NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5790348" data-attributes="member: 27160">Isn't that "Realism"? I repeat my question from before - why should the "real" world as a model have a special place when discussing imaginary worlds?Sure, all of that is an area of concern and discussion - but it's not what I'm talking about when I use GNS concepts to view a situation. You can take the word "Simulation" away from me, if you like - but that doesn't change the concept I'm talking about. I'll just have to come up with a new word for it, and we'll play 'confiscate the word' again. I try to be specific when I'm using the word in a GNS sense for just this reason - others use it in several different ways (case in point: your is quite different to that used in the Threefold, for example).Fine - and entirely understandable. But nothing to do with the agenda for concentration and activity that you bring to any particular game, which is what GNS tries to address.Much of that is verbatim what [MENTION=6673496]Rogue Agent[/MENTION] said - looks like maybe Justin Alexander = Rogue Agent?OK, so how do the players know what this mutual story should be about? Do they discuss and choose a situation (monster and nefarious deeds for the episode)? Do they have a GM to choose this for them? Do some of them play the "bad guys"?In short, what is an individual player concentrating on at the point when in-game resolution is happening?Sure, but I'm not here to answer for Ron Edwards' statements or posting history. I am interested in a specific way of looking at the roleplaying experience, and I have my own ideas about it based in part on reading what he (and others) have written about it. Since he was the first person to publish thoughts on taking that view, I think it's reasonable to give his thoughts full consideration as part of that.The model is entirely objective; that Edwards may not be (and that I may not be, for that matter) I entirely accept. Conflating the model with its instigator is, as with so many theories and models throughout history, profoundly unhelpful, in my view.What the model might be is flawed or incomplete. As with any theory or model, the way to address that is for those knowledgeable about the subject to first understand what the model or theory says, and then amend, disprove or add to it as appropriate. So far, what I have seen is a combination of:- Not understanding the model, so objecting to it on the grounds of what it isn't- Claiming that it is incomplete, but failing to add to it or even specify what, precisely, it is missing, and- Claiming that it is wrong, but failing to specify clearly what is invalid without trying to apply the model to things it expressly does not address.If a constructive addition or alternative were offered, or if an example of an agenda were offered that is not covered by the GNS schema, I would be very glad indeed to hear of it. Like any theory, GNS stands until a better one is found (and the Threefold, while it had its uses, is just different, not a replacement - it does not address agendas for gaming and never did).What "reasons for gaming" (I'll take this to be equivalent to what I understand by 'agenda' for now, but more definition may be needed to be sure) are dismissed or 'defined away'? In all the discussion so far, I ain't seeing any.</blockquote>

Verification