Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Roger" data-source="post: 4271357" data-attributes="member: 17420">There's a lot going on in this post (and the thread), so I'm going to try to start from the beginning.&nbsp; As is so often the case with RPG Theory, the beginning is definitions.&nbsp; I'll be quoting from the Glossary linked to in the thread creator's signature line.Coherence:&nbsp; Within GNS theory, this is a general term for play where everyone shares a focused priority on a single GNS mode or functional hybrid. Game designs are said to be coherent if they clearly encourage play of this sort: in particular by having mechanics which support the GNS mode encouraged by the text.Incoherence:&nbsp; Within GNS theory, play which includes incompatible combination of GNS priorities.Dysfunction:&nbsp; Common Forge term, meaning simply role-playing which is not fun. (Emphasis in the above is mine.)Which all leads me to this:&nbsp; A statement like &quot;This game is incoherent&quot; is perhaps best understood as &quot;My experiences with this game have not been fun.&quot;&quot;My experiences with this game&quot; rather than &quot;this game&quot;, because Coherence and Incoherence relate primarily to play experience.&quot;Not fun&quot; because a necessary component of Incoherence is dysfunction -- that is, lack of fun.&nbsp; The definitions above clearly make allowance for hybrid modes of play and compatible combinations.Assuming everyone is with me so far, a statement like &quot;My experiences with this game have not been fun&quot; is impossible to evaluate if the person making it does not share those experiences.&nbsp; We then merely end up with a quagmire of &quot;It wasn't fun for me!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Well it was fun for me, so you're wrong!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;No way!&quot; ad nauseam.Therefore, in order to make any progress in this thread, I sincerely hope that the original poster will share with us some of those play experiences which has led to the conclusion that the system operated in a dysfunctional manner.Cheers,Roger</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Roger, post: 4271357, member: 17420"] There's a lot going on in this post (and the thread), so I'm going to try to start from the beginning. As is so often the case with RPG Theory, the beginning is definitions. I'll be quoting from the Glossary linked to in the thread creator's signature line. [B]Coherence[/B]: Within GNS theory, this is a general term for play where everyone shares a focused priority on a single GNS mode [B]or functional hybrid[/B]. Game designs are said to be coherent if they [B]clearly encourage[/B] play of this sort: in particular [B]by having mechanics[/B] which support the GNS mode encouraged by the text. [B]Incoherence[/B]: Within GNS theory, play which includes [B]incompatible[/B] combination of GNS priorities. [B]Dysfunction[/B]: Common Forge term, meaning simply role-playing which is not fun. (Emphasis in the above is mine.) Which all leads me to this: A statement like "This game is incoherent" is perhaps best understood as "My experiences with this game have not been fun." "My experiences with this game" rather than "this game", because Coherence and Incoherence relate primarily to play experience. "Not fun" because a necessary component of Incoherence is dysfunction -- that is, lack of fun. The definitions above clearly make allowance for hybrid modes of play and compatible combinations. Assuming everyone is with me so far, a statement like "My experiences with this game have not been fun" is impossible to evaluate if the person making it does not share those experiences. We then merely end up with a quagmire of "It wasn't fun for me!" "Well it was fun for me, so you're wrong!" "No way!" ad nauseam. Therefore, in order to make any progress in this thread, I sincerely hope that the original poster will share with us some of those play experiences which has led to the conclusion that the system operated in a dysfunctional manner. Cheers, Roger [/QUOTE]

Verification