Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5638796" data-attributes="member: 81381">Actually, no, that's exactly where the theory falls down, because there was never a clear explanation on what the terms actually meant. To be clear, everybody thinks they know what the terms mean, but consistantly in it's heyday, any given person trying to explain the theory on a forum would find themself contradicted by somebody claiming greater authority and knowlege.  The essays on GNS would be epic affairs, but they never really managed to explain what the hell they were on about in a clear or concise way- and when they claimed that they did, it was only by using definitions that themselves relied upon other definitions, that in turn needed essays to explain, and still only did so poorly. And to be frank, if all GNS does is offer a broad description of terms, then it's predecessor- GDS- works far better for that goal. Because it doesn't pretend to be something more than it is.  And again, the people who used to act as proponents for GNS have themselves move on from it. Don't be pathetic. I get the impression that you think you're being clever. You're are in error. There's nothing about the falability of theories that validates the exceptionally fallable and incoherent theory that is GNS. By that logic, we must abandon all rigor- and that's kinda the point of theories. You have to be able to test them. You should be able to support them. They have to like, work, and junk, at least to some degree. So you're comparing GNS to newtonian physics. Ok, the problem is that one of these theories is a very functional and effective way of looking at the world, who's falability does not eclipse it's utility, enabling people to, for instance, launch lunar missions and build skyscrapers, and the other is a bunch of long-form wank about tabletop rpgs that, as a theory, barely even influenced the RPGs made by it's proponents, let alone anyone else's.</blockquote>

Verification