Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6731652" data-attributes="member: 90370">The problem isn't anything he says about &quot;Gamist&quot;&quot;Sim&quot; or &quot;Nar&quot; play. It's that these categories are arbitrary and insufficient to cover the field. Like dividing all animals into &quot;Cats&quot; &quot;Pigs and hedgehogs&quot; and &quot;Slippery animals&quot;.Lots of cat enthusiasts have got a lot out of GNS and, previously, the 3fold model, but the fact remains it's not much of a theory. It's a very partial list of observations of what some kinds of gamers do sometimes (especially the kinds of gamers who liked the essays).So it offers a poor view of reality and TONS of the theory, criticism and game assumptions that came out of it was an impediment to anybody who wasn't a cat enthusiast.This is what EVERY FAN says about Forge theory when you point out it happens to be wrong. This solipsistic and non-reality-based legacy of conversation is why people hate Forge &quot;theory&quot;. People say stuff that is provably untrue, then when you call them on it they go &quot;Well I'm like, allowed to have an opinion, man&quot;If you make an assertion like Ron does, for example:&quot;You can't serve two GNS goals simultaneously in the same instance of play&quot; and then watch AP vids and find out, wait, no, you can TOTALLY do that and people do it all the time. (And Ron has personally been unable to explain any criteria to judge this by which it isn't true.)Then you have an inaccurate sociological theory. Objectively.And instead of doing what Vincent Baker did and going &quot;Ok, it's 2015, GNS helped me but it was wrong&quot; people cling to it or ideas that only make sense if you assume it.And the rest of us still have to see these goofball categories that nobody can thoroughly defend or define in the middle of conversations we're having where we actually try to (and do) get real game stuff done. And there's still postForgies running around who trust and believe each other more than anyone else because they once believed in a now-known-to-be crackpot theory together while instead that experience should have humbled them and made them realize they didn't have all the answers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zak S, post: 6731652, member: 90370"] The problem isn't anything he says about "Gamist""Sim" or "Nar" play. It's that these categories are arbitrary and insufficient to cover the field. Like dividing all animals into "Cats" "Pigs and hedgehogs" and "Slippery animals". Lots of cat enthusiasts have got a lot out of GNS and, previously, the 3fold model, but the fact remains it's not much of a theory. It's a very partial list of observations of what some kinds of gamers do sometimes (especially the kinds of gamers who liked the essays). So it offers a poor view of reality and TONS of the theory, criticism and game assumptions that came out of it was an impediment to anybody who wasn't a cat enthusiast. This is what EVERY FAN says about Forge theory when you point out it happens to be wrong. This solipsistic and non-reality-based legacy of conversation is why people hate Forge "theory". People say stuff that is provably untrue, then when you call them on it they go "Well I'm like, allowed to have an opinion, man" If you make an assertion like Ron does, for example: "You can't serve two GNS goals simultaneously in the same instance of play" and then watch AP vids and find out, wait, no, you can TOTALLY do that and people do it all the time. (And Ron has personally been unable to explain any criteria to judge this by which it isn't true.) Then you have an[I] inaccurate sociological theory. [/I]Objectively. And instead of doing what Vincent Baker did and going "Ok, it's 2015, GNS helped me but it was wrong" people cling to it or ideas that only make sense if you assume it. And the rest of us still have to see these goofball categories that nobody can thoroughly defend or define in the middle of conversations we're having where we actually try to (and do) get real game stuff done. And there's still postForgies running around who trust and believe each other more than anyone else because they once believed in a now-known-to-be crackpot theory together while instead that experience should have humbled them and made them realize they didn't have all the answers. [/QUOTE]

Verification