Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8653083" data-attributes="member: 71235">This is true of any specialty, and has little to do with its age. D&D is way over twenty years old and plenty of terms and concepts in that game have changed from edition to edition. GNS's age is similarly not the issue.Also GNS has primary documents that are still accessible on the web. It's possible to learn the terminology. You don't have to agree with it (I certainly don't), but I am capable of applying it and understanding it in context because I saw the framework being used and went and educated myself.Yes, this is true, and it's clear from this very statement that you understand that and could engage in discussion within a GNS framework, even if you hate and disagree with the model. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Not that you have to!Particularly when models and frameworks are in competition (and using the same words to mean different things), it's important to be clear about which one(s) you are using. The alternative is to continually explain everything from the ground up—or develop your own, new, jargon.As an aside, I will point out that the ancestor of this thread, about supposing D&D is gamist, explicitly mentioned GDS, GNS and other models, thereby inviting their use, and still people crapped all over folks for using them, even those who bent over backwards to be explicit about which model/terminology they were using, up to prefixing each individual term with the model. Some folks weren't explicit about which model they were using, and that's their bad, and it's totally fine to call them on it and say "Wait, which model are you using here?" And in threads where models aren't invited, it would similarly be common courtesy, in a mixed forum like this, to preface one's post with something like, "Well in GDS/GNS/GEN theory (or whatever)..."As a further aside—and it wasn't you doing this but I feel it's worth pointing out, because it's prevalent—it is not cool to argue that the model and its terminology are vague or invalid, especially when it is, as people are fond of pointing out, 20 years old and therefore rather well settled. It is further not cool to argue that the model was misapplied or used for unsavory purpose X and therefore the model in and of itself is bad. As I've repeatedly said, I do not agree 100% with what Edwards wrote in his core essays, let alone some of his spectacularly inflammatory forum posts, but I can have a productive, useful conversation using the basic theory, including reasoned debate about its internal contradictions.Language evolves, sure, but we have dictionaries (and grammars) of, say, Old English, so that it's possible to read those documents and have a good idea of what they were saying.</blockquote>

Verification