One of the common responses by GNS believers to anyone pointing this out is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense, i.e. they claim you can't talk about GNS because you have to first understand (and it's implied, agree with) the Big Model. Leonardo did this very thing in the comments for Part III.
It's a bit like saying you need to understand Special Relativity before you can comment on someone claiming that F = m*a^2 (Force = Mass * Acceleration squared), when anyone with a basic grounding in education should know it's F = m * a.
And really, that's all one need say about the Big Model with respect to GNS, anyone invoking it is trying to change the subject. Johnnie Cochran would be happy with them, but most people would like to slam them upside the head with something heavy. I'd suggest a fifth edition revised HERO System book, or a baseball bat. Baseball bats have the advantage of tradition and effectiveness, but the HERO book suits our hobby. Your choice.
But I like picking apart things, so lets look at that Big Model a bit more (i.e. more than it deserves).
So, what is the Big Model and how does it relate to GNS?
Sadly it has its own wiki entry, which goes to show that one doesn't have to be worth a dime to be in wiki- you just need someone to add it. The upside is that its noted as lacking any information on notability (i.e. why it should have an entry), and that almost makes wiki my friend. They will be when they delete it.
One can also go to the Forge Articles for information, but there's not a single article on it there. You'll have to dig through all of them, collect the pieces and assemble them on your own time That was actually of value to the Forge supporters as it means anyone questioning them would have to put more work into it than it was worth.
If however you have time to waste, the Glossary is the best place to start. Note that it references the same GNS articles we've already talked about as its components.
What it breaks down to is something similar to my own Layers Model, but with a completely different goal showing in effect how people interact in order to achieve their Creative Agenda. Oh, and Creative Agenda is GNS.
Along the way it stops to define a few common elements of games- like characters and settings (as if people don't know about them) while adding highbrow terms like Color and Ephemera in place of simpler words just because it wouldn't be a Edward's thing without them.
What is key about this is that the Big Model is focused on GNS, it's that big arrow that runs through the whole mess in the diagram found at the link. It exists only to show the reader how everything in the view of its creator depends upon GNS.
Logically however that is true only if GNS is true. And we know that's false.
So to return to GNS supporters who say you 'have to understand the Big Model in order to comment on if GNS has any value'...
Here's another way of saying the same thing: 'In order to say Nessie doesn't exist, you have to understand field of Cryptozoology'.
There's a word that sort of claim- stupid.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
- GNS becomes a circular assumption.
- GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
- Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
- Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
- Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
- The Big Model core and basis is GNS
- The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS
Posts
12 comments:
Another thing that has come up is that Forgites are fond of saying, "We're not talking about GNS anymore (discussion on that is closed)....oh, and those articles on it are *very* dated. In order to really understand the state of the art of game theory [they actually say this], you need to understand the Big Model."
Well, how come there isn't an article on it?
"Well, it isn't finished....its an evolving theory.....that bears itself out and self-validates through observations during *actual play* (you cretins)."
Well, if it isn't finished.....how come the theory discussion boards are closed?
"You can discuss it anywhere, but it really needs to be based in evidence from *actual play*....Ron got tired, and I'm not Ron, nor do I actually know Ron, or sleep with him.....or have any affiliation to the FORGE or Ron, or people who look like or think like Ron.....well, Ron got tired of correcting people's misinterpretations of what he said and what the theory said, and all that unfocused/incoherent stuff that was posted that didn't site references from *actual play* that he found acceptable".
Er.
"I am not Ron".
Er.
"I am not Ron".
OK. So then, if meaningful (and critical) discussion of the "theories" is allowed and encouraged on the FORGE (and elsewhere)....why the fuck would you seek out the blog of one of the most infamous and vocal critics of Ron and his pet "theories" to argue his point? Did you think you might actually convince someone here?
"I think you're brain damaged....and a Nazi".
And so it goes.
~AoB
Oh, and those are *not* actual quotes, but rather composite quotes taken from endless streams of them on the FORGE and elsewhere.
AoB
That was an excellent summary of many Forge threads.
Simply put, there are more interested in being visible and in people using the terms (however they want to use them) than they are in anything else.
It's far more about marketing than it is about real RPG theory.
