# EN Common Vocabulary vs. Forge Terms



## Starfox

For those of us familiar with Forge, they have a pretty strictly defined vocabulary. For those of us not familiar with Forge, it is worth reading up on, it has a lot of interesting ideas and terms, and you are going to get pointed out if you use similar terms and don't use them right. Check out http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php and specifically the glossary.

But this is not the subject of this thread, rather the opposite. With forge having camped some terms in common usage here at ENworld, we need alternatives. I'll make some suggestions for alternate terms to use here on these boards and explain how they differ from Forge terms.

I will briefly discuss the Forge meaning of the terms. If this description isn't completely correct, please leave them be with possibly a minor comment - this thread is about proposed ENworld terms, not a Forge debate.I will try and use Forge only to explain how these proposed ENworld terms differ from Forge terminology. Some of my proposed terms describe things Forge believes to be impossible to achieve - in particular Storytelling has a lot of "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast". *Live with it, or challenge me to discuss it in a separate thread* - this thread is about ENworld terminology, and Forge only enters into it as far as avoiding conflicts with their terms and as a basis for discussion. 


*Gamey vs Gamist*
Gamist is not used all that often on ENworld, but often causes contention when it is - I propose the recently popular gamey as a less conflicted alternative.

Gamism is a creative agenda in Forge. A term for challenge and risk elements in a game - either player vs. player or player vs GM. It is defined around "step on up" when the player decides to stand up to a challenge and accept risk. I propose that gamey, on the other hand, describes a game or an element of a game that has a bordgame feel or where the mechanism is naked, making players lose their identification with the game world or story. Gamey can also refer to specific mechanical elements or mini-games introduced into play, separate rules modules only used in certain situations. Examples include the skill challenge rules of 4E or the dramatic skill resolution of TORG. The combat systems of most games can also be described as gamey - a lot of rules mechanics that differ form the general rules and offers much more detail, effectively being a "mini game" or game mode set apart form the usual run of the game.

These terms are related. Gamism often occurs in a gamey sub-scection of the game, mostly in combat. Gamey can be said to be "excessive gamism" or gamism to the point where it interferes with the other creative agendas. Where gamist is a positive term (imo all the creative agendas are), being gamey is usually bad. But gamey need not be bad, it can just refer to a particular game "engine" - while some people dislike the use of d20 + modifiers for most tasks in d20 games and it is definitely a gamey element of these games, many other people like it and finds it a unifying element and a good standard to build a game on. In the final analysis, die-rolling conventions such ad d20 *roll d20 + mods* or Shadowrun's *roll lots of d6 and count those that match the target number* are gamey elements, so no game completely avoids being gamey - the question is not if RPGs are gamey but rather if they are *too* gamey.


*Emulationism vs. Simulationism*
Simulationism is a popular word on ENworld, but the meaning differs from Forge. I propose replacing it with the word emulationism.

Simulationism is a creative agenda in Forge, where the group tries to make all their actions make sense in terms of the game world. It is all about the social contract. I propose that emulationism is where game mechanics are motivated by in-world considerations or tries to encourage behavior that makes sense for the genre. Emulationism is simulationism taken out of the social contract and written into the rules of the game. 

For example, a rule in a superhero game that gives a bonus for a cheesy one-liner delivered with each attack would be an emulationist rule - it gives a bonus for adhering to the conventions of the genre. So would a rule in a hard-SF game like Traveller that takes into account laser beam dispersal in different mediums - gas,liquid, vacuum - because the hard SF genre is all about such technical aspects. Introducing the "one liner" rule in hard SF or the laser dispersal rule in a superhero game (except as technobabble) would be bad emulationism, as each encourages counter-genre behavior.

The question in both emulationism and simulationism is not whether you simulate or emulate reality - it is if you can stay close to the genre and it's conventions. So it is not poor emulationism that a high level monk in DnD can fall any distance and not get hurt - it is a rule that encourages genre-correct play and thus highly emulationist, given that this is the genre you want to play. In a game emulating medieval fantasy warfare, the monk class as a whole might be contrary to emulationism as thie desired genre does not include wuxia elements. Having the monk class in the game changes what is emulated.


*Storytelling vs. Narrativsm*
Narrativism is not a word often used on ENworld, but it happens and when it does, it is almost always directly in conflict with what Forge uses the word for. I propose storytelling as an alternative. These two terms are actually highly conflicted, because Forge takes the stance that what is commonly meant by storytelling is a defunct mode of gaming, refereed to as "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast". I find this derogatory and the appellation is one of the things I don't like about Forge, but again, please lets take the discussion of Forge itself elsewhere.

