Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rogue Agent" data-source="post: 5788973" data-attributes="member: 6673496">Oh, yes. While there are certain problematical elements of Edwards trying to move the Threefold from decision points to mechanical design (which makes the concept of exclusivity even less applicable in actual practice) while simultaneously cranking up the theory's reliance on exclusivity into a mantra of brain damage, that's not what makes GNS theory an incoherent mess.What turns GNS into an incoherent mess is when Edwards takes a bunch of dramatist play-styles and shoves them into GNS Simulationism. That turns GNS Simulationism into a complete mess. It's why GNS as a theory fails to find much traction with simulationists. It's also why those discussing GNS find it difficult to discuss GNS Simulationism in a meaningful, coherent, or consistent fashion.This isn't actually true, but this probably isn't the best place to get into it. Short version: It is possible for a traditional GM to make decisions to promote the creation of a good story without predetermining what the story will be.</blockquote>