Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6242792" data-attributes="member: 6688937"></blockquote>Precisely! Apply that same logic to the labeling of the games! That's exactly the language gap we're talking about. I mean, I don't personally care all that much how we use the term "Forge" game, but I certainly would lean towards it meaning more than "there was a forum for this game there once" by default (at least in connotation, if not denotation.) Especially with additional superlative language magnifying the connection.I'm not trying to cast doubt on the intentions, merits, or even the utility of what folks did at the Forge. All I'm suggesting is that for the vast majority of posters, their first introduction to the Forge likely happens by being directed at those articles (previously the forums as well, I would presume.) I know that when I first encountered the Forge, its purpose as an incubator was lost behind the fact that most of its games seemed to be testing or presenting the theories they were exploring in the forums. I think, for a lot of people, that theory is much more of what the Forge "is about" than the incubator stuff, especially as the theory still echoes around the 'net discussions like these after the Forge ceased functioning.Maybe something to that. I know that my training and professional experiences can often color how I see things. For instance I view things like the GNS theory with a great deal of skepticism simply because they do not have what I consider clear foundations in mathematics. Sorry, bad choice of wording on my part. I was intending to direct that at the design process for a game. By that, I mean that within their explorations of what eventually became GNS theory, the Forge participants often created games that ranged from practical to experimental and barely playable. That thin line between principles and advocacy is, IMO, very blurred to the casual (if there is such a thing for such dense texts!) reader when essays and posts often include discussions of game as "dysfunctional", "drifted", and many other (quasi)judgemental terms. Certainly, game designers have employed varying levels and aspects of GNS theory/awareness to their games since the theory was developed.Note also that this sort of thing changes over the history of the site, depending on random circumstance as well as the stage of development in the theory. There were times when a plethora of games (or modifications to other games) would explode on the site just to try and see what impact various mechanics had on play, and other times when discussion was almost exclusively about play at table of other games.For a lot of the small games that I consider to be clearly "Forge games"...there's not a lot of that independence to go 'round.[/QUOTE]

Verification