Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4020976" data-attributes="member: 29206">Absolutely none of those are &quot;correct&quot;, no, but I've pretty much dropped out of this thread since it turned from a discussion of 4e's position on the scale of world emulation to GNS discussion.The Forge has always had a terminal problem with term definitions, and given the tendency of RPG debates to devolve into arguments over the words we're using, this creates an unbeatable combination of fail and lose.I'll just say that, to the best of my knowledge, what you described as &quot;gamism&quot; doesn't fall into any of the three Forge-recognized creative agendas (but is occasionally referred to in various places as &quot;cheetoism&quot;), what you described as &quot;narrativism&quot; seems to just be the act of roleplay, and what you described as &quot;simulationism&quot; is more along the lines of the Gamist creative agenda. In my opinion, at least, you'd be best off not trying too hard to learn the terms unless you actually care about debating RPG theory on some of the sites and boards where it's discussed - most of the people you'll find bringing those terms into discussion outside of those places knows just enough theory to start the debate into the spiral of semantic lose I mentioned earlier.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imban, post: 4020976, member: 29206"] Absolutely none of those are "correct", no, but I've pretty much dropped out of this thread since it turned from a discussion of 4e's position on the scale of world emulation to GNS discussion. The Forge has always had a terminal problem with term definitions, and given the tendency of RPG debates to devolve into arguments over the words we're using, this creates an unbeatable combination of fail and lose. I'll just say that, to the best of my knowledge, what you described as "gamism" doesn't fall into any of the three Forge-recognized creative agendas (but is occasionally referred to in various places as "cheetoism"), what you described as "narrativism" seems to just be the act of roleplay, and what you described as "simulationism" is more along the lines of the Gamist creative agenda. In my opinion, at least, you'd be best off not trying too hard to learn the terms unless you actually care about debating RPG theory on some of the sites and boards where it's discussed - most of the people you'll find bringing those terms into discussion outside of those places knows just enough theory to start the debate into the spiral of semantic lose I mentioned earlier. [/QUOTE]

Verification