Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6731685" data-attributes="member: 42582">What do you think I'm saying in this thread that is provably untrue?What do you think you're &quot;calling me on&quot;? Upthread you called a view I expressed baffling. I replied with an explanation, and you ignored that reply.So it's quite unclear to me what your problem is with my posts in this thread.What do you think I'm clinging to? Where have I said anything in this thread about pursuing two GNS goals simultaneously in the same instance of play? It's not something I have a view on or care very much about.That said, I don't think it would be a very big technical challenge to define &quot;pursuing goals&quot; and &quot;same instance of play&quot; to make it true by definition. There are at least two devices that Edwards uses to facilitate this: (i) because the GNS analysis takes as a premise that all play involves exploration, and so any time anyone points to simultaneously being both (say) S + G the retort can be made that it's just exploration-heavy G; (ii) because he emphasises the &quot;predominant&quot; or &quot;overall&quot; goal of play, if I point (say) to the episode of play I quoted upthread, where the player is trying to make clever bonus-creating moves so as to realise the dramatic goal of sealing the Abyss and say that looks like it might be both G + N, Edwards can retort that only one (perhaps N, perhaps G) is the predominant goal of play.This is partly why I didn't describe it as a sociological theory in my post. I described it as criticism.I'm sorry that my thread and posts are getting in the way of you doing real work, and that the games I'm playing at the moment (BW, 4e) are impeding your RPGing. I just thought I was a guy posting on a D&amp;D board having fun running a couple of campaigns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6731685, member: 42582"] What do you think I'm saying in this thread that is provably untrue? What do you think you're "calling me on"? Upthread you called a view I expressed baffling. I replied with an explanation, and you ignored that reply. So it's quite unclear to me what your problem is with my posts in this thread. What do you think I'm clinging to? Where have I said anything in this thread about pursuing two GNS goals simultaneously in the same instance of play? It's not something I have a view on or care very much about. That said, I don't think it would be a very big technical challenge to define "pursuing goals" and "same instance of play" to make it true by definition. There are at least two devices that Edwards uses to facilitate this: (i) because the GNS analysis takes as a premise that all play involves exploration, and so any time anyone points to simultaneously being both (say) S + G the retort can be made that it's just exploration-heavy G; (ii) because he emphasises the "predominant" or "overall" goal of play, if I point (say) to the episode of play I quoted upthread, where the player is trying to make clever bonus-creating moves so as to realise the dramatic goal of sealing the Abyss and say that looks like it might be both G + N, Edwards can retort that only one (perhaps N, perhaps G) is the predominant goal of play. This is partly why I didn't describe it as a sociological theory in my post. I described it as criticism. I'm sorry that my thread and posts are getting in the way of you doing real work, and that the games I'm playing at the moment (BW, 4e) are impeding your RPGing. I just thought I was a guy posting on a D&D board having fun running a couple of campaigns. [/QUOTE]

Verification