Quote from: BedrockBrendan;724540In the past few years though, i have encountered so many people online pushing for specific metrics or models as good design that i get frustrated with it and one of those metrics i see held up is GNS.

From the beginning, GNS was presented as an objective theory based on general observation and with predictive power. If people want to say they like games based on a certain notion of coherent design, I can't argue, but GNS doesn't start with "I would like to see more games that..."

Quote from: Arminius;724545From the beginning, GNS was presented as an objective theory based on general observation and with predictive power. If people want to say they like games based on a certain notion of coherent design, I can't argue, but GNS doesn't start with "I would like to see more games that..."

Again, i am not an expert on GNS. My sense it was a model, and some people would see those as objectively correct representations of gaming, while others would see them as tools that have utility. So if someone says GNS works for them, but they do not believe its objectivley true for everyone, i am happy to take their word for it. With any model or framework, i think there is always the danger people see it as the only way to look at things.

Just read GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. It's not as confusing or annoying as the later essays. But even though those add refinements to the definitions, the basic premise is there from the start, Brendan.

It's a short read, and then you don't have to take anyone's word for whether GNS makes generalized, objective, predictive claims.

Quote from: Arminius;724558Just read GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. It's not as confusing or annoying as the later essays. But even though those add refinements to the definitions, the basic premise is there from the start, Brendan.

It's a short read, and then you don't have to take anyone's word for whether GNS makes generalized, objective, predictive claims.

I have read it, and honestly have no desire to re-read it again now, as i just found myself in disagreement with so much of what it had to say and there isn't much to be gained by me spending further time on the material (and thus spending less time on other more important things like watching kung fu movies). My point is i can see people looking at it and either seeing it is an objectivley true model or as a model that has utility for them (amd judging from Ron's brain damage commentary I suspect he felt this was more than just a model that happened to work for him). I wasn't really commenting on whether the original essays are framed as such that the former is an embedded assumption. If people are using GNS, and it works for them, but they are not pushing it on me, or being rude about i have no issue. i only have an issue when i feel like someone is evangalizing GNS and acting like it is the only way to design a good game.

You can't fight a Forgist because the premises of their ideas are wrong.  Their ideology is built upon the sand.  A little rain can collapse it, but it won't stop them from believing fervently in it.  If you can't agree that water is wet, there's not much point in discussing something more complex.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;724562My point is i can see people looking at it and either seeing it is an objectivley true model or as a model that has utility for them (amd judging from Ron's brain damage commentary I suspect he felt this was more than just a model that happened to work for him). I wasn't really commenting on whether the original essays are framed as such that the former is an embedded assumption.

Fair enough, I can't really argue with someone's preference for coherent games, either. However if it's being critiqued based on what the foundational texts say, and somebody walks in to say that the theory really means something else "to them", then that's really not a defense of the theory. If I'm to take that person seriously, they must acknowledge that we're now discussing something else, a new branch.

Quote from: soviet;724537No that's wrong, you're adding later context to try to change the original work.

If Mel Gibson turned up and said 'hey remember that bit where I shot that guy in Mad Max? He represented all jews and I hate jews', would that magically mean that Mad Max has all this time been an anti-semitic film and that anyone who likes it is an anti-semite?

Heh. Thanks for reminding me how this works (it's been awhile).

Me: "GNS says game create power-struggle and brain damage."
GNS Theorists: "That's not what it says! You don't understand!"
Me: "Here's a bunch of quotes from the guy who wrote it backing me up."
GNS Theorists: "Ron doesn't understand his own theory!"
Me: "Uh, huh."

This isn't about revisionism. It's about going to the very first essay and reading it and seeing that it says some games (Vampire as the example, but any game the theory finds "incoherent") cause problems for their players -- most likely on-going power struggle, but Narrativist-leaning players (heh... laybling players in the first essay...) are...

"especially screwed"



What does "especially screwed" mean?

Well, the original essay is somewhat coy about it, and it took a few years, but now we know: The Damage.

This kind of thinking is supported throughout the material and the discussion, but if you want to focus on the published articles, you can see the idea that people are hard-wired for stories in the Narrativism essay:

Quote from: Nar GNS EssayI suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement.

This, of course, is exactly the same theory the Brain Damage explanation lays out: people have this natural ability. To the extent that you can't play Nar, you've been damaged.

It's in the first essay. It's in the Nar essay. It's in the posts. It's agreed on by other key theorists who write about the theory:

Quote from: lumply (Vincent Baker)Brain-damaged-as-such or not, some people have a really, really, really hard time understanding. I say, "look, here's a conflict" and they just can't read it.

It's not - I'm pretty sure - it's not because they can read it but they disagree. When that happens, they say "that's not a conflict, because blah blah." And I say "oh, you're right, how about this conflict instead?" And they say "cool, go on." Or else I say "it IS a conflict, because blah blah." And they say "oh, yeah, cool, go on." Or else they say "conflict, getcha, but I really don't care about conflicts" and I say "cool, to each her own."

No, as far as I can tell, it's because they just can't read it. They can read the words, but at a certain level they're functionally illiterate.

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular here. Just reflecting on my experience overall.

Is "functionally illiterate," I wonder, more offensive or less than "brain damaged"?

