Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4507416" data-attributes="member: 710">Basically, the critic leveled against GNS seem to come from a certain degree of elitimsn among Edwards and his fans, and that some (especially Ron Edwards himself) seem to try to redefine terms so it becomes harder to understand then, and that they possibly even change the meaning of what was originally understood by the terms. What a "normal" role-player would understand on casually reading the terms no longer is how they are being defined, confusing even Forgeists, and seemingly making the whole theory less useful, for reasons I don't understand. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Especially seems Ron limit narrative play to "discussing" morality or ethics in the game, which constricts its meaning and makes others, "narrative-seeming" aspects work less well. The example I remember is that a Star Wars game is "simulationist" if anger leads to the Dark Side, and good triumphs over evil, and narrative (but no longer really Star Wars) if you allow evil to triumph or anger (or the Dark Side) lead to good results. But this would mean that the "Death Flag" might be something you could find in both types of games - Simulationist or Narrativist, since the player in the "Anger leads to the Dark Side" Simulation game might not want his angry Jedi to die before he has turned to the Dark Side - and he might exactly choose to Raise the Death Flag in the scene where the character has the chance to redeem himself...</blockquote>

Verification