Quote from: soviet;724805He successfully predicted something I had already said earlier in the thread?

What's funny is that, even after having it pointed out by -E. you continue offering the same bullshit rationalisations.

Quote from: soviet;724779Edit: this is a reply to -E

I already said that there are things in the original essays that I don't agree with, and you have already quote-mined some of them in great detail. But there are still plenty of things in there that I do find useful and no not all of them are from GDS. The idea that one has to either accept all of GNS or reject all of it is ridiculous, especially when you continually try to expand GNS to include anything that Ron or anyone else with a forge account has ever said. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here.

Look, firstly I never tried to bring in anything that "anyone with a forge account has ever said," okay?

That's a grotesque exaggeration, and you know it.

I'm using Edwards and Baker because they are authorities on the meaning of the theory. They understand it better than you do.

But my main point -- what I was trying to achieve -- was to bring clarity to people's understanding of the model.

GNS model discussions all go the same way: someone claims it makes insulting claims about games and gamers, and GNS advocates come and tell them they're wrong.

Often they are: the theory is written to empower this. It's very easy to make technical mistakes about what it says and what it only implies. It's designed to be used to insult people while then stepping back and claiming they just "didn't understand -- man... why are you harshing on our fun!? No one ever said GM's were bad guys!"

That's the pattern with GNS over and over.

That's what it's designed for.

So next time someone says, "GNS says bad things about GMs" or "It classifies and pigeon holes gamers" instead of popping up and saying "that's not what it says," why not start out by saying this:

QuoteGNS/TBM says horrible things about games and gamers. It says game rules create power struggle. It implies that many gamers are unhappy with their hobby and yet submissively and inexplicably continue to engage in it. It suggests roleplaying gamers are too dumb to work out simple analogies, and instead get trapped in emotional, adolescent behavior.

So, while your specific criticism of it might be technically inaccurate, it's understandable how someone who hadn't carefully studied it could come to those conclusions.

As someone who has studied it and found parts of it interesting, I repudiate huge portions of it. I disagree with the whole foundational concept of incoherence and the ideas about struggles between GMs and players as being in some way the responsibility of the rules.

You could still advocate and defend the bits of the model (apparently small ones) that you find useful without defending something you know to be insulting and untenable at its core.

Would that work?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;724812Look, firstly I never tried to bring in anything that "anyone with a forge account has ever said," okay?

That's a grotesque exaggeration, and you know it.

I'm using Edwards and Baker because they are authorities on the meaning of the theory. They understand it better than you do.

But my main point -- what I was trying to achieve -- was to bring clarity to people's understanding of the model.

GNS model discussions all go the same way: someone claims it makes insulting claims about games and gamers, and GNS advocates come and tell them they're wrong.

Often they are: the theory is written to empower this. It's very easy to make technical mistakes about what it says and what it only implies. It's designed to be used to insult people while then stepping back and claiming they just "didn't understand -- man... why are you harshing on our fun!? No one ever said GM's were bad guys!"

That's the pattern with GNS over and over.

That's what it's designed for.

So next time someone says, "GNS says bad things about GMs" or "It classifies and pigeon holes gamers" instead of popping up and saying "that's not what it says," why not start out by saying this:



You could still advocate and defend the bits of the model (apparently small ones) that you find useful without defending something you know to be insulting and untenable at its core.

Would that work?

Cheers,
-E.

I don't see Baker as any kind of authority on GNS; Ron Edwards wrote all the essays (certainly the creative agenda ones). But in any event this is a death of the author thing. The bits I liked in GNS are all written down in published essays; nothing anyone including the author adds or removes after the fact is relevant to me. 'What Ron thinks now' or 'What Ron wished he had said' doesn't matter.

