What is "The Forge?"

[Kanegrundar]

It's not really complicated....

Gamists want to Prove Themselves.
Simulationists want to Be There.
Narrativists want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense).

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#3

Easy for you to say. I'd wager that there would be a few over at the Forge that would disagree with really big wurds with you, which was the beginning of my beef with the forums at the Forge. There are some decent games that come out of there, but my views of some of the people behind the games keep me from going back. It's just better for all.

 

[LostSoul]

According to Lumpley - but other Forge posters have used and do use different definitions where those terms (especially 'narrativism' and/or 'Narrativist') are concerned. Again, eyebeams (MS) really hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread.

I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?

 

[Teflon Billy]

I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?

No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently several times over by voices of authority at The Forge.

One of the main complaints visible in this thread is that the denizens of The Forge--self confident though they may be when arguing that people are dumb--have never managed to adequately define their new jargon.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?

No. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, a lot of Forge jargon is very tenuously defined at best and, as eyebeams said, doesn't actually equate to a defensible idea as a direct result of that tenuous definition. I'm saying that trying to pass off purely subjective criteria (such as that used by Lumpley in the cited reference) as definition is pointless. Definitions define things - and most of the Forge jargon doesn't do this, rather it cleverly avoids defining things.

For instance, what does 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' actually mean? That phrase can mean any number of things depending upon who is reading it. It isn't a definition at all, but a cleverly constructed bit of obfuscation that hides the fact that there is no definition. It's my contention that this is deliberate, as it provides a built-in strawman defense for any possible criticism that may be leveled at Forge design philosophy.

The question of what 'Narrativism' or 'Gamism' or any other such thing actually consists of is, in fact, a very valid question worth answering in concrete terms - the key being in concrete terms. The Forge definitions of these things define precious little and I don't believe that this is accidental. I see a good deal (but not all) of The Forge theory as being much like David Copperfield's disappearing Statue of Liberty - at first glance it's absolutely what it appears to be, but if you examine it very closely, the illusion falls apart.

The complete lack of objective definition for major cornerstones of The Big Model is a glaring flaw, but one that many people are distracted from. The big words and flashy grandstanding that surround theory discussion at The Forge (or did surround theory discussion at The Forge before Ron shut it down) aren't accidental - they're specifically designed to shift the attention away from the The Big Model's flaws (and to be fair, they manged to shift my attention away from those flaws for more than 2 years).

The Big Model is the illusion. The reality is that nobody at the Forge can explain The Big Model in its entirety with objective terminology (which in and of itself is actually a byproduct of earlier GNS theory not being defined objectively). That said, it's an attractive illusion and I admire it much as I admire David Copperfield's disappearing Statue of Liberty - but I also see it for what it is (or what I believe it to be, failing the lack of an objective definition to date).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently several times over[/i[] by voices of authority at The Forge.

One of the main complaints visible in this thread is that the denizens of The Forge--self confident though they may be when arguing that people are dumb--have never managed to adequately define their new jargon.

Well, that's what happens as a theory is developed, especially if developed by committee. Ideas evolve, meanings change, and so on, and people disagree. They might be better off starting over with new terms though, now that Ron's decided that they have their final result, just to avoid such problems.

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, that's what happens as a theory is developed, especially if developed by committee.

While it is true that theories can and do evolve, the assertion that they exist in a continual state of flux and, thus, are unable to ever be defined objectively is a load of horse pucky (although this is the defense of The Big Model often put forth by The Forge).

 

[LostSoul]

For instance, what does 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' actually mean? That phrase can mean any number of things depending upon who is reading it. It isn't a definition at all, but a cleverly constructed bit of obfuscation that hides the fact that there is no definition.

I don't think we are going to agree here. I see it as a valid definition and I find it difficult to see how one would misinterpret it. (Now maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to the theory.)

I'm still interested on your views, especially since they challenge my own, but I wonder if this forum is the right place to hash it out (since we are talking about another forum and that's generally frowned upon). For example, I'd like to hear how the theory falls apart based on examples from actual play.

 

[LostSoul]

No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently several times over by voices of authority at The Forge.

I just pulled those definitions from the link I posted (from one of those authorities at the Forge). I'm not sure exactly how I'd say things in my own words. But I've got the impression that the authorities at the Forge are pretty consistent on what they mean when they define those terms. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

eh, maybe this thread has run its course. I'd be willing to continue discussion via email, if anyone is so inclined.

 

[jdrakeh]

I see it as a valid definition

Then tell me - what does it mean? I assume he means 'literally speaking', but since both Clinton and Ron have gone on record in the past as saying that 'Narrativist' has nothing to do with literal narration or narrative, this can't be correct.

[Edit: If so inclined, you can email me your explanation.]

 

[LostSoul]

Then tell me - what does it mean? I assume he means 'literally speaking', but since both Clinton and Ron have gone on record in the past as saying that 'Narrativist' has nothing to do with literal narration or narrative, this can't be correct.

[Edit: If so inclined, you can email me your explanation.]

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.

In some games, it's obvious what's going on: When I decided to risk my life because I didn't want the lynch gang to hang the guy we were guarding, I was answering some kind of question. (I'm not very good at identifying theme, so I don't know what the issue was there exactly - maybe something like "Justice is worth dying for." Which is one of the questions that the mechanics push - "What is worth dying for?")

In other games, it's not so obvious. I had a Star Wars game back in the day where some evil Jedi was ready to repent, if the players forgave him and embraced him into the light. They knew this - I think I told them flat out - but they decided not to. So the question posed there was "What sins are you willing to forgive?" and their answer was "Not his." Not that I had any idea that sort of thing was going on.

That's how I see it. I could be wrong. If I am, eh, screw it, this works for me.