overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
You mean the post where you define Simulationism, Gamism, and Story Now? Okay, so either you define Story Now and Narrativism the same, or I'm not seeing your paragraph on Narrativism. Also, the definition of Narrativism has evolved within this thread as different posters have joined the conversation and asked for clarification. So if you could provide an actual up to date definition of Narrativism that would actually be helpful. Preferably one that other supporters of Edwards and GNS theory actually agree with.
Weird. I'm literally holding the book in my hands. And it definitely shows the receipts. The Elusive Shift. I'm not even half-way through the book. What I've read literally reads like a summary of all RPG forum conversation, including all talk of theory...only they're all quotes from zines and luminaries of the scene back in the '60s and '70s. I guess I could quote from it at length, but then I'd be just copying & pasting the majority of the text, which seems like a bad idea.
I'm asking you to define it because you're an advocate for it. I want to give you the opportunity to put the best version forward you possibly can rather than talk about my misunderstanding of what you mean. It's worth noting that over the course of this now 32 page thread other proponents of GNS have come along and disagreed with each other (and you) as to what these terms mean and how to properly use them. So you know, it's not like there's one universal definition to point to...unless you try to decipher Edwards' faltering attempts.
Pot, kettle.
Quite the opposite. I'd like to hash this all out so we can maybe finally move on to more fruitful conversations about actually new topics. Because, as I said, these exact conversations have been circling the hobby since before it was a unique and separate thing.
Not at all. It's hostility to the man's offensive words, the pedestal his advocates put him on, and the willful ignorance of history that's required to put him on that pedestal.
Sorry, no. Sources absolutely matter. Are you taking auto repair advice from a 6-year-old or a car mechanic who's got 20 years on the job?
Because it's: 1) framed in a terrible way up to and including calling those who disagree brain damaged; 2) the theory itself is incoherent and ignores large swathes of preferences, and; 3) the same conversations have been going on for decades if not centuries.
Weird. Because it literally does make that argument. It's filled with sources and quotes from people and zine and other publications from the '60s and '70s talking about these exact topics.
And really? A gamer recoiling from the cost of a book? Most seem to take the expense as a badge of honor.
I can't even get any two of the people defending GNS and Edwards and the Forge to agree on the definitions of these things. How am I supposed to have a better grasp of it than you lot?
I never claimed Edwards exact phrasing was precisely repeated decades ago. I said that these conversations (about preferences, game and gamer types, which of simulation/realism, game as game, character, or story should be primary) have been circling the hobby since before it began because they have. Along with immersion, how best to RP a character, what it means to be in character, the authority of the referee, the creative input of the players, etc. It's all decades old conversation. Even the phrase "One True Way" has been with the hobby since 1976.
Thank you. Exactly. Even fans of the Forge, Edwards, and GNS completely disagree about what the theories and jargon even mean. Thank you for clearly making one of my points for me.