Obviously I don't agree that the point of GNS is to insult people. I accept that some of it does. But I think that it's possible to reject those elements and still find value in other elements. I don't reject the idea of incoherence BTW, I just think that the vast majority of people get around it by drifting or ignoring the rules they find jarring rather than engaging in a power struggle. I play with reasonable, well-adjusted adults who can talk things through, and I assume that pretty much everyone else does as well. Focused design to me is a way of making an already enjoyable experience even more fun rather than a tool for preventing arguments and keeping people in line. I think perhaps that's an example of how it is possible to use GNS in a positive way without letting the 'all gamers are unhappy' stuff get in the way.

Quote from: soviet;724820I don't see Baker as any kind of authority on GNS; Ron Edwards wrote all the essays (certainly the creative agenda ones). But in any event this is a death of the author thing. The bits I liked in GNS are all written down in published essays; nothing anyone including the author adds or removes after the fact is relevant to me. 'What Ron thinks now' or 'What Ron wished he had said' doesn't matter.

Obviously I don't agree that the point of GNS is to insult people. I accept that some of it does. But I think that it's possible to reject those elements and still find value in other elements. I don't reject the idea of incoherence BTW, I just think that the vast majority of people get around it by drifting or ignoring the rules they find jarring rather than engaging in a power struggle. I play with reasonable, well-adjusted adults who can talk things through, and I assume that pretty much everyone else does as well. Focused design to me is a way of making an already enjoyable experience even more fun rather than a tool for preventing arguments and keeping people in line. I think perhaps that's an example of how it is possible to use GNS in a positive way without letting the 'all gamers are unhappy' stuff get in the way.

Given that you reject core parts of the foundation, don't agree with the current body of work from the guy who wrote it, and aren't all that familiar with it, then maybe stop correcting people on it?

I mean, you've kind of got your own soviet-GNS thing going that gets rid of most of what's in the first essay and ignores just about everything that generated the later ones... you're not really an authority on what it says and doesn't, so why get into it with people?

Why defend something you know is offensive?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;724826Given that you reject core parts of the foundation, don't agree with the current body of work from the guy who wrote it, and aren't all that familiar with it, then maybe stop correcting people on it?

I mean, you've kind of got your own soviet-GNS thing going that gets rid of most of what's in the first essay and ignores just about everything that generated the later ones... you're not really an authority on what it says and doesn't, so why get into it with people?

Why defend something you know is offensive?

Cheers,
-E.

Because it is soviet.

Id like to go in and revise GNS to try and make it useful. Do something to try and mitigate the damage. But no time right now for such frivolities and it would take years to standardize, and thats unlikely as it is.

I think the worste effect of GNS is that it caused such a strong reaction that it effectively ended useful rpg theory discussion-meaning stuff like Robin Laws GM Guide. Useful to gaming and game design.

Quote from: -E.;724826Given that you reject core parts of the foundation, don't agree with the current body of work from the guy who wrote it, and aren't all that familiar with it, then maybe stop correcting people on it?

I mean, you've kind of got your own soviet-GNS thing going that gets rid of most of what's in the first essay and ignores just about everything that generated the later ones... you're not really an authority on what it says and doesn't, so why get into it with people?

Why defend something you know is offensive?

Cheers,
-E.

What? I posted to correct something that pundit said about GNS catgorising players. You then posted a quote from Ron Edwards that supported my statement. So my correction... was correct.

Let's go to the tape.

Here, we see you asserting that, and I quote, "GNS classifies games not gamers."

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

Here, I correct you with the appropriate quote from the guy who wrote the theory.

Quote from: -E.;724099GNS Cop!

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

Carry on,
-E.

Which is here.

Quote from: Ron Edwards2. I am on record as stating that I use the Creative Agenda terms to classify people.

Here, you move the goal posts, with obfuscatory language

Quote from: soviet;724847What? I posted to correct something that pundit said about GNS catgorising players. You then posted a quote from Ron Edwards that supported my statement. So my correction... was correct.

correct "something?"
Ron Edwards supported "my statement?"

Really?

No, not really.

You already quoted the whole thing and bolded the part you felt correct about, carefully avoiding bolding the part I corrected you on, while bolding the rest of it.

That kind of precision mouse work isn't an accident. It's the smoking gun of someone who knows they're wrong, but rather than admit it, tries to obfuscate things with terms like correcting "something" and suggesting Edward's post supported "my statement."

