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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6587298" data-attributes="member: 996">Isn't this the same guy who self-identified as 'narrativist?'The definition was dismissive:Frankly, the article you linked, for all that it is a nuanced dismissal of balance, is still a dismissal.  I mean, did it result in a clear definition of 'balance?'  Did it present a way of evaluating balance?  No.  All it did was assert that balance wasn't a gamist-exclusive issue, without ever addressing or even acknowledging the issue (labeling it, up front, a "sorta-issue").  It was a "STFU about balance!" rant.  Self-identified, as a rant.  I'm sorry.  I know you're a forge initiate and have found value in it.  But for all the veneer of intellectualism, all I'm seeing in the glossary is the the Roll v Role thing again, just very elaborately re-stated.  Any derived-from-within theory of a sub-culture that starts by dividing it up into us-and-thems is immediately suspect in my book.  The older GNS articles, that acknowledged that all three were aspects of RPGs in general, and that most gamers wouldn't just be one or another seemed a bit more reasonable.  This looks like it's arguing that a game that tries to combine even two 'Creative Agendas' is in danger of being 'dysfunctional,' yet no RPG could really exist as such without all three.  Looks like a convenient foundation for rationalizing likes & dislikes without needing to confront the actual quality of the games in question, not to mention justifying elitist attitudes.  I mean, I've never gotten a good vibe from the way GNS gets thrown around, but this particular one reeks of prejudicial framing of a debate.  "These are the definitions we'll use for the debate, as a result one side of the debate is already wrong, by definition."</blockquote>

Verification