I can understand not liking what the theory says -- it's pretty insulting and obviously wrong. But arguing it doesn't, in fact, say that, requires the same omission in reading Vincent ascribes to the damaged: you'd have to be "functionally illiterate."

Cheers,
-E.

Don't forget the accusations of child abuse.

Everyone always forgets about the child abuse.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;724550Again, i am not an expert on GNS. My sense it was a model, and some people would see those as objectively correct representations of gaming, while others would see them as tools that have utility. So if someone says GNS works for them, but they do not believe its objectivley true for everyone, i am happy to take their word for it. With any model or framework, i think there is always the danger people see it as the only way to look at things.

People will tell you all kinds of things worked for them -- there are people who believe the astrology thing in the newspaper gives them insight into how to live their day.

When someone says that GNS taught them about gamers having different agendas or it helped them design their game, I recommend skepticism -- they may believe that, but it's probably not true.

GNS's agendas are fluid and weird and do not cover most of what people roleplay for: the experience of playing their character. GNS-Sim used to cover that, but the author (Edwards) deprecated and disavowed the Sim essay and re-described GNS-Sim as being about celebration of a specific fiction. That leaves all kinds of play in the "uncategorized" bucket.

GNS's instructions for game design are even lighter and less relevant. It rarely gives any specific instruction and is so muddled on a fundamental level that it ends up a bit like an inkblot: people see what they want to see, often ignoring large chunks about what it actually says (look at soviet, in this thread).

To the extent that GNS predicts anything it predicts that games which allow for a variety of play styles and/or whose flavor text and GM advice aren't in some (undefined) way compatible with the mechanics will result (most likely) in on-going power-struggle.

In other words, it's psychological model of people is that all those horrible adolescent struggles people had when they were fighting with their friends over, and over in the 90's were the game's fault.

If you go read the actual theory threads, you can see how little return there is for the investment -- endless attempts to understand the theory (which never get anywhere -- the whole thing eventually just closes down), arguments over what made-up words mean, questions asking for guidance in how to use it practically (how can you actually tell if someone's Nar or Sim or whatever?) and on-and on.

So yes: people will tell you it opened their eyes. Having looked at the theory (and the theorists, and the revelations people got from it), I wouldn't just assume that's the case.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: J Arcane;724648Don't forget the accusations of child abuse.

Everyone always forgets about the child abuse.

?I missed that one. Or are you being sarcastic?

Quote from: TristramEvans;724653?I missed that one. Or are you being sarcastic?

Alas, no.

I'm sure -E. can run up the precise quote, but one of Edwards' other gems in the same vein as the 'brain damage' was to suggest that running Vampire for teenagers was tantamount to child abuse.

Might've even been in the same essay, but it's been a while.

Quote from: TristramEvans;724653?I missed that one. Or are you being sarcastic?

In the hilarious, flailing public attempt to explain the Brain Damage (the orginal post was meant for insider's only) Ron explains how experiences in a person's formative years can change cognitive function.

Quote from: Brain Damage, explainedNow for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage).

And,

Quote from: The DAMAGE!Broken Narrativism, with all the features of Prima Donna and Typhoid Mary described in my essay, but wrapped up in a subcultural package and reinforcing procedures that impair normal human mental function as consistently as, for instance, inappropriate sexual experiences prior to a certain age.

So, just an analogy. Bad games damage the brain of formative children in just the same way diddling a 12-year-old does -- which is not to say that that they are equal in any way, just to point out that

1) Brains can be damaged by experiences and
2) Fixing the damage is non-trivial

Ron wasn't trying to be inflammatory or anything when laying out his thoughts -- he just reached for the first analogy that came to mind that he felt everyone would understand and agree with.

Cheers,
-E

Quote from: -E.;724655In the hilarious, flailing public attempt to explain the Brain Damage (the orginal post was meant for insider's only) Ron explains how experiences in a person's formative years can change cognitive function.



And,



So, just an analogy. Bad games damage the brain of formative children in just the same way diddling a 12-year-old does -- which is not to say that that they are equal in any way, just to point out that

1) Brains can be damaged by experiences and
2) Fixing the damage is non-trivial

Ron wasn't trying to be inflammatory or anything when laying out his thoughts -- he just reached for the first analogy that came to mind that he felt everyone would understand and agree with.

Cheers,
-E

Jesus.

those quotes are actually worse than the one I was thinking of, which was IIRC just a throw-off snark line.

Thank you for reminding me again what an unmitigated shithead Ron Edwards is.

Quote from: J Arcane;724656Jesus.

those quotes are actually worse than the one I was thinking of, which was IIRC just a throw-off snark line.

Thank you for reminding me again what an unmitigated shithead Ron Edwards is.

The quotes are pretty horrible.

The whole theory is full of stuff like that. It's view of traditional gamers is condescending and dreadful -- they're hidebound, superstitious, infantile, etc. etc. Mega-popular games like Vampire are obviously only popular because they work their jedi mind tricks on weak gamer minds (because, obviously, they couldn't be fun to play!), etc. etc.

Games patterned after the most successful game of all time are "heart breakers" with little reason to exist.

I could keep going. It's bad advice for gamers, bad advice for game designers. Bad advice, all around.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;724659I could keep going. It's bad advice for gamers, bad advice for game designers. Bad advice, all around.

And a lot of people bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.