Quote from: RPGPundit;724063Precisely.  The problem with GNS is not that it suggested different gamers like different things from their games, that's more or less true. The problem was that it suggested that each gamer liked only ONE thing from their games and that therefore the "perfect" game was one that only appealed to one type of 'creative agenda'.

I'd also suggest there's an even more fundamental issue in that only three things that players might want from their games were considered to be 'primary', and that the main categorization was done along those lines.

Exploration of theme does *not* preclude system-level challenges or immersion/"simulation", and all three are utterly orthogonal to many other aspects of game design.

Quote from: RPGPundit;724063Precisely.  The problem with GNS is not that it suggested different gamers like different things from their games, that's more or less true. The problem was that it suggested that each gamer liked only ONE thing from their games and that therefore the "perfect" game was one that only appealed to one type of 'creative agenda'.

Not quite. GNS classifies games not gamers. It said that games should focus on only one agenda, true, but not that individual gamers liked only one type. I think the expected ideal is that games are specialised but groups pick and choose depending on what kind of campaign they feel like running at the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;724063THAT was the actual theory, the rest was the postulates that lead up to the theory.  And as such, the entire theory is invalid.  Subsequent evidence has proven that games created with only one "creative agenda" are miserable commercial failures compared to games that have multiple utility.

I don't think that GNS is really interested in commercial success or makes any claims about it. By definition focusing on one specific playstyle reduces your potential share of the market even if it turns out to be an amazing game  for the subset of people who do like it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;724063Of course, the theory was utterly absurd right from the start, since it suggested that D&D, the most popular RPG in history, was a "bad" game.

? I don't recall that, have you got a link?

Quote from: soviet;724085Not quite. GNS classifies games not gamers. It said that games should focus on only one agenda, true, but not that individual gamers liked only one type. I think the expected ideal is that games are specialised but groups pick and choose depending on what kind of campaign they feel like running at the time.

That's based on two premises:

1) That Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are the primary drivers of what players want, and the best way to categorize games

2) That they are mutually exclusive

I disagree with both premises.

Actually, I think there's a bit of truth to the game/simulation split, which is even referenced as far back as the AD&D DMG and has its roots in wargaming - when writing your game, is the primary goal to get 'realistic' results, or to make a game that's entertaining to play?  Of course, that's the part that Ron didn't invent.

Quote from: soviet;724085I don't think that GNS is really interested in commercial success or makes any claims about it. By definition focusing on one specific playstyle reduces your potential share of the market even if it turns out to be an amazing game  for the subset of people who do like it.

Models aren't ever true, just useful.  And the quality of a theory is based on its predictive capability.  So is GNS a model aimed at designers, or is it a model aimed at players?  Either way, we should be able to compare its predictions with reality, and get an idea of whether it's actually a useful theory/model or not.

If it's aimed at players, then it would stand to be true that the GNS split would be a useful tool to determine if a given player will like a game or not.  Is it?  Not in my experience.

If it's aimed at designers, then games conforming to its theories should be relatively successful.  If we ignore the elephants in the room, do GNS games actually have any measurable level of success, even in comparison to other, smaller games?  I think it's reasonable to say that the indie hit of the last year or so is Fate Core... which is not based on GNS theory at all.  Hell, it doesn't even fit well in any particular GNS category.

Lastly, if it's aimed at designers, and an accurate theory at all, then it should be able to explain the success of large games, even if they don't completely match up or weren't designed with GNS in mind - so does GNS explain how people are enjoying Pathfinder, D&D, or the other 'top' games?

Quote from: robiswrong;724089If it's aimed at designers, then games conforming to its theories should be relatively successful.  If we ignore the elephants in the room, do GNS games actually have any measurable level of success, even in comparison to other, smaller games?

There's another way in which a model can be valuable to designers other than elevating success. A model defines a map, in a way, of the solution space of its context (games in this case), and part of what's useful in a new map is all the unexplored regions that are revealed by it. These are potentially games that haven't been tried before (perhaps with good reason) and that's pretty interesting.

Whether or not Forge theory does or did this is an open question. Generally, though, I don't think it revealed nearly enough unexplored territory to be all that valuable in this regard.

Something to consider is that it is not just the worth of GNS and Forge Theory, it was the methodology which was used to present it. Being constantly barraged by proslytizing flunkies made me convinced that it was crap, regardless of it worth, because worthwhile approaches to gaming would not need such a hard sell to get people to try it out.

Quote from: soviet;724085Not quite. GNS classifies games not gamers.

This is like that Marshall McLuhan scene in Annie Hall.

How many times in one thread does the same tired meme need to be refuted?

Quote from: jeff37923;724094Something to consider is that it is not just the worth of GNS and Forge Theory, it was the methodology which was used to present it. Being constantly barraged by proslytizing flunkies made me convinced that it was crap, regardless of it worth, because worthwhile approaches to gaming would not need such a hard sell to get people to try it out.

A thousand times this.

