Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nisarg" data-source="post: 1892899" data-attributes="member: 19893">The problem with the pseudointellectuals at the Forge are doing is not with threefold theory.Its just fine to say that "there are three kinds of gaming", though you could just as easily say there are four, or two, or twelve. Its a pretty arbitrary division.The problems with GNS are:1. The application of GNS theory is divisive. Everyone I've ever seen who argues GNS in accordance with the Forge-dogma believes that because there are gamists, narrativists, and simulationists, "good" RPGs should be made to work only for one of the three. The idea that These three divisions are mutually exclusive is a logical leap if ever I saw one.The forge claims that the "purpose" of GNS theory is to identify conflict in gaming groups and be able to design games that would correct this.  In reality, it serves no purpose, since the premise that someone would ONLY be one of the three, and would automatically be unsatisfied playing a game or with a group that uses one of the other two models, is unfounded.2. While we're at it, GNS theory suffers from a multiple identity disorder. Is it meant to correct gaming groups? Or correct games?  If you're talking about the former, then the only response to a "problem" identified with GNS theory would be for the odd man out to leave his gaming group. That's not really a productive solution.If the problem is with the games, then you enter into the realm of "bad fun", which is basically what the Forge ends up doing: claiming that most RPGs are actually badly designed because they do NOT strictly adhere to one of the three models.3. Consequently, GNS theory demonstrates itself to be a failed concept... if GNS theory as applied at the forge were correct, then games made by the Forge should be far more successful and appealing than the games they identify as "badly made" (ie. D20, and most other games.. if I recall they even think WoD is "badly made" within GNS definitions). So if the Forge's theorys were correct, THEY should be the ones designing the most popular games on the market.The fact is that their GNS model is a load of garbage, which works really well for making the guys on the forge feel smart, and to look down on us lesser mortals who just game for fun, and its a good vehicle for the forgites to bicker with themselves over jargon and semantics. And of course, it gives Ron Edwards his little "cult" of fanatics... Edwards being (for those who haven't been to the Forge) the guy who basically designed the GNS theory, and whom everyone else at the Forge worships as a god.Most threads on the forge involve pages and pages of people arguing semantics, always by trying to trump each other in referring to some essay or definition that Ron Edwards wrote, until Ron manifests himself and locks down the thread, usually claiming he had already resolved this question in essay #2459... its almost like a ritual at this point... "Summon Ron".Nisarg</blockquote>

Verification