I must admit that I find it hard to get to grips with Forge narrativsm, but the idea is that the narrative should emerge from the characters and not have an independent, per-determined script. The story does not belong to the GM but should grow out of the motivations and backgrounds of the characters, preferably in a collaborative way. Direct player influence on the story - as opposed to indirect influence via their character's actions - is one method used. This can be termed "godmoding" and is generally discouraged in most other styles of RPGs but is acceptable in narrativist play. Storytelling places the story center-stage, but character acting is more about entertainment value that the source of the story - which is usually heavily scripted. Storytelling definitely includes the characters as active participants, but the GM has the final word on what is "shown on camera" and responsibility for making a coherent whole. Player "godmoding" or in "director stance" is discouraged, tough it can be allowed if discussed with the GM beforehand. Basically the players have to plead to introduce subplots, as opposed to narrative play where player-created suplots are the center of the narrative.

I must admit that this is the one of these first three terms that I've thought through the least, but I do think there is a very sharp difference between them - storytelling is more casual, a "lower", less idealized form of play, whereas narrativism as a "creative agenda" is a bit of a "term with its head in the clouds", more abstract and less down-to-earth. Forge belies that the GM can have control of the story in a narrative game, where storytelling usually has the GM in control and the players being more like actors in theatresports, improvising around a subject given by the GM rather than being playwrights themselves.


----------



## jonesy

Took me several tries to read through that and I still don't know what the point is. You have trouble with Forge terminology so your solution is that people here change theirs? Why?

Besides, I've seen topics similar to this one pop up now and again over the years and nothing has ever changed. People here use the terms they use and the people at the Forge use what they use. Where is the conflict you mention? People migrating here from there?

And if there's a significant disconnect between what people mean I'd suggest the same thing I always suggest when definitions get in the way: just say what you mean instead of using terminology-speak, which I very rarely see being helpful. Definition nonsense gets in the way and then the conversation is about them instead of what is being talked about.

And finally, what does this mean:  "With forge having camped some terms in common usage here at ENworld" ? I can't parse that.


----------



## Starfox

"With forge having camped some terms in common usage here at ENworld" means Forge terminology has defined the meaning of certain terms. If I use the word Simulationist and don't mean what Forge means with it, I am likely to be gainsaid just because either people assume I am using it in the Forge sense or because they think I ought to do so. The word "simulationist" has been appropriated as a Forge term and cannot be used outside of a Forge discussion without causing confusion. So I am trying to propose an alternative almost-synonym that does not carry the "baggage" of a defined Forge meaning.

I am not blaming Forge for "stealing" these words. Discussion requires defined terms. I am merely trying to define new terms for concepts that could be covered by the common meaning of the words Forge has given new, more concise meanings.

Do I believe I can make people here at ENworld use my new words? I think it is possible. Perhaps not immediately, but if a few of us start using these terms and other start to get their meaning-perhaps even referencing to a dictionary-I hope the words can get into circulation. If they serve a purpose in facilitating communication, they will get used-that is how languages develop. The word "gamey" was recently in a long thread about Pathfinder, and no-one objected or made snide remarks they way I think would have happened if the author of that thread had used the word "gamist".


----------



## Plane Sailing

It seems to me that people at enworld will, quite reasonably, continue using the terms they use with the sense and meaning they have grown here (wooly as it may be!)

Whether the forge has or hasn't defined anything in any way is probably of no interest here at all, to be honest - apart from denizens of both places who ar presumably aware of strict definitions over there and may benefit from understanding that people may mean something different over here - but being denizens of both, will probably be aware of both. 

Basically, I'm not sure that your idea would get any traction, nor does it seem particularly necessary here. 

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing

It seems to me that people at enworld will, quite reasonably, continue using the terms they use with the sense and meaning they have grown here (wooly as it may be!)

Whether the forge has or hasn't defined anything in any way is probably of no interest here at all, to be honest - apart from denizens of both places who ar presumably aware of strict definitions over there and may benefit from understanding that people may mean something different over here - but being denizens of both, will probably be aware of both. 

Basically, I'm not sure that your idea would get any traction, nor does it seem particularly necessary here. 

Cheers


----------



## MarkB

Starfox said:


> "With forge having camped some terms in common usage here at ENworld" means Forge terminology has defined the meaning of certain terms. If I use the word Simulationist and don't mean what Forge means with it, I am likely to be gainsaid just because either people assume I am using it in the Forge sense or because they think I ought to do so. The word "simulationist" has been appropriated as a Forge term and cannot be used outside of a Forge discussion without causing confusion.




