Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7396566" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, mostly I agree with you. Its NOT an essay which intends to explicate the whole 'standard narrative model' of gaming. It IS an essay ABOUT games of this kind and how different narration mechanisms can work or be problematic within them. Thus, while it explicitly eschews defining the model, it is actually a fairly coherent explication of key points OF that model. I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is 'twisting' it. He may be immersed in that conceptual space to an extent where his contextual understanding of the thing gives it weight and meaning to him which other people would need to get by going back to some of the more general Ron Edwards et al material to get. Honestly, the definition of 'backstory' is not that critical TO THE ESSAY, it was just important in the context of this thread! Now, maybe there's better things that could be quoted. I would perhaps do that, except I wasn't a Forge-ista and I really honestly am not all that firsthand familiar with the writings of Edwards, and others. Honestly I found a lot of it fairly tedious, doctrinaire, and (Edwards in particular) unsympathetic of contrary viewpoints. This may be one of the reasons that The Forge shut down (although I really don't know anything about that either). It became an echo chamber and also a focus for criticism. I know just saying 'Forge' or 'GNS' or whatever on many boards would start a fight! I guess that's faded somewhat, but I think there's still echoes of it in some of the more extreme 'OSR' reactionary nonsense and whatever. Anyway, not TOO much should be read into the Tuovinen essay, but it does make points relevant to the questions of world building that started this thread, and certainly addresses questions to ask about who has the responsibility/authority to author details about the world beyond character actions.</blockquote>

Verification