You know better.

You also know that the reason you're using Edwards here, to try to support yourself, but repudiating anything he says in his posts when they say things you don't like is because your attraction to GNS isn't anything it taught you about game design.

It's identity politics. Tribal affiliation. It's what GNS used to be good for, but now it's embarrassing.

You're wrong in your own words, plain as day, for anyone to see and that my correction was spot on (I didn't say "Pundit was right" or "You're wrong about everything," now did I? No, of course not. If I had overstepped, you'd be demanding exact semantics).

It's clear you know you're wrong, because you've clicked carefully around the obviously wrong bit, and you've amended your statements into vague generalities.

Why not just shrug and walk away?

Cheers,
-E.

A fillet of legend, sir; a little off the haunch for me, with just a dab of pepper cream.

Quote from: The Traveller;724853A fillet of legend, sir; a little off the haunch for me, with just a dab of pepper cream.

Heh. Thanks.

Although let me be clear: I don't think these kinds of threads bring out the best in anyone, myself first and foremost.

Why is soviet not going, "Yeah, I was wrong?"

Well, in part because of the identify thing and in part because the guy pressing him (me) is being a laser-guided asshole about it.

But hey, GNS, yeah?
-E.

Quote from: -E.;724850Let's go to the tape.

OK.

Quote from: RPGPundit;724063The 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'.

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.

Quote from: Ron Edwards as quoted by E2. 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.

Quote from: -E.;724850Here, I correct you with the appropriate quote from the guy who wrote the theory.

Which supports what I said. Ron himself uses the terms to classify people, but the terms are not designed for that purpose.

So while Ron does it, it is not the intention of the theory. It is not what is written down in the theory. It is not what the theory contains. It is not part of the theory. It is not part of the theory. It is not part of the theory.

Quote from: -E.;724850Here, you move the goal posts, with obfuscatory language

I'm sorry that you find the words 'something' and 'statement' obfuscatory, especially when they are posted shortly after the exact texts they clearly refer to. I'm not sure how much more I can dumb this down for you. Maybe there's a quote somewhere you can find that will help explain it?

Quote from: -E.;724850You already quoted the whole thing and bolded the part you felt correct about, carefully avoiding bolding the part I corrected you on, while bolding the rest of it.

Ron is not GNS. Ron is not GNS. Ron is not GNS.

Come on, this isn't as difficult as you're making it.

Quote from: -E.;724850You also know that the reason you're using Edwards here, to try to support yourself, but repudiating anything he says in his posts when they say things you don't like is because your attraction to GNS isn't anything it taught you about game design.

If I had brought in the quote to support my statement you would have a point. But I didn't. You brought in the quote, presumably without reading it, and now you have egg on your face.

At least I hope it is egg.

Quote from: -E.;724850It's identity politics. Tribal affiliation.

Yes. Yours.

>>2014
>>Still taking GNS seriously
>>ISHYGDDT

GNS was always just a bunch of incoherent words and concepts intended to score tribalistic points while sounding like sagely wisdom. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Quote from: jeff37923;724832Because it is soviet.

I'm Joey, I'm disgusting.

Quote from: -E.;724854Heh. Thanks.

Although let me be clear: I don't think these kinds of threads bring out the best in anyone, myself first and foremost.

Why is soviet not going, "Yeah, I was wrong?"

Well, in part because of the identify thing and in part because the guy pressing him (me) is being a laser-guided asshole about it.

But hey, GNS, yeah?
-E.

I had a measured discussion about some of these issues with Brendan before you started up. I've acknowledged that some parts of GNS are wrong or offensive and said that I don't support those parts. I'm not the zealot you're trying to portray me as. If I was wrong I would acknowledge that I was wrong. I don't think I am.

Quote from: Mistwell;724775I never said or implied cocksucker.

Except for the bit where (having in the OP described me as a Forgist) you said that Forgists have trouble talking because of Ron's dick in their mouths?