Search results

Like everyone else here including you, I am saying what I think to be the truth about games in a forum committed to discussion of games. So quit it with the creepy pop psychology tangent. Great, so I am right, and you are wrong and GNS is wrong and everyone who has ever promoted it should...

WOW. That is quite possibly the creepiest rhetorical technique I have ever seen employed in the history of human conversation. You didn't read it all the way through then and just cherry-picked the parts of GNS that pretty much match what every other game theory says ("different people like...

You need FATE so when you design a third-rate setting that's basically your two favorite settings glued together with terrible drawings you can say there's a system under the hood and then have a relatively big Indie-RPG company help promote your Kickstarter that'll never deliver to an audience...

No, there's no "feel" in it. Edwards theories predict things that do not happen. The parts that are true are duplicated in older and newer theories (different people like different games) the parts that are unique to the theory are provably wrong. This is observable reality. Not "feeling"...

Yes and I already pointed out this is wrong because there's a connection. I'm going to point it out again: You said a sandbox is too constraining because there's GM-created content. I'm simply making a side-note: GM-created content is necessary for certain kinds of puzzle and problem-solving...

Point is Edwards theories are irrelevant dross, not Newtonian "useful approximations" If you'd like to insist Burning Wheel's not a hilariously bad game, I'm not gonna argue with you. I laid out my case. It seems monstrously ill-conceived on all levels to me and Luke Crane's own tales of how...

Incorrect: Puzzle-solving requires constraints and as we've said before different contraints feeling too heavy are what makes for railroading. Depends entirely on whether the GM mentioning giant frogs makes your players interested or not. My players tend to be into the stuff I make up. But...

And phrenology predicts people with the biggest heads aren't babies. ALL the predictions made by a theory have to be correct, not some cherry-picked ones. But if you point out Rolemaster isn't necessarily "sim" in any way you have to turn the car around.

Ron Edwards is no Isaac Newton. He isn't even Robin Laws. Phrenology isn't Newtonian physics. And games aren't nearly complicated enough to need a "good enough" tier of design and GMing rules. For Burning Wheel? 1. People who do play it seem to be confused by the system and are always...

Because NO part of it is worthwhile, though, even if it might've had some therapeutic value for some gamers. It is like phrenology: even if phrenology incidentally had some good impact on some person's life (it taught them to make precise measurements or use a protractor or read a chart), all...

"The reason the Earth-Air-Fire-Water theory of physics messes up conversations is because people keep disagreeing with it." No. Forge theory is inaccurate. People should stop alluding to it. People who are alluding to it should be viewed as unreliable and arguments built on it can't ever be...

From my POV the Forge legacy is 1 game that postForge people tend to like (Apoc World) a couple hacks of it, over a hundred games so bad that even people in that crowd don't ever seem to play them, one game that seems to be really bad and confusing but was sold really well by extraordinary...

If your player's aren't interested in challenge or problem solving (other than in the sense that 'make up something interesting with almost no constraints' is a problem to be solved and a challenge) than this makes sense. A puzzle isn't usually a puzzle unless someone else sets it up--the solver...

Then what needs to happen going forward, now, in 2015, is everybody who encouraged the Forge should go "I'm sorry this was a mistake, I won't ever refer to Forge terminology ever again, it's connected to a toxic hellbroth of bad assumptions used by very bad people to very bad ends--or at least...

Incorrect: Forge theory doesn't just make claims about what some people experienced. It makes broad claims about how all games work. For example: "It's impossible to equally serve multiple GNS goals (at all) simultaneously in one instance of play" And its use has slowed down hundreds if not...

Yes but people still talking about it now after it's been disproved is destructive. Like inarticulately crying all day instead of saying what you actually want is a fine strategy when you're a month old but still doing it when you're 17 doesn't help anybody. Forge theory and vocabulary is, in...

I didn't mention you specifically--I am talking about the culture of sucky debate the Forge engendered by growing out of a culture surrounding a bad theory. I'm not talking about you, the topic of my post was why people don't like the Forge's legacy.

The problem isn't anything he says about "Gamist""Sim" or "Nar" play. It's that these categories are arbitrary and insufficient to cover the field. Like dividing all animals into "Cats" "Pigs and hedgehogs" and "Slippery animals". Lots of cat enthusiasts have got a lot out of GNS and...

"This assumption about all gaming ever is accurate because it holds for all gaming I've been present during and all anecdotes about games I choose to believe" is not real scientific. The problem with Forge theory isn't the theory so much (it's wrong but so are lots of others)--it's the...