Soundtrack to every Forge thread ever, outside their home ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU

Quote from: soviet;724857OK.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

Yes. Yours.

This is beautiful. I couldn't have asked for a better illustration of how GNS is used in practice.

We're arguing about semantics and canon, and nit-picky details of whether or not the theory formally allows you to talk about people. And you're saying you don't accept Ron as an authority on how the theory is to be used, but you will accept the essays, but of course you're wrong about what the essays say, what the theory (as you accept it) says.

Here's what the essay's you're treating as canon say:

Quote from: GNS EssaysUsed properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

As you can see, the essay goes on to explain that the terms are commonly used both for people and games.

I mean (as you say), how hard does this have to be? The very first essay explains how they are commonly used to talk about both people and games, and if you have to be super-formal (as you'd like to be), then it's neither.

But anyway, yes: this is what the theory is best used for. This kind of thing.

Cheers,
-E.

One thing Ill say on behalf of GNS, Edwards does preface the entire project with the hypothesis "most people playing rpgs arent having fun" (a point I dont agree with but its useful to understand where he's coming from), and goes on to say "if you are having fun and satisfied with your gaming experience then this [GNS] isnt for you".

Useful, that statement. Let me know right away I was not the target audience.

Quote from: soviet;724529when I read the original GNS essays I don't feel like I am reading some terrible diatribe against certain kinds of playstyles or players

Likewise. I think I read the simulationism essay first, and felt it spoke very fairly about Rolemaster play, including identifying problematic mechanical parts of the game (like initiative - something for which RM probably has more variant systems than any other part of the game), a game which I was GMing at the time and continued to GM for years afterwards.

Quote from: The Traveller;724531what I don't get is why certain parishes constantly take them on board and try to live their lives by them.

At least speaking for myself, I don't "live my life" by the GNS essays. I just draw on what is useful in them for running my game.

Quote from: Arminius;724558Just read GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. It's not as confusing or annoying as the later essays.



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 mostly read the essays as interpretive rather than predictive - I don't know if that's how Edwards intended them (but he is a biologist, so he might favour predictive approaches and have intended to create one).

That said, I have found them to have useful predictive value in a few cases. They are good predictors for the lines of discussion on the ICE forums as soone as issues like balance in point buy come up - for instance, many people want point buy options in a game like HARP to both be balanced for play, and to reflect ingame causation, which then leads to all sorts of convolution around why it is that (say) a prince of the blood (an expensive points buy option) can't also be strong and wealthy (more expensive options).

There is also a set of dot points in the Gamism essay which identifies three or four features common to action resolution in narrativist and gamist play which are basically the main talking points for every 3E vs 4e editions war thread I've ever participated in. (What puzzles me is why WotC doesn't seem to have anticipated the controversy that would be raised by a game based around those techniques.)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;724536I don't think his later statements make the earlier movies anti-semitic, but i can see how people have trouble seperating him from his work (just like some people have trouble seperating woody allen and his work).

I'd been thinking of Woody Allen in another light in relation to this thread: the measure of someone's success as a cultural influence isn't necessarily the same as the measure of their commercial success. I think Woody Allen would be an example of this (and Ingmar Bergman by whom he was influenced).

Quote from: TristramEvans;724867One thing Ill say on behalf of GNS, Edwards does preface the entire project with the hypothesis "most people playing rpgs arent having fun" (a point I dont agree with but its useful to understand where he's coming from), and goes on to say "if you are having fun and satisfied with your gaming experience then this [GNS] isnt for you".

Useful, that statement. Let me know right away I was not the target audience.

That's inconsistent with his other essay, System Does Matter which posits that even if you're having fun you can have more fun with a narrow system.

I think the theory was clearly most appealing to people who weren't having fun and especially to people who felt left out by mainstream games.

As celebration, it's fine -- clearly some people found a gaming style that really connected with them.

As advocacy, it can be as irritating as any advocacy can.

But it crosses the line into running down traditional games and gamers, and that's where the problems start.

Cheers,
-E.

Ive always been torn on "system matters", because it creates the expectation that one system is objectivelly better than another for a purpose, whereas its rarely that simple and there are factors beyond system design, like familiarity, aesthetics, and player motivations. it would be like judging a film based soley on lighting effects. GNS isnt enough, its a tiny piece of a much larger hole that comes across as myopic in its focus.

"System matters but it doesnt really but it kinda does, but matters differently to different people." is my conclusion.

I think the only impact that GNS has had is to show the level of butthurt on either side of the discussion on gaming forums.  Impact at the table is only what the individual purveyor brings away from the discussion whether it be a new game, a concept, or an idea to bring to the table that works for the group you're playing with.  After that, it's just much noise and personal vendetta.   Personally I've found some value even it's just to reanalyze how me and my own go about our gaming.

Quote from: TristramEvans;724871Ive always been torn on "system matters", because it creates the expectation that one system is objectivelly better than another for a purpose, whereas its rarely that simple and there are factors beyond system design, like familiarity, aesthetics, and player motivations. it would be like judging a film based soley on lighting effects. GNS isnt enough, its a tiny piece of a much larger hole that comes across as myopic in its focus.

"System matters but it doesnt really but it kinda does, but matters differently to different people." is my conclusion.

Completely agree.

Completely.

-E.

