Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8656478" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, for instance, Edwards (AFAIK) doesn't ever really discuss a desire to remain constantly in Actor Stance as a part of an agenda. This is something that is frequently brought up, or the slightly less extreme version of it where players desire not to engage in 'out of fiction' thought process. GNS, like any analytical tool, isn't meant to cover all bases. It does DESCRIBE salient features of how you go about process simulation, and points out quite effectively some ways it differs from other techniques. This further leads into reasons why some games do one or another thing better. I don't think that Edwards' choice of agendas is arbitrary, as you may be trying to imply though. There are several points where he has gone all the way down to bedrock &quot;what are people doing and saying at the table&quot; and listed ALL the options, and then built a theory from there. Your 'ice cream theory' would likewise be pretty fundamental if it showed that there are only 3 possible 'flavor agendas' by appealing to the techniques by which ice cream is made and thus demonstrating those are the possible choices, inherently. Now, we can argue the quality of Edwards' observations, or any other theory's basis, and that's a perfectly legitimate activity. It does require more than just complaints that the categories used don't suite one's tastes though! It really requires following the argument you are criticizing all the way down to its fundamental axiomatic structure and showing that either the thesis doesn't follow, or that those axioms are inapplicable/flawed/incomplete in some way. I have yet to see anyone actually do that with GNS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8656478, member: 82106"] Well, for instance, Edwards (AFAIK) doesn't ever really discuss a desire to remain constantly in Actor Stance as a part of an agenda. This is something that is frequently brought up, or the slightly less extreme version of it where players desire not to engage in 'out of fiction' thought process. GNS, like any analytical tool, isn't meant to cover all bases. It does DESCRIBE salient features of how you go about process simulation, and points out quite effectively some ways it differs from other techniques. This further leads into reasons why some games do one or another thing better. I don't think that Edwards' choice of agendas is arbitrary, as you may be trying to imply though. There are several points where he has gone all the way down to bedrock "what are people doing and saying at the table" and listed ALL the options, and then built a theory from there. Your 'ice cream theory' would likewise be pretty fundamental if it showed that there are only 3 possible 'flavor agendas' by appealing to the techniques by which ice cream is made and thus demonstrating those are the possible choices, inherently. Now, we can argue the quality of Edwards' observations, or any other theory's basis, and that's a perfectly legitimate activity. It does require more than just complaints that the categories used don't suite one's tastes though! It really requires following the argument you are criticizing all the way down to its fundamental axiomatic structure and showing that either the thesis doesn't follow, or that those axioms are inapplicable/flawed/incomplete in some way. I have yet to see anyone actually do that with GNS. [/QUOTE]

Verification