Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8656805" data-attributes="member: 6779310">The biggest problem with GNS is that advocates for it don't all mean the same by it, since Edwards' view on it changed, and he always preached his most recent version.By the end of the big model, they'd made the entire thing in an echo chamber.THe initial essay, provided one doesn't insist that each item can only fit in the points of the triangle,  provides a means of comparing ones preferences and the rules. I'm somewhere near the middle of the graph... towards the gamist corner, but definitely not in the gamist corner.My first encounters with Ron were all negative, because he couldn't accept that anyone wasn't firmly in one corner, and his accusations of self-deception arising from that. His methodology was fine at first; by the time I'd encountered the RPGForge, he was almost literally chasing out anyone challenging his ideas. Which makes the (otherwise reasonable) research process entirely ruined by lack of criticism. Academic criticism is essential.GNS the initial essay is useful in that it provides pretty clear definitions, and it allows one to assess one's place of preference, and to categorize games. But any use of it should include a link to the initial essay... I'll also note: no more credible academician in the English speaking world has arisen with a reasonable rigor to their methodology than Ron. The problem is his training is in life sciences, specifically zoology... not social sciences, and so he blows the standards for sociological and psychological research. He also seems to lack the mathematical prowess to analyze the data he generated effectively. And he treated study subjects as peer review...  which makes his credibility dubious, especially the latter works. Shannon Applecline is farm more rigourous, but isn't doing the same type of research; Applecline is doing history, not evaluation of what makes a game work for clade X but not for clade Y... Applecline has become, if not the definitive, the most authoritative historian of Roleplaying Games in print.I'm too lazy to do similar research to either - what I've read of Applecline is nifty.</blockquote>

Verification