Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8653707" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Definitely also a frustrating framing!Sure, but people also need to be on the same page about that encoding for the analysis to be productive. Otherwise you end up with… Well, online forum discussions.Maybe it helps people who don’t enjoy that kind of play to conceptualize it in a way that makes sense to them. And I think that’s what makes it feel so condescending. It seems to exist to explain to people who really love the style of play it defines as Narrativist, why anyone would like those other, non-Narrativist types of games. But the explanations it gives seem not to resonate with a significant portion of people who do like those sorts of play, which indicates to me that it’s probably missing something.As a simple analogy, imagine I love vanilla ice cream and hate chocolate and strawberry, and I invented a theory explaining the three Flavor Agendas, which I called “Fruity,” “Dark,” and “Rich,” and claimed that ice cream can only serve one flavor agenda at a time. An ice cream can involve multiple Flavor Agendas, like if you put chocolate chips in your strawberry ice cream, but that only allows you to shift back and forth between Flavor Agendas, you can’t actually combine chocolate and strawberry, that would create an Incoherent Flavor. So well-made ice cream should really try to understand what Flavor Agenda it’s serving and try to focus on serving that as best it can, rather than trying to combine flavors. Also, I explained the Fruity Agenda as being about reproducing the flavor of a specific fruit as accurately as possible, the Dark agenda as being about emphasizing intense, low flavor notes like bitterness and earthiness, and the Rich Agenda as being about accentuating the mellow, creamy, dairy notes… People might think I was missing the mark on why they enjoy their favorite ice cream flavor. Especially if it’s Neapolitan.</blockquote>

Verification