Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[Zak S]

You have yet to show anything close to you being right. Just because one claim is false, that does not mean the entire theory is false.

But the claim that multiple creative agendas can't be simultaneously satisfied is the ONLY unique thing about GNS.

The other claims ("different people like different things in games", "different games promote different playstyles") are already made in other theories before and since, for example the 3fold model (which, as dumb as GNS, proposes only 3 categories that don't matchthe 3 GNS categories and neither has thought to fix that) and Robin Laws 7 kinds of gamers (which is much better but not perfect) and the 8-way model proposed by people studying videogames (which are not 100% RPG-relevant but are way better and very helpful and make no extreme and disproved claims).

Nothing UNIQUE to GNS is true.

Saying "GNS theory is good if you just remove the false claims" is like claiming concrete-flavored ice cream is good because you still get the cone and the whipped cream on top.

Your rabid anti-GNS rhetoric doesn't help you at all, and in fact it hurts your arguments since your rhetoric just taints any points that you make.

There's no rhetoric here, just a lot of me pointing out facts. And it doesn't in any way hurt my claim, it just bugs people more worried about tone-policing than facts, and those people: whatever. Nothing good ever comes of that.

 

[Maxperson]

But the claim that multiple creative agendas can't be simultaneously satisfied is the ONLY unique thing about GNS.

The other claims ("different people like different things in games", "different games promote different playstyles") are already made in other theories before and since, for example the 3fold model (which, as dumb as GNS, proposes only 3 categories that don't match GNS and neither has thought to fix that) and Robin Laws 7 kinds of gamers (which is much better but not perfect) and the 8-way model proposed by people studying videogames (which are not 100% RPG-relevant but are way better and very helpful and make no extreme and disproved claims).

Nothing UNIQUE to GNS is true.

It doesn't need unique things to be right about a lot of what it says. It has been a very long time since I went over GNS. I really didn't care for it all that much. Not because I thought it was wrong, though it is wrong about that claim, but because I just don't care enough about play theory to get into it. I play the game in the way that is fun for me and my group and I don't need to know why we play the way we play.

There's no rhetoric here, just a lot of me pointing out facts. And it doesn't in any way hurt my claim, it just bugs people more worried about tone-policing than facts, and those people: whatever. Nothing good ever comes of that.

I'm talking about when you say things like, people should apologize for wasting the time of humanity. That sort of comment doesn't do anything but hurt you. The argument you made above is much better and even if people disagree with you, at least it comes off as reasoned and polite, rather than rabid.

 

[Zak S]

It doesn't need unique things to be right about a lot of what it says. It has been a very long time since I went over GNS. I really didn't care for it all that much. Not because I thought it was wrong, though it is wrong about that claim, but because I just don't care enough about play theory to get into it. I play the game in the way that is fun for me and my group and I don't need to know why we play the way we play.

So quit worrying what I say then.

I'm talking about when you say things like, people should apologize for wasting the time of humanity. That sort of comment doesn't do anything but hurt you.

"Incites Maxperson to tone-police you" and "Hurt you" are not synonyms.

Please do not extrapolate from your own feelings ("I wish this person would stop talking about things they believe to be true") to real-world externalities ("This person has somehow hurt themself by talking in a way I don't like").

I do 100% think that if you say an untrue thing in public or promote one, you should apologize to everyone for wasting their time. And I think you do a disservice to humanity if you don't. Whether you, Maxperson, believe that doesn't matter at all.

There are two counter-arguments being offered to my position "GNS is wrong and so folks should stop talking about it," and they are the polar opposites of each other:

"Let people talk about these provably inaccurate GNS ideas because you can just ignore them they affect nothing"
and
"GNS may be wrong but it's had an effect on things like for example GNS resulted in FATE"

So the folks making these claims need to sort out which one they believe--is GNS insignificant or not? I happen to think the effect has been both significant and terrible.

Literally bad things have happened to real people because the folks who believed in this dumb theory of games never got together and admitted they made a big mistake and shouldn't really be trusted when it comes to games. It is not the worst idea ever suggested in games, but it is perhaps the one which has had the worst long-term impact in recent memory.

This negative impact is, I'd argue, real and measurable. And if you disagree what you do is ask for evidence of that, not play tone-police.

 

[Maxperson]

So quit worrying what I say then.

Hey. I was just trying to help you, but if you'd rather sound like someone who is rabid and deserves to be ignored, then keep on going the way you are! You're doing a great job at it.

