Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[N'raac]

That reminds me...

He's said it many times, it's the whole main point of GNS theory, it's the only things that makes it not identical to every other typology of playstyles gamers come up with, here's an example:
View attachment 71217
(rest of the conversation available on request.)

I would be interested to see the next bit of the conversation, since you offer it, since you seem to have inadvertently cut off the most interesting and possibly relevant part of Edwards' answer, in that shot.

I don't recall seeing the rest of the screenshot. Did I overlook it?

 

[Zak S]

I don't recall seeing the rest of the screenshot. Did I overlook it?

Nah, at that point Balesir was passive-aggressively needling and I said "Hey, stop doing that, it's not ok, I don't want to go on with this conversation with you if you're going to do that" and then Balesir bowed out.

If you would like to see the rest of the conversation I can post it, it's embedded in a long back and forth about a billion things.

 

[Parmandur]

So, many of you guys have been playing longer than I have been alive ('85 model), and I only got in the game with 3.5 really.

I am no post-modernist, hippie-dippie deconstructionist type: not to get into ot, but I am rather on the right edge of the spectrum all around. No interest in Forge stuff.

This "games are only code-breaking" hypothesis is clearly nonsense, given the etymology of the word "game" and how it is used in every day language, and by gamers. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] did an amazing job breaking down the history, and what the original designers of the game thought.

Inventing a new definition of a word and insisting everyone else abide by it is not how language works.

 

[Umbran]

Inventing a new definition of a word and insisting everyone else abide by it is not how language works.

There is a philosophical thing here - prescriptive language vs descriptive language. Language where a single authoritative definition is primary, and language where practical use is primary. Howandwhy is very prescriptive, as is Zak S in his way. Many of the rest of us are more descriptive, proof is in the overall pudding, types.

 

[Zak S]

There is a philosophical thing here - prescriptive language vs descriptive language. Language where a single authoritative definition is primary, and language where practical use is primary. Howandwhy is very prescriptive, as is Zak S in his way. Many of the rest of us are more descriptive, proof is in the overall pudding, types.

This is not accurate. it seems like just a sort of sidelong way of saying "We have proof (in the pudding) you don't".

I have described (descriptively) bad outcomes to using GNS terminology and pointed to proof (in and out of pudding) of real world bad outcomes created by using it.

Everyone in the thread has pretty much Prescribed (i.e. recommended) ways of speaking, very much including you, Umbran. I prescribe not using GNS language because of the extensive proof of it leading to disastrous outcomes.

 

[Parmandur]

There is a philosophical thing here - prescriptive language vs descriptive language. Language where a single authoritative definition is primary, and language where practical use is primary. Howandwhy is very prescriptive, as is Zak S in his way. Many of the rest of us are more descriptive, proof is in the overall pudding, types.

Well, that's what I find so weird: I can get behind the prescriptive approach, but to do so it is important to use correct definitions, and not make them up.

Zak has a point; GNS is unhelpful.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a philosophical thing here - prescriptive language vs descriptive language. Language where a single authoritative definition is primary, and language where practical use is primary. Howandwhy is very prescriptive, as is Zak S in his way. Many of the rest of us are more descriptive, proof is in the overall pudding, types.

I'm curious here, but just how does one decide which of the many definitions of something is authoritative? I don't go through the dictionary reading it, but I've seen a whole lot of words in dictionaries and I can't remember a word with a single definition.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm curious here, but just how does one decide which of the many definitions of something is authoritative? I don't go through the dictionary reading it, but I've seen a whole lot of words in dictionaries and I can't remember a word with a single definition.

I'd say it's a both-and situation, leaning on the democracy of the dead: the definitions are descriptive, but to have a discourse with actual communication the terms fo need to be mutually understood, and hence prescribed to one degree or another.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and his daughters play match any traditional use or definition of game just as much as Mastermind; as does throwing craps.

 

[pemerton]

The Forge's "simulationist" theory is hmmm, how to say it without sounding overly negative, okay never mind, it's total crap. Edwards is clearly trying to build on some previous theories and differentiate it from the other two GNS "pillars," but it mostly just comes across as half-baked. It has definite undertones of, "Well, I don't really know how this works, it's something I've not experienced myself, but I can imagine it working this way because these reasons." His idea behind "High Concept Sim" is about the only thing that feels even remotely useful, but even then I think it's much more related to "story" approaches to gaming than "simulation," but Edwards can't possibly allow any hint of this "simulation garbage" to seep into his precious "narrativism."

I'll post again: I have a lot of experience in playing the sort of systems that Edwards calls "purist for system simulationism" - predominantly Rolemaster, but also various BRP-type games (Runequest, Stormbringer etc).

And as I posted upthread, Edwards discussion on those systems correctly identifies their aspirations and their points of vulnerability - his honing in on initiative is particularly apposite here.

Here is another passage of his from the simulationism essay, which is relevant to just about every alignment and paladin thread ever generated on ENworld:

Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.​

In a current alignment thread, I (and some other posters) have said that we prefer an approach to alignment, paladin codes etc where the player is the principal determiner of what the code requires. The response we get from some (yet other) posters is that this is broken, is allowing paladins to get away with (literal) murder, etc.

They are applying the approach to alignment that Edwards identifies with GURPS. I (and the other posters) are adopting an approach to alignment with corresponds with the one that Edwards calls narrativist. I'm not too fussed about terminology, but the differences of approach are real. There is no way that I want to either run, or play in, a game of the GURPs alignment variety. But clearly some other ENworlders do not want any sort of approach to "behavioural parameters" except that.

 

[TwoSix]

There is a philosophical thing here - prescriptive language vs descriptive language. Language where a single authoritative definition is primary, and language where practical use is primary. Howandwhy is very prescriptive, as is Zak S in his way. Many of the rest of us are more descriptive, proof is in the overall pudding, types.

All of my gish friends agree with you.