So, the problem is that there are terms which have been given specific definitions that only a small percentage of participants are aware of. And your solution is to add a new set of terms with specific definitions that only a small percentage of participants will be aware of.

You may want to re-think the idea.


----------



## Starfox

MarkB said:


> So, the problem is that there are terms which have been given specific definitions that only a small percentage of participants are aware of. And your solution is to add a new set of terms with specific definitions that only a small percentage of participants will be aware of.
> 
> You may want to re-think the idea.




* Giggles

Maybe I just like to discuss the idea of it. I've been sorely annoyed by some jibing from Forge adherents, and this is the result.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I think that, if nothing else, it lets Starfox post a link to his article when someone starts to argue with him about what he means by "emulationist".  Sounds fine to me.


----------



## Starfox

Savage Wombat said:


> I think that, if nothing else, it lets Starfox post a link to his article when someone starts to argue with him about what he means by "emulationist".  Sounds fine to me.




Put it in my sig already. ^^


----------



## Bedrockgames

Starfox, I think the solution is to ignore the jibes from people insisting on Forge useage of terms and just use the language you are comfortable with. A lot of these are terms that existed prior to the forge with different meanings or came out of the forge but have evolved into different things on other forums. The forge has an enormous list of words, with quite a few back articles of reading to understand them fully...i dont think anyone needs to review that material just to participate in te conversation. And I dont really like the idea of needing a style guide guide and glossary to talk about RPGs.


----------



## Starfox

Bedrockgames said:


> And I dont really like the idea of needing a style guide guide and glossary to talk about RPGs.




I'm quite happy with it as it is now, a quietly simmering conversation deep in the background.


----------



## Libramarian

The one that I find really irritating and indefensible is using "gamist" when they mean "gamey".

People do this because they've heard the word "gamist" used in its Forge context, without understanding what it means, and then they use it to mean something different because they think using a word with "ist" on the end instead of "ey" makes them sound smarter and gives their opinion more weight. It's pretentious and legitimately confusing.

I've been discussing board games lately over on BoardGameGeek and posters there use "gamey" to mean "the mechanism is too abstract or naked and causes me to lose a sense of identification with the game's theme" all the time. No one ever uses "gamist". Gamey is the natural word for this and should be used.

As an example of how these terms differ in meaning (don't actually want to argue this here), I think D&D 4e is gamey and yet not very compelling for gamist play. I think AD&D is both less gamey and more gamist than 4e.

There's no need to read the Forge essays to participate in RPG discussion. But don't use the Forge terms unless you've read them. I don't think that's too much to ask.


----------



## Starfox

Actually, I think that Forge hijacked the word gamist. When people intuitively use the word gamist, they seem to mean what you Libramarian (And I in the OP) call gamey. I suggested the new usage to avoid collision. In that way, I subordinated my suggested terms to Forge.

In this use:

Gamist = competitive or acheivement-oriented game agenda
Gamey = game mechanics that are too naked and become abrasive

The other option is to ignore Forge, use gamist for situations where the rules are naked, and use competitive or challenging for gamism in the Forge sense. Closer to intuitive language, really.

In this use:
Competetive, confrontational = competitive or acheivement-oriented game agenda
Gamist, Gamey = game mechanics that are too naked and become abrasive


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> The one that I find really irritating and indefensible is using "gamist" when they mean "gamey".
> 
> People do this because they've heard the word "gamist" used in its Forge context, without understanding what it means, and then they use it to mean something different because they think using a word with "ist" on the end instead of "ey" makes them sound smarter and gives their opinion more weight. It's pretentious and legitimately confusing.
> 
> I've been discussing board games lately over on BoardGameGeek and posters there use "gamey" to mean "the mechanism is too abstract or naked and causes me to lose a sense of identification with the game's theme" all the time. No one ever uses "gamist". Gamey is the natural word for this and should be used.




Eeek!  So now folks have to learn the jargon of _two_ external websites before they post here, not just one? I feel singularly unqualified to post on EN World now.  "Gamey" to me has always meant "smells like pheasant"; I've never heard it in any other context, and don't have any immediate plans to start using it that way.


----------



## Starfox

Morrus said:


> "Gamey" to me has always meant "smells like pheasant".




* laughs

This is what having your native language as the lingua franca of the world will do to you; foreigners like me will come around telling you what your words *really* mean. That's mean! 

