Quote from: JimBobOzWho has what definition of Gamism, etc, matter because you can't have a taxonomy, a bunch of categories, without rigorous definitions. A label which can mean almost anything actually means almost nothing. His ideas have evolved? Bully for him. Update the essays and glossaries, then.

I agree that consistency of definition matters. I agree that it's frustrating to sift through the inconsistencies and vaguarities. I even buy that it's so frustrating as to warrant giving up on the thing. What I object to is my quoting a definition, and being told, "that's not a definition." I mean, if you were to hypothetically discuss Sim with Ron or some other Forge bloke, and he strayed from the definition in his own Glossary, you'd be A-OK to call him on it. But I can't quote that definition as, y'know, a definition, that Ron once wrote, as something that at least makes some sort of sense (which was the issue in contention)? C'mon.

And about updating the Essays and stuff? Yeah, total agreement. Are you even reading what I wrote? I already said I hated his policy on that.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, you don't have to read anything I wrote to talk to me. But you cannot say that I haven't studied this thoroughly, or given it due consideration.
Me: "This stuff is bollocks."
You: "I think we should look at it properly before dismissing it."
Me: "I have. Look here -"
You: "I think we should look at it properly before dismissing it. No, I haven't read what you wrote. Why?"
You can see that that'd be frustrating.

I wasn't making any claim about how you have or haven't studied this in the past. As far as I knew we were having a conversation. Your stance on these things was dismissive in a way that hurt our conversation. You feel you've already knocked this issue out of the park, good for you. But nobody forced you to come post in this thread; I assumed you did so 'cause you wanted to talk about the subject. But when I engaged you on the issues, I got "what, so I should argue against a flat earth from square one every time it comes up?"

You can see how that'd be frustrating.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, social issues can't be treated separately to roleplaying issues. That's because roleplaying is a social creative hobby. The social part may be more important to some, and the creative part to others, but it remains a social creative hobby. The creative part affects the social part, and vice versa.

I'm down with that. Really. It just seems that you're so gonzo about the social end that you discout any gameplay-related solution to social gaming problems. Like, it should all be handled on the purely social level or something. Ron's focusing on how the socializing affects the gaming; therefore he explores (insightfully or moronically) gaming-based solutions. I think both are important. But you won't let that stand; in discussion after discussion, you scream "Social, social, SOCIAL!" and won't let folks who wanna look at the gaming side of it be.We're gaming to have fun, right? And that's part social, and part game-based, right? Who cares if it's 50-50, or 70-30, or what; if we talk about the game side of it, we're going to examine fun in the game and what kills it in the game, and folks who think that unimportant should just, y'know, not participate, or start their own threads, you know?

Quote from: JimBobOzOh, and your buddy who only wants competition? He's a cocksmock. Tell him to go play a computer game instead. Unless... he's your friend? And there are... social reasons for being creative with him?

But hey, that social thing is only something that determines what sort of experience you have every time you game - why on Earth would anyone want to talk about that?

Yeah, there are social reasons. Those reasons are huge. Great topic to discuss. But if we're going to discuss his actual gaming preferences and how those impact the social situation, then an analysis of those preferences is in order.

Just 'cause my friend wants something that the others don't want, doesn't make him a cocksmock though. If he insisted on ruining everyone's fun by trampling on their goals in favor of his own, he'd be a cocksmock. But it's only been one session, in which he pursued what he came to do, and the others pursued what they came to do, and my trying to accomodate all of them resulted in one satisfied customer, and at least two vaguely disappointed ones. Conventional roleplaying wisdom says we should all be able to get along and get what we want out of a session. But as my other "gamist" friend noted, that doesn't really happen with any reliability. Somebody tends to come up short, for maybe sessions at a time. Like in the aforementioned session, where we got a couple of fun fights for "competition-guy," but didn't get to the town with all the cool relationships and social conflicts for the others. I have my doubts about whether competition-guy will work out for the group, while still delivering an overall fun experience for the others. And I think he'll be amenable to discussing that. So see, by examining both aspects, the social and the game, I can work toward problem-solving in a holistic manner.

One other thing: I reiterate that it would be best to actually talk with Ron about these things one-on-one, which he is generally willing to do. If that's not something you're interested in doing, fine, fair enough, but if you acually want your criticisms addressed, one-sided heckling of an essay isn't going to do it.

And with which, I'm done. (Though I would like to know if Sgt. SpaceWizard found my reply to him interesting, and hear the last word from jimbob as well.) I now return y'all to your regularly scheduled thread. I'll just reiterate the point which spawned this digression, which is that discussion of those three topics I originally mentioned as separate issues, is important for getting anywhere in Forge-related discussion.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: joewolzThose are valid points.  I had never thought much about #2...I thought that the essays came form Internet discussions, not just from Ron.

Nah, you're thinking of GDS - Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism - which grew from the rec.games.frp.advocacy discussions.

The big difference is that while GDS allowed for a lot of different schools of thought on what "drama" was all about and what made a good story, GNS is based on very particular ideas about what a "Narrative" is.

Quote from: WarthurNah, you're thinking of GDS - Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism - which grew from the rec.games.frp.advocacy discussions.

The big difference is that while GDS allowed for a lot of different schools of thought on what "drama" was all about and what made a good story, GNS is based on very particular ideas about what a "Narrative" is.

And having known that now, I spent today learning  little bit about what Ron Edwards classifies as "narrative."  I really feel sorry for those kids he teaches about it.

Quote from: MelinglorI'm down with that. Really. It just seems that you're so gonzo about the social end that you discout any gameplay-related solution to social gaming problems. Like, it should all be handled on the purely social level or something.

