Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5785450" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think of him as a thinker, rather than a writer, honestly. All that I have read of his has been a "work in progress" and development of thoughts and theories arther than a finished view that stands without modification. I therefore look at what he is saying in sum, rather than analysing specific wording of writings that have almost certainly been superceded in his thought anyway.This (obviously) doesn't make for an easy "textbook" style lesson, but I have found GNS useful enough to me personally to put up with that.No, the idea is to make games supporting a particular agenda for those who enjoy playing to pursue that agenda - or that is my understanding. Where I think the hangup comes is with the idea that if you like pursuing agenda "A" you will therefore not like pursuing agendas "B" or "C", because you are somehow wedded inexorably to agenda "A". This goes completely against what I understand GNS to be saying. Yes, the agendas "G", "N" and "S" are things you may like or have no attraction towards, but thay are not exclusive and they in no way "define" you as a roleplayer.I go back to the food analogy, because I think it's a fairly apt one; if I make a dish to serve to friends, I try to make it a tasty dish that they will enjoy. To that end, I might include ingredients I know they like, but I would be foolish to chuck in every ingredient I know they like, because some ingredients just don't go together.At the same time, I find it fun and useful to taste and try different foods and thus widen my experience and tastes. There are those who say "if it's not roast meat and vegetables I don't like it" - and they may even have tried all other varieties of foodstuff and found they disliked them, but more likely they are just unwilling to accept and try out other foods (perhaps because they might find they actually like them - the horror!).What GNS did for me, then, was show me that there are more ways to roleplay that what I had 'grown up' assuming was the "right one". That actually trying to find a "one true way" was a chimaera - an illusion and a waste of my time. Better was to accept that there are many ways to roleplay - and try as many as I can to find out which ones I like!Yes, it's possible - but I use it for much the same reason I use science: it provides benefit to me in my experience and my experience so far tells me that it has value for me.Some people like ice cream. Some people like lamb balti. Knowing these things about someone may well be helpful if I am asked to recommend a restaurant to them. They may very well like both - in which case I would still recommend that they do not mix ice cream and lamb balti in the same dish.Classification assumes that individuals placed in one group cannot also belong to others. Individuals that like more than one activity would often be very well advised not to try doing them all at once. Another analogy I have used before: I like cycling (pushbike riding); I also like watching theatre. I have never tried doing both at the same time, and in general I would advise against it. That is not even to say it would not be possible to cycle around while watching a play, but there are several good reasons why it might not be as fulfilling an experience as it might be.Likewise with GNS; I would say it is very likely that an individual will like more than one of the agendas, possibly all three. It is also possible that they might be able, for a while at least, to successfully pursue more than one of them at a time. But I have seen enough problems and issues with doing so that I think, in general, it is a better idea to set out primarily to pursue one of them for a specific game or campaign.In game design, this translates slightly differently. I think a game system should, all else being equal, try to support one agenda well. If it can support a second as well, all well and good - but if conflicts arise there should still be a "top dog" or the design will end up not supporting any agenda well. If the system makes it clear what agenda it primarily supports, so much the better as this will (a) allow those who don't want to pursue that agenda at this time to pick a different system and (b) let players know what agenda(s) is/are expected of them as they come to the game.Despite that I only really meant the comment in a fairly "light" way, and that I agree that it's a very deep rathole, as an engineer I would stand by that statement all the way - in pm, if you really want.This is very much my view, too. Perhaps, more specifically, my view of "Edition Warring" changed markedly due to my understanding of the content of GNS theory. What I now disagree with is the argument that there is one, true way to roleplay and any new system should seek to become closer to it. I also disagree that, for any particular individual, there is one, true system that will meet all their needs and be all they ever need to play. With that view, trying to influence present or future editions to include everything that you like is misguided and, in my view, doomed to painful failure (even if you "succeed").This informs all my posts on "Editions". I like D&D 4E - I find it does something I like very well. I will support and defend it on that basis.I personally have no real attraction to 3.x any more - not because it is a "bad" system but becuase what I found it did well, 4E does better. But I played 3.x happily in years gone by and if some find what they like supported by it then they should absolutely be free to take advantage of that. I am pleased, also, that Pathfinder exists to support their needs on an ongoing basis; I wish it and them good luck.I also play other (non-D&D) systems, because 4E does not support all agendas/styles. I think those other systems do what others say they see in 3.5 better than 3.5 - but my "better" may not be their "better", so I'll hold my tongue (aside from possibly mentioning that such other games exist) and let them enjoy what they find there.In other words, just because I like X, doesn't mean everybody likes X and, even if they do, they might not like it all the time, and even if they do that, they might have found a better way to do it than I have!</blockquote>

Verification