Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6358699" data-attributes="member: 4937">'Skillful play'?&nbsp; 'Monte Haul'?&nbsp; 'Death Dungeon'?&nbsp; 'Munchkin'?&nbsp; 'Power gamer'?&nbsp; 'Realistic'?&nbsp; 'Rule zero'?&nbsp; This isn't a new feature of RPG discussion.&nbsp; I could bring up examples from the EnWorld boards, but I don't want to draw myself into more arguments than I'm already in.I'm not a fan of Ron Edwards either and yes he is a HUGE part of the problem.But part of it isn't his fault.&nbsp; Part of it is that the short phrases and terms where stand ins and mere pointers to larger complex ideas.&nbsp; 'Fail Forward' makes perfect sense in the context of certain common RPG narrative problems.&nbsp; It only starts becoming nonsense if you think that it is a universal tool that needs to be applied to every single fortune check.&nbsp;&nbsp; When you do start thinking of it as that universal tool, what you have to do to continue justifying it is make it fuzzy and vague because otherwise it would be clear that it really didn't fit.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that does go back to Ron Edwards and his ego.&nbsp; Personally, I'm fine with the terms 'gamist', 'simulationist', and 'narrativist'.&nbsp; The problem is not with terms but with the GNS framework.&nbsp;&nbsp; The GNS framework is just dead wrong in multiple fundamental assumptions.&nbsp;&nbsp; In defending it though, Ron Edwards has to make sure that the terms are vague enough to be non-falsifiable, which in turn undermines their utility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6358699, member: 4937"] 'Skillful play'? 'Monte Haul'? 'Death Dungeon'? 'Munchkin'? 'Power gamer'? 'Realistic'? 'Rule zero'? This isn't a new feature of RPG discussion. I could bring up examples from the EnWorld boards, but I don't want to draw myself into more arguments than I'm already in. I'm not a fan of Ron Edwards either and yes he is a HUGE part of the problem. But part of it isn't his fault. Part of it is that the short phrases and terms where stand ins and mere pointers to larger complex ideas. 'Fail Forward' makes perfect sense in the context of certain common RPG narrative problems. It only starts becoming nonsense if you think that it is a universal tool that needs to be applied to every single fortune check. When you do start thinking of it as that universal tool, what you have to do to continue justifying it is make it fuzzy and vague because otherwise it would be clear that it really didn't fit. And that does go back to Ron Edwards and his ego. Personally, I'm fine with the terms 'gamist', 'simulationist', and 'narrativist'. The problem is not with terms but with the GNS framework. The GNS framework is just dead wrong in multiple fundamental assumptions. In defending it though, Ron Edwards has to make sure that the terms are vague enough to be non-falsifiable, which in turn undermines their utility. [/QUOTE]

Verification