 

[Celebrim]

Hey. I was just trying to help you, but if you'd rather sound like someone who is rabid and deserves to be ignored, then keep on going the way you are! You're doing a great job at it.

Speaking for myself, I'd never make this judgment of anyone.

Besides, while I see Zak S as arguing something tactlessly at times, I don't necessarily disagree with his reasoning. I'm much more willing to overlook failures of style, than failures of substance.

 

[Campbell]

Ron was wrong about not being able to serve multiple creative agendas with the same game. That should be taken as a given at this point, especially because Ron's own games always served multiple creative agendas in actual play. Ron was wrong about a lot of things and still is wrong about a lot of things. That's something you should take up with him and people that still advocate single agenda design or who claim capital-N Narrativist games are the only games worth playing. I don't see a lot of that going on anymore though. It certainly has never really been evident in the actual design of games which at the end of the day is what should matter. The games we play and the ways we actually play them say a whole lot more than the flawed ways we talk about them.

 

[Umbran]

And it doesn't in any way hurt my claim, it just bugs people more worried about tone-policing than facts, and those people: whatever. Nothing good ever comes of that.

Well, actually a lot of good can come of tone policing, when done properly. Most commonly, a discussion where there's a chance of folks actually listening to each other can be the result.

Tone policing is problematic in discussions of rights and privilege, when it is inappropriately invoked by someone with privilege to redirect otherwise civil discussion of a real problem to how the privileged person is, in some way, a victim being attacked. But, that's not the issue at hand. We don't have social power imbalances at stake, merely opinions about one framework for thinking about how we pretend to be elves.

Here, if you don't watch your tone, what happens is you engage everyone's emotions (including your own), instead of their intellects. Being aggressive will not convince anyone who is not already in agreement with you. An aggressive stance makes the discussion about ego - about who will back down, rather than about what's actually correct. This is basic human behavior, and is a necessary part of effective writing - every piece has an expected audience, and if you do not shape your writing to suit your audience, the resulting communication failure can't be blamed on the audience.

Moreover, the site as a whole has, as it's #1 rule, "Keep it civil."

 

[Zak S]

You have many mistaken assumptions up there @Umbran the major one being that the goal of these conversations is to persuade the kind of people who respond more to (imagnined ) tone than to facts. What a person like that thinks isn't very relevant since they're, by definition , not thinking rationally.

Whats important is any rational 3rd party lurking or reading can always see the facts side by side with the misinformation so nobody rational is misled by bad information.

 

[Umbran]

You have many mistaken assumptions up there [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] the major one being that the goal of theseconversations is to persuade the kind of people who respond more to (imagnined ) tone than to facts.

No. I do not assume the goal. I assume the *audience*. Since you are posting on EN World, the audience is, perforce, EN World. You cannot avoid that audience. And while you say you intend another audience... well, we will deal with that presently.

What a person like that thinks isnt very relevant since theyre, by definition , not thinking rationally.

This is not the planet Vulcan. Everyone thinks irrationally from time to time. Everyone responds to tone. The perfectly rational audience is a myth. Even an audience that does not currently have a strong opinion on the matter will respond to the tone of your argument, as well as the content.

Whats important is any rational 3rd party lurking or reading can always see the facts side by side with the misinformation so nobody rational is misled by bad information.

Oh, this was not a good, rational statement on your part.

First off, this is ad hominem, specifically Bulverism. You think they are wrong, come up with a psychological reason they are wrong (in this case, the vague "irrationality"), and then use that to dismiss them without having to properly deal with their points. In a rational argument, you address the logic of the positions, not the persons of the speakers, as the nature or mental state of the speaker does not itself inform you if the speaker is correct.

You have, recently in the discussion, also stepped afoul of "argument from fallacy" - having found one element of GNS that is not true, you discount the whole. This, also, is not logically sound. Each element needs to be found faulty on its own - there is no guilt by association here.

You have, arguably, also fallen prey to "proof by assertion" - repeating the same point many times, without substantive change, as if that makes it any more correct or compelling by repetition.

Lastly, we have as an excuse for it all, an appeal to the well-being of an audience we do not actually know is present. Does it seem "rational" to you to carry on a discussion for 20+ pages to serve people who may not even be there? Moreover, while you claim to be targeting only a rational audience, they'd have to discard much of your presentation due to these, and a few other, logical fallacies - if you are targeting this supposed audience, you are failing to do it well.


