Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6413904" data-attributes="member: 177">Agreed.&nbsp; I've long had that thought about GNS - it is one of the reasons why I feel it is an interesting and occasionally useful framework for theoretical consideration, but it should not be applied to *real world* use very strictly.Purple.&nbsp; There is already a quality for that, and it is called &quot;purple&quot;.&nbsp; Or, perhaps &quot;checkerboard&quot; or &quot;patchwork&quot; or &quot;striped&quot; or &quot;herringbone&quot; - there are several qualities we can name for &quot;both red and blue&quot;One of the problems of strictly defined things like &quot;Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism&quot; are that once you've set that these are the only qualities you can talk about, you cannot admit to various forms of mixtures easily.&nbsp; The language is guiding, but also limiting.Agreed.Be careful.&nbsp; Discussions of isomorphisms are often about one-to-one relationships.&nbsp; But, unless our maps and game rules are infinitely complex, it is possible to have two different stories that have the same moves on the game board - their structures can be the same, but the audience experience is not.&nbsp; As a base analogy - if you were to map &quot;Romeo and Juliet&quot; in game terms, you'd say it was the same as &quot;West Side Story&quot; - but if you watch the two, the singing and dancing give away that they aren't quite the same <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It probably works the other way, as well - one story could me mapped through two different sets of rules to two different maps.&nbsp; I can play the same basic story out in FATE and Savage Worlds, but the rules-based moves are different.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6413904, member: 177"] Agreed. I've long had that thought about GNS - it is one of the reasons why I feel it is an interesting and occasionally useful framework for theoretical consideration, but it should not be applied to *real world* use very strictly. Purple. There is already a quality for that, and it is called "purple". Or, perhaps "checkerboard" or "patchwork" or "striped" or "herringbone" - there are several qualities we can name for "both red and blue" One of the problems of strictly defined things like "Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism" are that once you've set that these are the only qualities you can talk about, you cannot admit to various forms of mixtures easily. The language is guiding, but also limiting. Agreed. Be careful. Discussions of isomorphisms are often about one-to-one relationships. But, unless our maps and game rules are infinitely complex, it is possible to have two different stories that have the same moves on the game board - their structures can be the same, but the audience experience is not. As a base analogy - if you were to map "Romeo and Juliet" in game terms, you'd say it was the same as "West Side Story" - but if you watch the two, the singing and dancing give away that they aren't quite the same :) It probably works the other way, as well - one story could me mapped through two different sets of rules to two different maps. I can play the same basic story out in FATE and Savage Worlds, but the rules-based moves are different. [/QUOTE]

Verification