Quote from: TristramEvans;724867One thing Ill say on behalf of GNS, Edwards does preface the entire project with the hypothesis "most people playing rpgs arent having fun" (a point I dont agree with but its useful to understand where he's coming from), and goes on to say "if you are having fun and satisfied with your gaming experience then this [GNS] isnt for you".

Useful, that statement. Let me know right away I was not the target audience.

"Most people looking at the sky arent having fun. The sky is red." - If you see a blue sky and are satisfied with your day then this [RGB] isnt for you"

Quote from: TristramEvans;724871Ive always been torn on "system matters", because it creates the expectation that one system is objectivelly better than another for a purpose, whereas its rarely that simple and there are factors beyond system design, like familiarity, aesthetics, and player motivations. it would be like judging a film based soley on lighting effects. GNS isnt enough, its a tiny piece of a much larger hole that comes across as myopic in its focus.

"System matters but it doesnt really but it kinda does, but matters differently to different people." is my conclusion.

Not to mention that some truly fucked up games have been produced by Forge luminaries under the aegis of "system matters".

That is also one of the easiest bludgeons to hit them with, and one that can't easily be defended without either A) Admitting your game is fucked up or B) Admitting that the system matters program is flawed.

Win win.

Wait, system doesn't matter? Does that mean that all editions of D&D are equal and it doesn't matter which version I use?

Rules design decisions directly impact the types of experience players will have with any given game. Monopoly is a different game to scrabble, and they're both different to chess. Games with a narrower design goal will be absolutely terrible at creating experiences outside of it's design, but it should have a higher rate of success at creating experiences within its design than a generic system.

Any kind of design philosophy can be used to make an offensive game. Design philosophy in terms of rules=behaviours doesn't automatically equate to offensive material, and dismissing one game because the designer agreed with someone who designed an offensive game on some topics is more of an ad homniem attack.

Quote from: Adric;724907Wait, system doesn't matter? Does that mean that all editions of D&D are equal and it doesn't matter which version I use?

Rules design decisions directly impact the types of experience players will have with any given game. Monopoly is a different game to scrabble, and they're both different to chess. Games with a narrower design goal will be absolutely terrible at creating experiences outside of it's design, but it should have a higher rate osuccess at creating experiences within its design than a generic system.

Any kind of design philosophy can be used to make an offensive game. Design philo.sophy in terms of rules=behaviours doesn't automatically equate to offensive material, and dismissing one game because the designer agreed with someone who designed an offensive game on some topics is more of an ad homniem attack.

As I said system matters but it doesnt really but it kinda does, but what matters is different to different people.

In other words its a multiple choice answer that too many people, Edwards especially, have interpreted as a True/False.

As for games being offensive, thats really a matter of personal feelings, not game theory.

Quote from: One Horse Town;724881Not to mention that some truly fucked up games have been produced by Forge luminaries under the aegis of "system matters".

That is also one of the easiest bludgeons to hit them with, and one that can't easily be defended without either A) Admitting your game is fucked up or B) Admitting that the system matters program is flawed.

Win win.

I guess you mean fames like Poison'd and the like. Ive actually never seen such games, only know thier reputation online, like Maid. I read the Premise and tried to imagine what group of people would enjoy a game like that, and then swiftly tried not to as hard as I could.

But I dont know that its directly connected to GNS except thru adherents.

Quote from: pemerton;724862Except 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?

You mean the joke...the one where the next paragraph started with, "Seriously though...".  The one that doesn't mention you at all, and starts with the word "usually"?

I do think that about some, but I didn't say it or imply it about you, and it was an obvious joke.  You're not the first Forgist around here, nor the first time this topic has come up.  There is a long history you're unaware of, and you're observing a comment out of context that plenty knew the context of when I said it.

I have no problem with you Pemerton, aside from the use of language issue I've highlighted.  I said in the other thread I don't think you're doing it with a negative intent, though I think many Forgists do.  Plenty of people I respect have said you're an OK guy, and I take their word for it.

If I think you're a douchebag (in a serious way) or any other insult, you can be certain I will simply call you one outright.  I'm not known for beating around the bush in my insults.

Here, I will give you an example - this martyr bullshit you're pulling right now, exaggerating what was said to play the victim, and then claiming over at EW that I started this thread to "slander" you? That was all a douche-like move.

The problem with Forge theory has always been the concept of coherence.

Does System Matter? Sure.  You don't use Phoenix Command to play a Fast-paced Street-Fighter like martial arts game.  You don't use Mage: The Ascension to do Robotech.  At least not without so much tinkering, it's not even recognizable anymore.

GDS was an attempt at game theory that had some uses then and still does now, even though it has been corrupted by Edwards who never understood "Simulationism" at all, and really was only about the "Narrative" aspect, as is every single Forge author.

The real problem came when "System Matters" and GNS were combined with coherence, the idea that a game must focus on one of the GNS letters and because "System Matters", mechanics must be created to facilitate this.

As a result we got everything from pure storygames to RPGs with a high degree of OOC metagame to facilitate player narrative control and drama techniques.

All you really have to do to decide if the Forge was ultimately successful or not is ask yourself - Where are the Gamist and Simulationist games from Forge authors?  The Forge, despite all the discussion, was only ever about pushing forward a narrative agenda at the expense of everything else.  The most successful games from Forge authors themselves aren't coherent, they are RPGs combined with narrative elements, and the more narrative the elements, the less successful the game.