Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6733454" data-attributes="member: 90370">No, there's no "feel" in it.Edwards theories predict things that do not happen. The parts that are true are duplicated in older and newer theories (different people like different games) the parts that are unique to the theory are provably wrong.This is observable reality. Not "feeling".Totally wrong.You can take a person who (unless they are lying about their own taste for some inscrutable reason) says they want thing x. Take one who wants thing y. Film them both being satisfied at the same moment in a game in their separate things. Ask them if that's what happened.To the degree we can be sure any preferences in sociology are true, we can be sure a game can satisfy all 3 GNS goals simultaneously in one instance of play. (For any given value of "instance" from a 3 second spurt to a whole campaign.)So: Edwards. Is. Wrong.The ONLY limit on our ability to say that is the limit of sociology itself (sans people being hooked up to wires)--that is: it is vulnerable to a mass conspiracy of everyone involved lying to get a given result, including people who have no investment in the outcome either way.You're completely wrong here. The flaws in GNS are not subjective or fudgable, they're objective and totalizing.GNS makes ABSOLUTE predictions not "X usually happens" but "X and Y CAN NEVER happen together". This means all you need is ONE counterexample to disprove it. There's no opinion in it.The theory "strawberries don't exist" is wrong as soon as you find a strawberry. The theory 3 kinds of fun can't happen at once is disproved as soon as that happens ever in human history.Yes, it's a good way to identify people who aren't very rigorous or thoughtful. This is back to the "phrenology taught me to use a protractor" thing. By which standard NO idea is so stupid you shouldn't just keep saying it over and over.Yes, people can learn from dumb pseudoscience. But it doesn't mean that having believed in the dumb pseudoscience doesn't mark them as unreliable.People who ever believed in GNS should be treated like people who not only once, as adults, had a passionate belief for phrenology, but actually helped phrenologists spread their worldview.Great example! FATE is the worst imaginable result of a game theory. If people had realized GNS was bunk, maybe we never would have had FATE and all the terrible things FATE spawned, like the harassment campaigns, the terrible business practies hidden under halo-polishing, the nepotistic relationship between Evil Hat and other folks in the RPG-o-sphere, the creepy Tipper-Gore-esque attack on Kingdom Death, the hours upon hours of bored would-be-players and the unimaginably horrible generic artwork which, once seen can never be unseen and, once made, can never be unmade. I can think of no worse outcome for RPGs than the existence of FATE, since, unlike FATAL, it is actually popular enough to make money for the toxic people involved with it.You just proved exactly my point: the world would be a better place without GNS.</blockquote>

Verification