Overall, we see many illogical elements to your own presentation, such that we cannot really call your position supremely rational based on what you write. This leads us to two possibilities:

1) You yourself are rational, but make irrational arguments. Then, others may also be rational, but make irrational arguments, and you must accept the possible rationality of the others.

2) You yourself are not particularly rational on this topic.

Either way, the result is that you should treat them with respect.

 

[Zak S]

No. I do not assume the goal. I assume the *audience*. Since you are posting on EN World, the audience is, perforce, EN World. You cannot avoid that audience.

Like any broadcast, not everyone who CAN read me is relevant to what I'm saying. Anyone can read a post asking who wants to play Shadowrun at my house next week, only people who actually can are relevant.

Likewise: people who think irrationally may be able to read what I write, only people who think rationally are going to productively contribute. Whether you say I "succeed" or"fail" in my message can only be judged in regard to this goal.

Everyone thinks irrationally from time to time. Everyone responds to tone.

I don't believe that in the present case:

-discussing RPGs (something not very important)
-online via typing
-with strangers

...that set encompasses "everybody". If you would make that bold and aggressive accusation against everyone, you need to prove it. It's pretty easy to talk about RPGs online without getting emotional.

First off, this is ad hominem, specifically Bulverism. You think they are wrong, come up with a psychological reason they are wrong (in this case, the vague "irrationality"),

You are wholly incorrect.

I was addressing the specific point made "tone policing can be good" (specifically in online discussion about games, specifically in this one). This argument was made under a faulty assumption: that my goal was to PERSUADE the kind of people who can be dissuaded in a game discussion online by a tone they dislike. ("Ignoring facts and being dissuaded by tone by no means vaguely fits the definition of "irrational behavior". )

I then explained this was not my goal because I am unconcerned with such people. Therefore it is irrelevant to my goal.

Yours is a wholly rational argument and has nothing to do with an ad hominem. You misperceived the target audience for my statements.

Your counter-argument, relying on the bizarre assumption that ALL people can be dissuaded by tone in online RPG discussions is unproved.

And, burden of proof is on the accuser and in this case you're accusing everyone of being irrational, so prove it.

You have, recently in the discussion, also stepped afoul of "argument from fallacy" - having found one element of GNS that is not true, you discount the whole.

This is also incorrect.

I correctly identified 2 parts of GNS:

The part that makes predictions about creative agendas.

The part that rehashes what other game theories say.

The first part is fallacious (proved with evidence), the second part is redundant (proved, with evidence).

Therefore the theory is useless. The only new thing it does fails.

I also pointed out it was WORSE than useless since the effects following from it have been bad (FATE, etc)

In order to refute this idea you don't falsely claim this is the so-called "fallacy fallacy" (addressing only one part of what I said) you must either:

-Point out positives of GNS that outweigh the negatives, giving evidence.
or
-Contest the negatives, giving evidence.

You have, arguably, also fallen prey to "proof by assertion" - repeating the same point many times, without substantive change, as if that makes it any more correct or compelling by repetition.

This assessment of my motives is incorrect. Sometimes (as above) it's necessary locally to repeat yourself otherwise a false assertion is on a webpage WITHOUT the refutation of that false assertion appears on the same page (even though the false assertion was previously refuted).

Before assuming a negative motive, the correct procedure is to ask a question. If you see my repeating myself, simply say "Zak, why did you repeat that?" and I'll tell you.

Lastly, we have as an excuse for it all, an appeal to the well-being of an audience we do not actually know is present. Does it seem "rational" to you to carry on a discussion for 20+ pages to serve people who may not even be there?

Absolutely. People don't let errors and false accusations stand in a newspaper or blog entry just because you aren't sure anyone might check them. The truth is important.

And, frankly, the presence of other sane folks' reading RPG conversations besides the 2-3 talking at the moment is not exactly a wild conjecture.

while you claim to be targeting only a rational audience, they'd have to discard much of your presentation due to these, and a few other, logical fallacies

You are asserting but not proving I have made logical errors. I haven't, though. All the things you claimed were logical errors weren't because you made faulty assumptions.

It's important to always be respectful of people online of course, (never, for instance, scold them for their tone of all things, or imply the act of participating in a discussion is part of some zealous "campaign" or that merely registering facts and opinions in a neutral way is "rabid") but a massive part of respect includes not lying to them.