"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[Balesir]

You're mistaking technique with agenda and then claiming that the agenda is somehow a "kludge" because it can be pursued with different techniques.

No, I'm saying that what the player is focussed on creating when a third party is responsible for setting the parameters of the situation/story is different from what they are focussed on adding to the game when the responsibility for generating a story is theirs and that is what they want to do. This is what I mean by the players' "agenda". "I want to take part in a story" is different from "I want to make a story happen". Both are fine objectives for a roleplaying session, but to call them "the same agenda" makes no sense to me.

Fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree that GNS is too deeply flawed to be fixed.

By those lights, the Threefold is, too - are we having fun, yet?

GNS and the Threefold are two different but compatible models. They are not mutually exclusive (or even competitive) - they talk about different things (reasons for in-game resolution decision making vs. the agenda a player at the table has for what they want to spend their energy creating). Both are, in their own sphere, useful but possibly flawed/incomplete theories.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Belasir, with all due respect, everyone here has demonstrated they understand GNS in my opinion. If we disagree on details that is fine, but trying to win a debate by accusing the opposition of not understanding GNS is not helpful (and it is an all to common tactic of the GNS crowd). The issue is we disagree with many of it's fundamental assumptons and terms. That does not mean we fail to understand them.

 

[Balesir]

Belasir, with all due respect, everyone here has demonstrated they understand GNS in my opinion. If we disagree on details that is fine, but trying to win a debate by accusing the opposition of not understanding GNS is not helpful (and it is an all to common tactic of the GNS crowd). The issue is we disagree with many of it's fundamental assumptons and terms. That does not mean we fail to understand them.

Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse those in this thread of "not understanding GNS" - I was just saying this is among the cases I find in general; we burrow down to the root of the disagreement, and it turns out to be misunderstanding. This is not specifically aimed at this thread, this forum or even the interwebz - just a general observation.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I kinda have always wondering what really intrests people in Forge-theories.
I used out of curiosity visit Forge and it reads to me same way as pretensious crap in some new-age/other brainfarty things people make up to trick people to give them money/get followers to tell them how right/smart/cool they are.

I get someone there really wants to feel "special".

I don't like their game systems even. I have met in real life some people who like and contribute to that page. I dislike them as people, I hate their gaming-style.

So some people love word-games and sematics like that. I am not one of those people. I think most stuff that comes from that kinda "social game" ruins good relaxed games.

I am not saying that all people that like to wonder around Forge or think similar ideas would all be first rate -----. It's just that ones I knew were.

 

[S'mon]

The argument can certainly be made that storytelling railroads are a dysfunctional form of dramatist play. But I don't think that means it's not dramatist play.

You may well be right. It's not a question that has much concerned me.

 

[S'mon]

OK, so how do the players know what this mutual story should be about? Do they discuss and choose a situation (monster and nefarious deeds for the episode)? Do they have a GM to choose this for them? Do some of them play the "bad guys"?

I don't understand what the point of these questions is. Are you disagreeing with something I said?

 

[S'mon]

Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse those in this thread of "not understanding GNS" - I was just saying this is among the cases I find in general; we burrow down to the root of the disagreement, and it turns out to be misunderstanding..

Oh, we don't misunderstand at all - we understand perfectly. We're just wilfully rejecting the Obvious Truth of GNS, because we're all really Justin Alexander, and we/I have/has a malevolent agenda to stop EN World from understanding and embracing Forge Theory. Because we/I are/am a Bad Person.

 

[Izumi]

What people want from their rpgs is like an ever-changing and fast-moving river. The GM has to navigate the current in a boat made of stone. Since you can't win, and you're gonna sink anyways, it's best to make the journey really interesting. The game resolution mechanics are gamist because something can be won or lost. The Drama is in there because the tension of losing what you invested of your time is often on the line. Knowing more and interacting in the story increases your chances of not being put into the gamist win/lose. The story itself takes care of itself in most cases when the two above combine. Sit back, play your devices, and watch your players get themselves into trouble.

On a side note, I homebrewed a few combat systems that are cool and very realistic. Efficient and simple they work great in D&D save for one thing...The choice of how much to risk mattered so much in a fight, the players developed fear, and with angst delayed the game with a decision paralysis. Then got upset when their own choice led to death. Goes to show that what works great, doesn't necessarily make for a good time. Same for these theories perhaps.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This thread is getting the root of some issues that have always buged me about GNS but about your use of "Exploration", cannot every thing about rpg's be reduced to "Exploration".
Is not the addressing of premise in Narrativist play and challange in gamist play also exploration?
I think my issue is that is Gamist, Narrative or Sim are not competing priorities but for many people they want Purist for System mechanics to support what is Gamist play or High Concept Simulation to pursue Narrative play or either to support dramatic/story play.
In other words it is an interesting theory but does not reflect actual practise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Isn't that "Realism"? I repeat my question from before - why should the "real" world as a model have a special place when discussing imaginary worlds?

Different meanings of realism. Would "striving for consistency" be better? It doesn't matter what rules your imaginary world has. What matters is that it has them and you stick to thme.

The model is entirely objective;

Really?

What the model might be is flawed or incomplete. As with any theory or model, the way to address that is for those knowledgeable about the subject to first understand what the model or theory says, and then amend, disprove or add to it as appropriate. So far, what I have seen is a combination of:

- Not understanding the model, so objecting to it on the grounds of what it isn't

- Claiming that it is incomplete, but failing to add to it or even specify what, precisely, it is missing, and

- Claiming that it is wrong, but failing to specify clearly what is invalid without trying to apply the model to things it expressly does not address.

You've clearly missed the people pointing out that "Simulationism" is an incoherent mess. The people pointing out that contrary to your assertion about Ron Edwards getting there first, GNS is a debased form of GDS - which isn't about gamer type so much as decisions made at the table. And the fact that the only known empirical model we have bears no resemblance to Ron Edwards' hypotheses.