that that's not the case here.

1) All the appologism:
- "It was A LONG TIME AGO" -- no, the Brain Damage was recent, and echoed what's been being said all along
- "It's like a metaphor! It's a similie! It was a figure of speech" -- not it wasn't
- "No one understands what he said -- it's all emotional reactions to his (poor) choice of words" -- no. everyone understands what he said. Unlike some of theory, it's quite clear. And absurd
- etc.

Theories don't need appologism. Dogma does.

2) All the (previous) claims that people who saw insulting or absurd stuff in the theory were projecting or didn't understand it.

It turns out they did -- they were right all along -- now that the truth is out, it suggests a *long* history of dishonest dialog on the part of the theorists.

3) Posts -- like one in your blog (in response to your post) -- asking what theorists should tell people who have had terribly disfunctional, power-struggle experiences with traditional games: the poster asks (and I paraphrase... I can find the exact post if necessary) if a well known theorist should simply tell them that yes, it's their fault -- or continue to assure them that it was the game's fault.

Clearly the poster felt that telling people who are in power-struggle that it's their fault would be... doing them a disservice? That telling them the game rules had relieved them of their responsibility for getting along well with other human beings would be... what? Cruel?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have namby-pamby than intellectual dishonesty.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jhkimAs others have pointed out, Ron didn't actually participate on r.g.f.a. (which was rec.games.frp.advocacy).  He heard about rgfa ideas and read some of the FAQs and such, but didn't participate.  He did participate on the Gaming Outpost, which was where many of the other ideas came up -- notably Scarlet Jester's ideas on exploration.  You can read some of Jester's GENder model on the threefold model page here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

The most striking change is that the rgfa concept of Simulationism is extremely different than Ron's GNS.  Genre emulators -- like those who wants to make four-color comic-book stories, say -- are considered Dramatist in the Threefold, but are considered Simulationists in Ron's GNS.  Threefold Simulationism is about simulating things -- i.e. a virtual situation where you're concerned about what would really happen given the premises.  

Yeah. The definitions are quite different. My guess is that realism was more of a priority then than it is now (I see general agreement that versimilitude is a better objective than 'realism' than I did in the 90's), and so got its own category.

I *do* think that simulating a comic book (where events are clearly plot driven) *is* GDS-Dramatist (and that's a useful and insightful observation). Simulating a comic-book-like-reality would be, GNS-Sim-Classic...

Maybe.

I missed both Gaming Outpost and r.g.f.a. but to the extent I've read the posts, I respect the thinking and the discussion that went into them.

As I've said elsewhere, I think one of the reasons that so much good stuff came out of r.g.f.a was the absence of discussion-killing moderation. The Forge's habit of closing threads that question GNS has done more to make the theory weak than all the agenda-driven agency put together.

Quote from: jhkimEh?  Yes, the blogs have disagreement between them, which I guess makes them incoherent with each other.  I would consider this a step up from certain tendencies on the Forge theory boards, which were moderated by Ron and had a number of people who would try to spin whatever was said as being consistent with the "core theory".  

When I called the discussion incoherent, I meant that it was diffuse, the way ambient light is not like laser, or "coherent" light.

If you thought I was saying that the blog discussions make no sense or are garbage, I suggest that you are projecting your own desire to be persecuted into my neutral diction.

I think this is because the games you have played have conditioned you to lose your natural reading ability... you're only able to see personal attacks and  insults.

I recommend Dogs in the Vinyard.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.When I called the discussion incoherent, I meant that it was diffuse, the way ambient light is not like laser, or "coherent" light.

If you thought I was saying that the blog discussions make no sense or are garbage, I suggest that you are projecting your own desire to be persecuted into my neutral diction.

I think this is because the games you have played have conditioned you to lose your natural reading ability... you're only able to see personal attacks and  insults.

I recommend Dogs in the Vinyard.

Cheers,
-E.

This is brilliant, though I don't think John is the one is should be directed at.

Quote from: -E.Absolutely -- and don't forget: the long period of a (poorly) hidden agenda came  *between* the original GNS essay and the Brain Damage.



2) All the (previous) claims that people who saw insulting or absurd stuff in the theory were projecting or didn't understand it.

It turns out they did -- they were right all along -- now that the truth is out, it suggests a *long* history of dishonest dialog on the part of the theorists.

Well, it's my theory that the ones they're hiding the agenda from is mostly themselves and the intellectual dishonesty is mostly because they won't admit to themselves the nature of their discussion.  Why else would Ron go on like a broken record about how no one has done more to foster respectful RPG discussion on the internet.  Truth is, no one has dome more to foster faux-respectful RPG discussion* on the internet.  Not the same thing at all.  

Not that ALL of them fit this mold.  But many do.  


*I define faux-respectful discussion as a discussion where the forms of respectful discussion are followed, but not the functions.  In other words, you can be insulting and condescending as long as you're careful to use pedantic verbiage.  Being straightforwardly insulting and condescending is not tolerated at all.

Quote from: Lee ShortThis is brilliant, though I don't think John is the one is should be directed at.

John, in his earlier post (correctly) "Eh'ed?" me for describing the blog discussions as less... coherent than The Forge discussion.

Therefore, I felt compelled to respond this way.

John, although I don't think he likes me trashing the theory, is obviously, not one of the people who perpetuates that kind of dialog.

He might appreciate my response though (my serious response is in the post above).

Cheers,
-E.