That's because the social comes first in a game session, whether you want it to or not. It "comes first" in the sense that if in some way you're not getting along with one or more of the people in the game group, then nothing else you do will work to make it a successful session for you - "successful" being some mix of fun, fulfilling and interesting.

I can play the most crap and stupid game with people I like, and have fun. I can play the most awesome game ever with people I don't get along with, and be miserable. A good group can make even a crap game fun, a bad group cannot make even a good game fun.

Many game-play problems, when you look into them, turn out to be social problems. So for example if I'm playing a game and it's a bit slow-paced so I try to liven things up by starting a combat, some people might think that's a game play-style problem - they like a nice slow pace, and I like combat. But in fact it's a social problem. If I'm a person who likes a quick pace, that's my personality - I'll like a quick pace in lots of things, not just rpg session. Same goes for the GM and their slow pace. It's a mismatch of personality types. If it gets to the point where I'm starting pointless combats just to speed things up, then one of two things has happened - either I asked the GM to speed up, and they for me to slow down, and we couldn't agree on the pace, or else we feel unable to talk to each-other. The first means we're unwilling to compromise, the second means we're not connecting.

Being unwilling to compromise, and not connecting, are very common causes of game group problems. People who dislike compromise, and people who don't like connecting - these are people who are going to find something to disagree about. If it's not the pace of the game, it'll be my Gamism vs their Narrativism, or my Thesp vs their Hack, or whatever. We'll find something.

Roleplaying, whether or not it's "art", is certainly a means of expression. An rpg book is a bunch of rules we use to have a conversation. We're expressing ourselves, we're saying something. So if we have some difficulties in the game session, it's rarely because of the game itself - they're personality clashes.

I focus on the social because if you get that right, if you're willing to compromise, to connect, then you'll figure out your own solutions to play style clashes. But if you're unwilling to compromise and connect, then you'll find something to fight about no matter what.  

This has been my observation through having had game sessions with over 500 people, about 150 of them in more than one session. A friend of mine owned a game store up north for a couple of years, and offered a place for people to game. He said he could always tell when the game groups were going to bust up - it was personality clashes. Every single time.

Now, I think some sort of play style theory has a place in tuning up a basically sound group. As I see it, a game group goes through stages:

• Forming - first gets together, people are tentative and polite, and nothing is achieved
• Storming - sorts out its structure and purpose, and there are many conflicts
• Norming - settles down and begins going where it needs to
• Performing - people working together in harmony, achieving things
• Adjournment - purpose about to be achieved, group sees end coming, feels regret and nostalgia (applies only to closed-ended campaigns and multi-session convention games)
• Stagnation - loses direction, but is so set in its ways it can't change easily.

Most game groups, if they break up or someone leaves, it's at that "storming" stage. The conflicts in the "Storming" stage often appear to be about game play style issues, but really they're personality or social issues. If the group can weather the storm, then they'll make it to norming.

Now, I think here is where game play style theory possibly comes in, in making the group go from merely norming, to actually performing. Thing is, of any bunch of people who get together to form a group, very few get to that stage. The group's storm breaks 'em up. So in talking about social things, I'm focusing on what's important for most people. If your group is just on the edge between norming and performing, then maybe some of that theory stuff will be useful to you. But even then, often the issues are social.

For example, you, Melinglor - your description of your game group, basically you're bored while they sit around "just experiencing" things. Why hasn't that been dealt with? Have you and the others tried compromising? If you've not even brought up the subject of compromising, why not? Are you not connecting? It sounds like a social problem.

I guess that when I say it's a social creative hobby, you might say that in those group development stages, it goes social ---> creative. That is, in forming, social's all that matters; in storming, social's still almost entirely it; in norming, social's mostly it, but not entirely; in performing, the social and creative aspects start having equal performance. And then if the group stagnates, well that's back to entirely social again.

So when Ron Edwards said that "most gamers I encounter are tired, bitter and frustrated", he focused on the game play style issues, the creative bit. But the real issues were social. People weren't connecting and compromising.

If you don't connect with someone, and you refuse to compromise, then no game play style theory can possibly help you have a good game session with them. If you do connect, and do compromise, then you can have a good game session even with wildly different tastes in gaming.

It's a social creative hobby.

Again, play style theory might be useful in getting from "okay" or "good" session to "great!" session. But most gamers who have any problems at all are struggling just to get to okay or good. Most gamers don't have problems at all, are quite happy with their gaming; but those who do have problems, they're mostly social in nature, not creative.

Uncle Ronny doesn't understand this. Any person who compares bad gaming habits to "literal brain damage", or bad gaming experiences to "child sexual abuse", and then is genuinely surrised when people are offended, that's a person who is not displaying social savvy. Since he focuses on the creative part, and ignores the social part, I'm not surprised that most gamers he encounters are tired, bitter and frustrated. "Fuck's sakes, Ron, just listen to me, would you?!"

JimBob,

That was a fucking brilliant post.  I'm not sure if you're right about Ron's issues, but the rest was golden.

If you liked that, try this

everytime i have gone to The Forge I have felt as if I was being dragged into a rather pointless philosophical debate regarding the meaning and depth of whatever idea I might have had. I can see how discussing 'power 19s' and 'what is my game about' might be useful, but not every rpg needs to discuss the human condition or man's place in the universe! To be honest, brutally so, but I find all this G/N/S stuff bollocks. Sorry, but those terms and their meanings have no relevance to any game i have played, table i have sat at or person I have played with or adventure I have run.