Careful, Gleichman. You're foaming at the mouth a bit.
A admit I was wondering what The Big Model really was, and if it was something different or just basically a suitably pretentious name for GNS. And apparently that's exactly what it is: GNS with a few more pompous words tacked on, and some "insight" that really doesn't add much insight that I can tell.
But the main criticism of GNS and TBM remains: if you think you've got such a great model or theory, write it down! In a readable and understandable way, in a place where people can find it. As it is, you've got to be a masochistic archeologist to find out anything about The Big Model.
@mcv: True, this post was more sarcastic then the previous ones in the series.
My only defense of it is that I'm driven to extremes since the Big Model is such a dishonest tactic used by the GNS supporters.
I feel attempts of that nature deserves some venom in response.
Is it possible that the Forge, GNS and TBM are all simply part of a clever usage of Evangelical Marketing? In other words, there is, nor was, nor was ever intended to be a logic behind the claims. The claims are merely marketing fluff designed to attract attention to Forge games. And that was the point. And to that end it's been a big success...?
There's a certain appeal to the concept that GNS is all about marketing. It is so flawed, that it's hard to imagine anyone with intelligence backing it on its own merits.
But smart people often do stupid things. History is full of examples.
So your guess is as good as mine as they say.
As for it being a success from a marketing PoV, I'd have to say that the bar must set low to make that claim.
None of the Forge games were run-away successes. Traditional games still hold the market by vast amounts.
But if the bar is, "I sold a few copies", then yes- it's been successful.
I think (and wrote months ago in Italian boards) too that all this is about marketing: at least, in Italy it seems so.
The first forgite flamewars were opened by friends of the local publishers a few months before dogs in the vineyard's Italian translation launch. And for a few years, the forge guys spoke of new forgite games -starting new flames, or doing pure and simple spam- when they were going to translate them (in many cases themselves).
And yes, forgite games are speaked of as great successes by their local publishers, but they always refuse to give us numbers. Only once, they told something about roughly 200 copies sold in more than a year. Still, they maintain themselves thanks to the high prices (an A5, softcover, less than 200 pages handbook is sold for 25 €, something like 37 $), and I suspect that all the flames' crap is their main tool to gain fame.
@Federico "Angelo" Pilleri: That's quite interesting.
They've been quiet on the English boards for a couple of years now, and I haven't heard of enw games.
So if GNS is all about marketing, we should expect another Forge game on the market in less than half a year or so.
Worth noting if it happens.
As always, we'll see about that.
I can tell you that in the last months there was (in Italy) a big forgite speaking of a new game from a "famous" forge's author (storming the wizard's tower, if I am not wrong) that will soon be published, and that (at least, in Italy) forgites stressed the fact that D&D's 4th edition and mouse guard are clearly big-model-based games (and, at least for the first, I found it very difficult to belive, mainly because no one of them offered me a link where WotC explains that, and the whole thing is just a voice from them).
But I suppose that Italian forgites may be partially "responsable" of the new GNS-and-big-model-revamp.
At least, I suppose this from a nickname and a rhetorical style that I have previously met.
@Federico "Angelo" Pilleri: Drop me a note if you see this game published in the near future. I may notice it on my own, but I get busy these days.
As for D&D 4th and GNS... I've seen the claim before that there was influence and such claims have come from both sides of the debate.
On of its designers, Mearls is on record as thinking there's value in Edward's work.
See: http://www.enworld.org/forum/2796144-post311.html
There are also statements there counter to the Big Model, so calling 4th Edition 'Big Model Based' may be something of a reach, but thinking it may have been influenced might not be a large jump.
Don't worry, if I will see the game published in the near future I'll tell you that, but I should not search for it, actually... ^^
Anyway, thank you for the link, but I find that this is a very "old" post, wrote by Mearls nearly 4 years ago. Now I see why forge's guys always told about big model's great influences but never gave me any real proof.
Because yes, there are influences, but they are not so strong and, as I saw, there are things that are not GNS/big model's property nor product.
Still, GNS' and big model's advocates describe them as their own; and I suppose that thinking about it the use of uncommon terms with invented definitions could be explained as a bad attempt to assert their "intellectual paternity".
Post a Comment