Sorry, I have no easy solution to this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Libramarian said:


> The one that I find really irritating and indefensible is using "gamist" when they mean "gamey".
> 
> People do this because they've heard the word "gamist" used in its Forge context, without understanding what it means, and then they use it to mean something different because they think using a word with "ist" on the end instead of "ey" makes them sound smarter and gives their opinion more weight. It's pretentious and legitimately confusing.
> 
> I've been discussing board games lately over on BoardGameGeek and posters there use "gamey" to mean "the mechanism is too abstract or naked and causes me to lose a sense of identification with the game's theme" all the time. No one ever uses "gamist". Gamey is the natural word for this and should be used.
> 
> As an example of how these terms differ in meaning (don't actually want to argue this here), I think D&D 4e is gamey and yet not very compelling for gamist play. I think AD&D is both less gamey and more gamist than 4e.
> 
> There's no need to read the Forge essays to participate in RPG discussion. But don't use the Forge terms unless you've read them. I don't think that's too much to ask.




the forge doesn't own the language though,and these words have spread beyond the forge taking on new meanings. The issue is, people do not have any obligation to learn forge terminology. Gamist has just become another word for gamey in a lot of quarters.


----------



## billd91

Morrus said:


> "Gamey" to me has always meant "smells like pheasant"; I've never heard it in any other context, and don't have any immediate plans to start using it that way.




Maybe not necessarily pheasant, but I too have primarily heard the term gamey to describe something that is a bit ripe smelling or "off" in taste compared to typical meats - mainly based on the taste of game animals with less fat than your average farm-raised creatures. So I use the term gamist to describe elements of games that, I think, are oriented more toward the game-based aspects of the RPG. I think it's fairly natural to use the -ist suffix because it does indicate that the element is oriented toward or characteristic of the root - gamist = oriented toward the game aspect, characteristic of the game aspect.


----------



## Libramarian

Starfox said:


> Actually, I think that Forge hijacked the word gamist. When people intuitively use the word gamist, they seem to mean what you Libramarian (And I in the OP) call gamey. I suggested the new usage to avoid collision. In that way, I subordinated my suggested terms to Forge.



I don't think that anybody used gamist to mean what we would rather people call gamey prior to the Forge. Gamism was a term used in the GDS theory predating the Forge's GNS, but it means the same thing there as it does in GNS.

Reviewing the Forge glossary, I think they actually have a term for what we're calling gamey: "pervy". Their term emphasizes that a game with any sort of creative agenda (story-focused, challenge-focused, sim-focused) can have intrusive mechanics that don't "fade into the background". All the same, I prefer the word gamey.


> other option is to ignore Forge, use gamist for  situations where the rules are naked, and use competitive or challenging  for gamism in the Forge sense. Closer to intuitive language,  really.




Here's my issue: the suffix "ist" implies that the thing in question has  a theoretical background, or at least should be respected as a thing  that has been thought through and considered valid by other people. When  gamist is used to describe gamey mechanics, I am concerned that it  implies that gamey mechanics are valuable in themselves. They aren't.  They're only valuable to the extent that their beneficial effect on play  outweighs their inherent distractiveness. They're a tool, not an  agenda.


Morrus said:


> Eeek!  So now folks have to learn the jargon of _two_  external websites before they post here, not just one? I feel  singularly unqualified to post on EN World now.  "Gamey" to me has  always meant "smells like pheasant"; I've never heard it in any other  context, and don't have any immediate plans to start using it that  way.




Well what word do you use to describe game mechanics that feel  intrusive, abstract, unthematic, naked, distractive, unimmersive, etc.?


----------



## jonesy

Libramarian said:


> Well what word do you use to describe game mechanics that feel  intrusive, abstract, unthematic, naked, distractive, unimmersive, etc.?



I use those words.

What's a naked game mechanic? Something without fluff?


----------



## Bedrockgames

I do not think the suffix -ist implies that libramarian. It just means a person who does a particular thing or having a particular quality (i.e. Racist, agriculturalist, cyclist, elitist, etc).


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> Well what word do you use to describe game mechanics that feel  intrusive, abstract, unthematic, naked, distractive, unimmersive, etc.?




"Rubbish game design" works for game mechanics which feel intrusive and distractive. I don't think those rather condemnatory adjectives apply to all that is "gamist" though. Is chess intrusive and distractive?



> Here's my issue: the suffix "ist" implies that the thing in question has   a theoretical background, or at least should be respected as a thing   that has been thought through and considered valid by other people.




Not at all.  "Racist" is a classic example.


----------



## Libramarian

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not think the suffix -ist implies that libramarian. It just means a person who does a particular thing or having a particular quality (i.e. Racist, agriculturalist, cyclist, elitist, etc).




When the ist is related to an ism (as it is understood to be in the case of gamist--gamism), it implies an ideological commitment. I don't think that the use of gamey mechanics should be thought of as an ideology. I think that gives too much respect in a sense to a thing that's just a tool. It's like seeing someone using a hammer and calling them a hammerist. It doesn't make sense. There's no reason to believe in hammers in themselves separate from their function.


jonesy said:


> I use those words.
> 
> What's a naked game mechanic? Something without fluff?




