Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8626655" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I do think graduating from &quot;an optional thing in a follow-up core book&quot; to &quot;directly present in both the player-facing and DM-facing initial core books&quot; is an important step up. Do you have a page citation? I skimmed through the 3.5e DMG2 and couldn't find anything about this (and it isn't mentioned in the unfortunately very brief index.) As for your requested response...I honestly just don't have much to say about this. As stated previously, I think GNS was important for highlighting issues and was heavily shaped by the time in which it grew (where what I have called Score-and-Achievement remained overwhelmingly dominant, but both Simulation and Emulation were growing). I just think that it has some faults, in part because it lumps together things that I think should stay separated. As I said, it to me reads like an attempt to explain how there was a space of playable possibility that had up to that point gone untouched. I suppose you could argue that that was some kind of &quot;prediction,&quot; but it felt more like formulating the theory so that the already-known, already-felt absence could have a name and a shape. Without its rise, I think many games played today would still be played as they are, there just would be fewer (and less fully) coherent statements we could make about them and what they're trying to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8626655, member: 6790260"] I do think graduating from "an optional thing in a follow-up core book" to "directly present in both the player-facing and DM-facing initial core books" is an important step up. Do you have a page citation? I skimmed through the 3.5e DMG2 and couldn't find anything about this (and it isn't mentioned in the unfortunately [I]very[/I] brief index.) As for your requested response... I honestly just don't have much to say about this. As stated previously, I think GNS was important for highlighting issues and was heavily shaped by the time in which it grew (where what I have called Score-and-Achievement remained overwhelmingly dominant, but both Simulation and Emulation were growing). I just think that it has some faults, in part because it lumps together things that I think should stay separated. As I said, it to me reads like an attempt to explain how there was a space of playable possibility that had up to that point gone untouched. I suppose you could argue that that was some kind of "prediction," but it felt more like formulating the theory so that the already-known, already-felt absence could have a [I]name[/I] and a [I]shape[/I]. Without its rise, I think many games played today would still be played as they are, there just would be fewer (and less fully) coherent statements we could make about them and what they're trying to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification