Quote from: James J SkachAnd as I stated, you have to jettison the theory. If Ron is OK with you doing that publically, I hope you two have a long lasting friendship. I'm making a leap, fair for you to kinda point out, that if you do make a public declaration of eschewing the GNS theory as a whole - really calling it shit except for bits and pieces (like Lee pointed out), that Ron will not be so fun to be around.

Man, in all honesty:  When was the last time you heard me use words like "incoherent," "narrativist," or the like?  I will occasionally talk about it if someone absolutely insists in putting a question in those terms, but I usually use scare-quotes and get the topic back into english as quickly as possible.

Or maybe I'm slipping up a lot more than I think.  I try, however, not to get tangled in that stuff.  And I'm not alone.

I told Ron a long time ago that GNS does not work for me, both in that it is slanted and superior and in that it doesn't describe the types of games I see happening all around me.  His response was (roughly) "So, you gonna go out and make a theory that does work for you?" and I said "Yep," and he said "Cool."

Quote from: TonyLBMan, in all honesty:  When was the last time you heard me use words like "incoherent," "narrativist," or the like?  I will occasionally talk about it if someone absolutely insists in putting a question in those terms, but I usually use scare-quotes and get the topic back into english as quickly as possible.

Or maybe I'm slipping up a lot more than I think.  I try, however, not to get tangled in that stuff.  And I'm not alone.

I told Ron a long time ago that GNS does not work for me, both in that it is slanted and superior and in that it doesn't describe the types of games I see happening all around me.  His response was (roughly) "So, you gonna go out and make a theory that does work for you?" and I said "Yep," and he said "Cool."

Well, Tony, do you think I would be willing to have this kind of discussion if you were on about it like walkerp? Sheesh!

What's very interesting to me is that you just seemed to imply that Ron believes his "theory" is really only good for him.  That some people happened to find it suits them is happenstance. That GNS doesn't really explain anything except how Ron plays/sees play.

Which, in true Ron/Forge fashion means that the word theory does not mean what you think it means.

And please don't take the pretention thing personally.  I winced when I saw you use the example about Eisenstein because I don't think you were being pretentious.  But I could totally see how someone might take it that way - so I winced. I had my doubts, but I'm setting them aside and of the opinion that you are just an enthuiastic guy (certainly positive).

Perhaps the only thing that would help "the war" is to be more public in your condemnation of GNS, etc. But that's just not going to happen, so we'll just agree to disagree on that.

Quote from: TonyLBSorta depends who's listening, doesn't it?  

Well, yeah.  

But that's always the case.  

In many cases, it's probably harder than I let on above.  But I so rarely see any effort being made.  Though I can't say I'm paying all that much attention these days.

And certainly things have become heavily politicized on both sides of the issue.  In fact, a lot of people who would prefer a less politicized conversation have simply been driven from the field (Chris Lehrich, to choose a prominent example).  And a lot of those who have remained have become politicized themselves after repeated seeing their discussions scuttled for political reasons.  And, yes, this happens on both sides of the fence.

Quote from: TonyLBI told Ron a long time ago that GNS does not work for me, both in that it is slanted and superior and in that it doesn't describe the types of games I see happening all around me.  His response was (roughly) "So, you gonna go out and make a theory that does work for you?" and I said "Yep," and he said "Cool."

You know, this is pretty interesting. To me, it sounds like Ron actually very politely (of course) fucked with you and your critic. You just need to read between the lines.

The truth is, that you acutally do not need ANY THEORY at all. You were very well catched into the trap and it seems to me, you are proud of it. The fact is, that if a theory does not work for you, that does not mean, that you have to switch to another theory. You can just switch the theory off. Just play the game. It really helps.

"Just play the game" is a theory of how best to enjoy games.

Ima paraphrase the statement at the beginning of Run, Lola, Run

The Ball is Round, the Feild is square, the Game is 90 minutes...

Everything else is theory.


Ima paraphrase it because I can't be arsed to go rent the movie again to watch it for that one quote just to post it here.   And yes, I know the field isn't really square, but rectangle takes too long to spell. And its not poetical.

These are the unbelievably wise words of our national god:

Sepp(l) Herberger

Das Runde muss ins Eckige.

Quote from: CalithenaI find the umbrage about Illusionism in this thread amusing, given that this site seems to be full of a lot of hard-core anti-railroading old-school D&D/Runequest/Fantasy Trip types. I would think that this part of the theory would suit you fine. Illusionism is a technique employed by e.g. the first Dragonlance module (where no matter how you deal with one encounter, the next one comes at you exactly the same way, giving your characters effectively no influence over the environment or story), and most of you hate it. Railroading is one form of Illusionism.

It is amusing, especially when I get into fights with people here about it...including a heterogeneous mix of Forge-friendlies, Forge-agnostics, and Forge-haters.

But, you're missing an issue here, which is that many of the hardcore Forge adherents--people who publicly self-identify with the Forge, or who declare themeselves pro-"indie" (meaning Forge-type games) and openly disdain "traditional games", or who vehemently defend the Forge/Ron against nearly any criticism--many of these people (Ron himself possibly excluded) tag old-school/conventional D&D/TFT/RQ with the "broken wheels" label, claiming that those games "run on GM Fiat", meaning that "the GM is in a position of priviledged [sic] authorship" and the players' intent is irrelevent to the outcome of the fictional events in the game.

QuoteI'm suspicious of what Ron writes about Ouija-board Narrativism as well.

I am too, and this is closely tied to the above--the "ouija board" passage in the Nar essay, along with Vincent Baker's discussion of Task vs. Conflict in his "Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore" page are essentially the signposts for the argument found above...which has been insinuated into numberless discussions on RPG fora, with pretty disastrous consequences.

GNS and many other theories always sounded more like 'schools'. You know, like schools of martial arts, or music composition, or architecture.

Quote"Tony, are you spineless?"

"Dunno. I don't think so, but it's a valid question."

This is pure comedy gold.  

So much so that, after reading that fucking "Holocaust RPG" thread, I came back to read it again.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is pure comedy gold.  

W00t, I was going to post the EXACT SAME thing!

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is pure comedy gold.  

So much so that, after reading that fucking "Holocaust RPG" thread, I came back to read it again.

I really feel I need to know if he actually responded that way in all seriousness or if that was the epitome of deadpan sarcasm.

My world will end if I don't find out. :what:

Quote from: James J SkachWhat's very interesting to me is that you just seemed to imply that Ron believes his "theory" is really only good for him.  That some people happened to find it suits them is happenstance. That GNS doesn't really explain anything except how Ron plays/sees play.

Either that or he's able to disagree with somebody, but still be civil with them and wish them well in exploring their own view of the world.

Granted, it's not a skill he uses as often as I'd prefer

Quote from: James J SkachAnd please don't take the pretention thing personally.  I winced when I saw you use the example about Eisenstein because I don't think you were being pretentious.  But I could totally see how someone might take it that way - so I winced.

Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?  The Eisenstein comment isn't representative of my daily conversations either, but when the topic is "Why would anyone ever talk about art and art theory in the context of gaming?" then the kind of things I would say in that regard starts to look awfully relevant. :shrug:

Abyssal Maw, my little butterfly, just say the word and I'll depart from your hair. I dare you.