What is "The Forge?"

[mythusmage]

Not in this case. When folks shoot the breeze about culture in an academic context there might be some odd language, but they also talk about things like how being black or poor affects one's experience of a culture, or how real world history affects our perspectives.

(snip)

The academic method (to coin a term) is not what you talk about, it's how you talk about it.

As an example take creationists. Creationists talk about evolution, but they talk about it as academics would. And this includes the scientists among them. Their opposition is academic, their proposals are academic, their arguments are academic. They, in short, use the academic method. Philosophers and fine art critics do much the same thing.

So one could have a conversation that does not include blacks, the history of fine art in 13th century Pest, or the hitory of blacks in fine art in 13th century Pest, and still be engaged in an academic conversation.

Hell, for all their appeals to scientific thinking I've noticed that more sceptics approach matters from an academic viewpoint than a scientific than not.

Remember, it is not the subject, it is how you approach the subject.

 

[Akrasia]

... We got into an argument about postmodernism. It turned out, after a while, that we were actually having an argument about the definition of postmodernism; I held the view that postmodernism meant what people who use the word generally consider it to mean; he held the view that it meant what Jacques Derrida defined it to mean. We then debated what we should call the thing that the majority of people are referring to when they use the term "postmodernism"; he would not accept "postmodernism" so I called it "folk relativism," and we got on with our evening. ...

Thank Zeus I work in analytical philosophy and do not have to deal with 'postmodernism' rubbish.

Why one would even read Derrida in one's spare time is a mystery. The stuff is torture. I couldn't be paid to look at that, let alone post about it on some RPG message board.

As for the FORGE, I always found the GNS scheme useful as a shorthand for figuring out what people wanted out of a game. Indeed, it would have been helpful had we confronted that issue straight-up in my last group, as there was a clear G-N split.

'Sorcerer' is a brilliant game. But it's also a game I'll probably never play. Same goes for 'Burning Wheel'.

 

[jdrakeh]

As far as I can tell, "Saying Something (in a lit 101 sense)" is about expressing an answer to a moral or ethical issue through play.

You get all of that out of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' - wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've formed a conclusion based on something other than Vincent's definitions. As much as I'd like to, I really can't believe for a minute that your answer came about as a result of reading Vincent's definition alone as his definition of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 Sense)' and the explanation that you've given have very little to do with each other outside of the fact that they're both composed of words. That is, making the leap from one to the other without first consulting other sources of information seems absolutely incredible.

At any rate, note that your interpretation is actually quite a bit different than the official (and much more vague) entry in the Forge Glossary, which defines 'Narrativist' as a mode of play defined primarily by one of three recognized Creative Agendas known as 'Narrativism' which in and of itself is defined primarily by Story Now, a Commitment to Addressing Premise (which does not necessarily include moral or ethical dilemma) through actual play.

Vincent's definition touches on absolutely none of that. More importantly, however, is that the entry in the Forge Glossary concerning 'Narrativism' directs the reader to another entry (created at a later date) for the definition, which in turn directs the reader to yet another entry (also created at a later date) that does, finally, define the principle criteria of Narrativism - but stops short of defining Narratvism itself, instead referring back to the intial entry for Narrativism. What else makes Narratvisim what it is besides Story Now? What is Narrativism?

Sadly, we may never know. What we do know is that it isn't explained in The Big Model or covered by the official Forge Glossary in any sort of definitive, non-circular, manner. If you look closer at The Big Model and the Glossary, you'll find that a lot of these fairly evident logic errors exist.

[Note: For a graphic representation of why the majority of Forge theory and definition thereof falls down, see the Oxford University Invariant Society's Circular Logic FAQ.]

 

[ForceUser]

...there was a clear G-N split.

Maybe that's the problem with one of my groups. Hm. How to address it without spitting and frothing in DM frustration.

Gamist relativism--there is no wrong way to have fun gaming.
Gut Response--there is in my game, and that's favoring mechanics over narrative.

Hm.

 

[jdrakeh]

Gut Response--there is in my game, and that's favoring mechanics over narrative.

Note that, according to Forge dogma, narrative actually has nothing to do with 'Narrativism' (I know - I could never wrap my head around that, either).

 

[Knightfall]

Man, just reading THIS thread made my head hurt. Forget this "The Forge" place.

Oww!

KF72

 

[fusangite]

As for the FORGE, I always found the GNS scheme useful as a shorthand for figuring out what people wanted out of a game. Indeed, it would have been helpful had we confronted that issue straight-up in my last group, as there was a clear G-N split.

I certainly don't find the scheme valueless. However, to me a successful gaming group is one that is based on a balance of gaming foci and creative agendas. I think systems, campaigns and groups are at their best when neither the simulationist nor the gamist "agenda" is clearly privileged and different players find fulfilment in different parts of the play. In my experience, this diversity helps to give everyone time in the spotlight. I also think, as stated before, that most people who want mechanics to act directly on story don't necessarily have the thematic focus that narrativism presumes.

 

[fusangite]

As far as I can tell, "Saying Something (in a lit 101 sense)" is about expressing an answer to a moral or ethical issue through play.

Now that a little piece of the Forge debate has found its way onto ENWorld, I have to ask: how do you categorize games in which the mechanics act directly on story, the players see their role as collaborative storytelling but they don't care a fig about these moral or ethical issues and don't intend to use the game mechanics to explore these questions?

 

[LostSoul]

You get all of that out of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' - wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've formed a conclusion based on something other than Vincent's definitions.

You're right - I've read about it here and there. However, I believe that conclusion was formed mainly by Ron Edward's "Story Now" essay, for the most part, and then buttressed by Vincent (and other's) writings.

When I read about Premise in that first essay, it hit me like a bullet. I wasn't sure about the extent of it at that time (do you have to address Premise 24/7 for it to be narrativist? what if you don't know that you're addressing Premise? etc.) but I'm reasonably clear on it now.

I don't see how else you can interpret it, honestly.

the explanation that you've given have very little to do with each other outside of the fact that they're both composed of words.

At any rate, note that your interpretation is actually quite a bit different than the official (and much more vague) entry in the Forge Glossary.

This is what I get from Story Now, on the Forge, in the original Narrativist essay:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.

I could be wrong when I relate an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence" to moral or ethical issues, but I don't think so.

What else makes Narratvisim what it is besides Story Now? What is Narrativism?

Narrativism is Story Now. Story Now is defined in the quote above (from the Narrativist essay). I'm just not seeing the disconnect here.

 

[diaglo]

Man, just reading THIS thread made my head hurt. Forget this "The Forge" place.

Oww!

KF72

might i recommend you drink heavily.

that's what i do whenever people start talking about the forge. i imagine i'm there in my tightie whities with something in hand. so i'm gaming. i tell them what i'm doing while i do it. so i'm narrating the action. and then i simulate my satisfaction by redecorating the nearest forger.