Quote from: soviet;724085Not quite. GNS classifies games not gamers. It said that games should focus on only one agenda, true, but not that individual gamers liked only one type. I think the expected ideal is that games are specialised but groups pick and choose depending on what kind of campaign they feel like running at the time.

GNS Cop!

Ron Edwards is on the record as saying he uses GNS to classify people!

Quote from: Ron Edwards2. I am on record as stating that I use the Creative Agenda terms to classify people. But that is not the same as saying the terms are defined for such a purpose. Nor is it the same as saying that any person can be matched to any one of the CAs.

Carry on,
-E.

Quote from: soviet;724085Not quite. GNS classifies games not gamers. It said that games should focus on only one agenda, true, but not that individual gamers liked only one type. I think the expected ideal is that games are specialised but groups pick and choose depending on what kind of campaign they feel like running at the time.

That is just not true, as pointed out previously on this thread. As soon as you categorize Creative Agendas, you are categorizing gamers themselves and what they primarily seek in their game sessions, hence, games catering specifically to those needs, since "incoherence" from a Forgist point of view is bad and unacceptable.

That's the kind of post of yours that makes me think you either lie, or don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Quote from: jeff37923;724094Something to consider is that it is not just the worth of GNS and Forge Theory, it was the methodology which was used to present it. Being constantly barraged by proslytizing flunkies made me convinced that it was crap, regardless of it worth, because worthwhile approaches to gaming would not need such a hard sell to get people to try it out.

This is true in most any area. Also from glancing over older Forgeist type posts they come across as sneering at and reviling standard RPG play.

This is another severe mistake as the more you degrade the "enemy" the more likely you are to come across as an elitists dick or just a nut case which makes your viewpoint look WORSE than the one you are trying to draw people away from.

Quote from: Arminius;724095This is like that Marshall McLuhan scene in Annie Hall.

How many times in one thread does the same tired meme need to be refuted?

It's all this brain damage from playing D&D and WoD, you see.

Quote from: -E.;724099GNS Cop!

Ron Edwards is on the record as saying he uses GNS to classify people!

Heh. I was the first responder on that thread - though I was just answering the question and not expressing a view. From my memory, Forge posters would often slip into classifying people by GNS categories - but most would, if pressed, admit that there are gamers who enjoy different types of games. More fully, Edwards' answer from that thread was:

Quote from: Ron Edwards1. No, no personality test. There will never be a GNS personality test that I will endorse; such tests are good for discussing preferences about techniques of play only.

2. I am on record as stating that I use the Creative Agenda terms to classify people. But that is not the same as saying the terms are defined for such a purpose. Nor is it the same as saying that any person can be matched to any one of the CAs.

a) It is non-controversial to state, based on extensive observations by me and others, that many role-players are "stuck" in trying to fulfill a given Creative Agenda. So it's fair, if not particularly nice, to say of a person, "He is a Gamist" or whatever, especially given the connotation that so far he's not been very successful at it, and that he is going to force any role-playing situation he encounters to conform to it if he possibly can.

The same thing, however, might be said of someone who's so confused about CA in general that he or she brings the same obsessive and transformational approach in favor of Incoherent play, especially a particular brand of it. My "bitterest gamer in the world" and "Ouija Board Narrativist" terms apply to such persons.

However, someone who is not "stuck" in this way will not be classifiable by CA.

That this is more of a "no" than a "yes" as far as GNS classifying gamers - so what Soviet said is technically true. GNS was not designed to classify gamers, and Ron and most others admitted that there are plenty of gamers who play different kinds of games.

However, it is also dripping with condescension, which supports Pundit's implied critique of elitism.

Orwell would be so proud of Ron...

Quote from: jhkim;724104Heh. I was the first responder on that thread - though I was just answering the question and not expressing a view. From my memory, Forge posters would often slip into classifying people by GNS categories - but most would, if pressed, admit that there are gamers who enjoy different types of games. More fully, Edwards' answer from that thread was:

That this is more of a "no" than a "yes" as far as GNS classifying gamers - so what Soviet said is technically true. GNS was not designed to classify gamers, and Ron and most others admitted that there are plenty of gamers who play different kinds of games.

However, it is also dripping with condescension, which supports Pundit's implied critique of elitism.

As GNS Cop, I'm sworn to uphold the sanctity and integrity of the model and correct any assertions that are against canon.

Anyone who says you can't use the model to classify gamers gets a citation.

Further, while the Pundit's statement wasn't technically correct, Ron makes it clear that "stuck" gamers can, in fact be classified and that "many" role-players are stuck.

If you can classify "many" role-players, then the Pundit's criticism is an adequate summary, if not technically correct in all instances.

Go About Your Business, Citizen.
-E.

Quote from: Omega;724109Orwell would be so proud of Ron...

Because?

Is there any evidence that the critical aesthetic theories coming out of The Forge had political goals? Or have had any political effect?

I've noticed more than one "This Machine Kills Fascists" tag on posters on this thread - I assume that they're not really Woody Guthrie fans, but is anyone seriously comparing The Forge to Fascism? Where is the street violence and the takeover of (formerly) democratic polities?