Gamey is better because it's more specific.

A naked mechanic is one where its non-simulation purpose is too apparent.

Like a guy walking around with his biological purpose in full view.

Or at least that's how I understand it:  @_*Starfox*_  used that word first.


Morrus said:


> "Rubbish game design" works for game mechanics  which feel intrusive and distractive. I don't think those rather  condemnatory adjectives apply to all that is "gamist" though. Is chess  intrusive and distractive?



Almost no one plays chess expecting to feel immersed in its medieval battle theme, so its gameyness is of almost no consequence.

RPGers prioritize this immersive aspect very highly relative  to boardgamers, so gameyness in itself is definitely a negative in RPGs,  but if its beneficial effect on play is enough to overcome this, then  the net result is positive.



> Not at all.  "Racist" is a classic example.



OK...even if gamist is used in the sense of racist, to refer to a belief  that is not valuable or respectable and is just a bias, I still don't  think it makes much sense to call gamey mechanics gamist. Gamey  mechanics aren't always good or always bad. They're a "necessary evil"  sometimes.

But regardless...this is just a side criticism. The main reason gamey is  preferable to gamist is because of what Starfox pointed out in the OP:  gamist is used for a different, also important idea (gameplay focused  on player challenge).


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think gamey is a kind of an ism though just like minimalist is an ism. These are both approaches to design that suggest a point if view and style. When people say 4E is gambits design , and mean its gamey, the its makes sense because it seems to reflect an overall design philosophy . But none of that even matters because semantics aside all that matters is people very widely use the word gamist in the sense of being gamey. You can argue word structure all day but what matters is how the word is used.


----------



## Starfox

Morrus said:


> "Is chess intrusive and distractive?.




No. Of course chess is gamey/gamist, but that is how it is supposed to be. 4E is also designed to be as it is. I just happen to find the design of 4E to be too similar to chess for my liking. This is not a fault of chess or of 4E, it is just my opinion. I am not a bif fan of chess either.

Gamey/gamist is not inherently bad, it only becomes bad when it is outside the range we enjoy.


----------



## Lanefan

All I know is every time anyone has ever started quoting Forge stuff at me in here my eyes glaze over and I quickly move on to the next post.

Lan-"is there an 'ignore' button for Forge?"-efan


----------



## SkidAce

Lanefan said:


> All I know is every time anyone has ever started quoting Forge stuff at me in here my eyes glaze over and I quickly move on to the next post.
> 
> Lan-"is there an 'ignore' button for Forge?"-efan




"must spread xp around"

Yup, and if I don't understand what someone means, I should ask them.  

Its when I "assume"...


----------



## Dausuul

Lanefan said:


> All I know is every time anyone has ever started quoting Forge stuff at me in here my eyes glaze over and I quickly move on to the next post.
> 
> Lan-"is there an 'ignore' button for Forge?"-efan




Agreed. Quite frankly, I've never had the impression that the Forge's own definitions of its words are particularly firm, and most of the Forge-talk I've read has been long on verbiage and short on useful insights.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dausuul said:


> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is every time anyone has ever started quoting Forge stuff at me in here my eyes glaze over and I quickly move on to the next post.
> 
> Lan-"is there an 'ignore' button for Forge?"-efan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Quite frankly, I've never had the impression that the Forge's own definitions of its words are particularly firm, and most of the Forge-talk I've read has been long on verbiage and short on useful insights.
Click to expand...


So, what youre saying about their terminology is...forgeistabouddit.


----------



## Viking Bastard

I recognize the problem, having been frustrated at some off-key (to me) discussions when I returned to gaming three years ago. Like others, I don't think you can "fix" this by throwing more jargon at it.



Libramarian said:


> I don't think that anybody used gamist to mean what we would rather people call gamey prior to the Forge. Gamism was a term used in the GDS theory predating the Forge's GNS, but it means the same thing there as it does in GNS.




It was, though, and was one of the terms that threw me for a loop when first bumping into the Forge. It meant "feels like a game", generally in reference to either board- or video games. The term may have fallen out of favor during my hiatus, though, before returning at the Forge or something, but people hurled this term at bits of 3e.


----------



## Starfox

Viking Bastard said:


> [Gamey] meant "feels like a game", generally in reference to either board- or video games. The term may have fallen out of favor during my hiatus, though, before returning at the Forge or something, but people hurled this term at bits of 3e.




This is my use of the term as well.


----------

