"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

[Manbearcat]

That's important, though. Why else would I spend all this time working on these sick pythons, brah?

 

[Emberashh]

I dunno, I always see random encounters as time pressure and a way to spice up a journey. Having it 'make sense' is a secondary concern.

Personally I despise Gygaxian Naturalism, I'm an anti-simulationist kinda guy. I think it has lead to fun anecdotes and mostly overcomplicared lore and justification. Gameableness trumps realism, hell--aesthetic trumps realism for me. I'm so happy that it's been largely abandoned in modern DnD and most other rules system.

Realism reminds me of worthless survival sims on Steam and overly complicated rulesets trying to consider the bullet trajectory of a gunshot when it hits your biceps when you're wearing t-shirts. It reminds me of boring martials while casters get to casts Meteors and teleports willy-nilly.

You're confusing realism for verisimilutude, which is more what Gygaxian Naturalism results in.

And you're also hinging your thoughts on bad games. That doesn't really speak to the value of either thing so much as it does to those games not being very good.

 

[Fifth Element]

I was referring to the book being dismissed.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of my post, of course.

 

[Emberashh]

This is a blatant misrepresentation of my post, of course.

When the context is you trying to downplay what the book has to say, when said book is recognized by game designers, amateur and professional, as having the right of things?

As I said, there's better ways to disagree than to just dismiss, via a wishy washy attempt to reframe it, a widely accepted book on the subject of games as an artform, whilst, I'll add, offering no actual counterpoints of your own.

If you disagree, you'd be better off having an actual conversation and speaking to why you think games aren't an artform. If you don't disagree, then I can't fathom what idiosyncrasy lead to you feeling compelled to post as you did.

 

[Fifth Element]

When the context is you trying to downplay what the book has to say, when said book is recognized by game designers, amateur and professional, as having the right of things?

As I said, there's better ways to disagree than to just dismiss, via a wishy washy attempt to reframe it, a widely accepted book on the subject of games as an artform, whilst, I'll add, offering no actual counterpoints of your own.

If you disagree, you'd be better off having an actual conversation and speaking to why you think games aren't an artform. If you don't disagree, then I can't fathom what idiosyncrasy lead to you feeling compelled to post as you did.

I suggested a better way to present the book - that it makes an argument. Which is what it does.

Your first paragraph here is an argument from authority.

Your second paragraph is a blatant misrepresentation. In fact what I said was WHAT IF someone doesn't consider that work authoritative? Putting forth the POSSIBILITY that some may not consider it correct, and then suggesting a better way to present it to account for this possibility.

Your third paragraph makes an assumption about my position for which you have no evidence. I never said I disagree, I only commented on the fact that some people could disagree WITH THAT PARTICULAR WORK'S arguments. In fact I don't disagree. So I would also recommend that you take more care in reading peoples' posts, and make fewer assumptions.

 

[Emberashh]

I suggested a better way to present the book - that it makes an argument. Which is what it does.

Your first paragraph here is an argument from authority.

Your second paragraph is a blatant misrepresentation. In fact what I said was WHAT IF someone doesn't consider that work authoritative? Putting forth the POSSIBILITY that some may not consider it correct, and then suggesting a better way to present it to account for this possibility.

Your third paragraph makes an assumption about my position for which you have no evidence. I never said I disagree, I only commented on the fact that some people could disagree WITH THAT PARTICULAR WORK'S arguments. In fact I don't disagree. So I would also recommend that you take more care in reading peoples' posts, and make fewer assumptions.

If you don't disagree, then I can't fathom what idiosyncrasy lead to you feeling compelled to post as you did.

My suggestion is to let it go. Nobody here is going to benefit from what you're trying to do. And it frankly says more about you that you think anybody who'd walk into this topic and read so far up to that post needs that kind of patronizing coddling.

People can think for themselves. They don't need you telling them one way or another how to think about something.

And to reiterate, my suggestion is to let it go. This is not an invitation for you to keep trying to argue with me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I suggested a better way to present the book - that it makes an argument. Which is what it does.

Your first paragraph here is an argument from authority.

Your second paragraph is a blatant misrepresentation. In fact what I said was WHAT IF someone doesn't consider that work authoritative? Putting forth the POSSIBILITY that some may not consider it correct, and then suggesting a better way to present it to account for this possibility.

Your third paragraph makes an assumption about my position for which you have no evidence. I never said I disagree, I only commented on the fact that some people could disagree WITH THAT PARTICULAR WORK'S arguments. In fact I don't disagree. So I would also recommend that you take more care in reading peoples' posts, and make fewer assumptions.

Welcome to EnWorld, lol.