Quote from: droogI think you'd better remember this when talking to me: I'm a politics major specialising in ideology and political theory. I see power struggles everywhere, including right here. Naturally, I can come up with a hundred examples from games I have played.

If the irony of the doesn't get you...

Why of course GNS, and particularly the ongoing-power-struggle aspect, makes sense - I see power struggle everywhere!

John Morrow is my new hero.

And why didn't Ron call them Inflexible (Coherent) and Flexible (Incoherent)?  It's obvious.  He's using terms that cast upon the onject his own prejudices. In the best of worlds, he would have called them Coherent and Flexible, thereby putting a positive spin on both.

And then the Theory could go on to talk about how to accomodate both in the best fashion.  If you're playing with a group that is Flexible, here's how to tell, and here's how to keep that group together and here a re games that support you.  If you're playing with a Coherent group, here's how to tell, here's how to keep it going, and here are some games that are good bets you'll enjoy. Keep it positive.

But that seems never to have been the goal.

Hey, can we determine the different goals of Gaming Theory people - their Agendas?  Like - Inclusive, Exclusive, and Reactive?

Quote from: SettembriniIf you are good at it, then you will clearly see, that GNS is an ideology with low analytical value.

And you should have an understanding of the aims of groups.
And the "coherence" you attribute to GNS is not the goal, cannot be the goal of Forger action.

They promote and disseminate their Thematic games.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me take as an example Thomas Hobbes, a thinker to whom I am ideologically opposed. Hobbes nevertheless represents an important moment in the development of liberal political thought. He dug the channel all subsequent liberal thought has flowed through, to use the words of CB McPherson.

Similarly, even you have said that you discover interesting insights in the discussions. The foundation and bedrock of those discussions is the analytical framework (constructed ad hoc and over time) of the Big Model.

No gain without pain.

Quote from: James J SkachIf the irony of the doesn't get you...

Why of course GNS, and particularly the ongoing-power-struggle aspect, makes sense - I see power struggle everywhere!

Quite so. But why is it ironic? Everybody brings a framework of reference along with them.

Quote from: droogThe foundation and bedrock of those discussions is the analytical framework (constructed ad hoc and over time) of the Big Model.

The foundation and bedrock of the things people find are observations that match someone's experienced reality.

The effort to make it an all-encompassing analytical framework is where it fell apart.  And not because it didn't or doesn't include things that are accurate, but because that effort was so frought with a bias and a goal.

As JimBob has said in this discussion if you accept A is true, then you set out to prove A, it's not surprising you will be successful.

Cuts both ways, right?

Quote from: droogI can use D&D to play a narrativist game, no doubt. But I see other games that go more directly to what I want. I play those games instead.

IHO, this is the problem with coherence, and it's desire as a goal for game design.  Look at what John Morrow said earlier in the thread:

Quote from: John MorrowThe new group I play D&D with (one person overlap with my regular group) plays incoherent games. Great fun. Heck, we were using D&D 3.5 to play a game with a great deal of deep role-playing and very little combat and it worked just fine.

Now here you have a groups that plays a deep-role playing game - given John's other comments about being Narrativist, I assum that means it was the Agenda they had.  But at some point, combat did break out, and they used D&D 3.5 to handle that as well. So what do people who, like John, want a lot of deep role-play (Nar, if you choose), but want some combat/challenge (Gam, if you choose), and wrap it all up in the simulation of a fantasy world?  In my little corner of the world and in my limited experience, it's some mix of these that people play - game to game, group to group, preference to preference. But in TBM, it's Incoherent.

Quote from: droog'Drift' is not the same thing as 'incoherent'. According to theory, in fact, drift occurs in order to make a game more fit for the group's agenda.

I'm sorry, it's Coherent with Drift?  How many holes are in a boat before it's drift wood?

But isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work?  Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

Quote from: James J SkachNow here you have a groups that plays a deep-role playing game - given John's other comments about being Narrativist, I assum that means it was the Agenda they had.  But at some point, combat did break out, and they used D&D 3.5 to handle that as well. So what do people who, like John, want a lot of deep role-play (Nar, if you choose), but want some combat/challenge (Gam, if you choose), and wrap it all up in the simulation of a fantasy world?  In my little corner of the world and in my limited experience, it's some mix of these that people play - game to game, group to group, preference to preference. But in TBM, it's Incoherent.

Just because you have combat in a game doesn't make it gamist, nor does it mean that your narr game is suddenly incoherent.

QuoteI'm sorry, it's Coherent with Drift?  How many holes are in a boat before it's drift wood?

You tell me. My GM Herbie can solve everything.

Quote from: James J SkachBut isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work?  Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

I just wish people would get it all straight first.

Quote from: droogMy basic problem with you is your insistence on the Viking Hat GM model and your use of fudging.

Like I said, this is something that deserves its own thread, GMing styles.

On the one hand I post the occasional joke about wearing the Viking Hat. On the other hand, I post a lengthy description of how I created my best game ever - best because I asked everyone what they wanted, and carefully created the game and its style based on that. So whether I really dominate the game session as my personal ego trip, or whether it's closer to what you'd call, "shared narrative control," well, I leave to your judgment. You can go on the occasional joke, or the lengthy description.

Yes, I do fudge.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd why didn't Ron call them Inflexible (Coherent) and Flexible (Incoherent)?  It's obvious.  He's using terms that cast upon the onject his own prejudices. In the best of worlds, he would have called them Coherent and Flexible, thereby putting a positive spin on both.

No, because now you're naming things in terms of your own prejudices. "Flexible" is almost always taken to be a good thing. But Edwards' idea is that two or more styles of play can't be accomodated in one game or session. If you try to have Gamist and Simulationist things in one game, or one session, it won't work, you'll get a mess, and no-one will have any fun. So he had to call it "Incoherent."

Whereas "flexible" implies something good, to most people. It implies that you can combine different styles of play into one "coherent" whole.

We choose words which express our meaning. Edwards' meaning was that combining different styles doesn't work. So he had to call it "Incoherent." If he'd called it "flexible", he'd be saying the opposite thing - that combinations work, in fact that it should work.

Quote from: James J SkachBut isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work? Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

Or you can just ignore large parts of reality, or assume that it's bad data. "You were having fun in a way that proves my theory wrong? Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun! But it's not your fault, you were just brain-damaged from that bad gaming, just like a victim of child abuse doesn't know what good sex is, you don't know what good gaming is. So my theory is preserved!"

Toss out the data which doesn't fit your theory, and then you don't have to change your theory at all

Quote from: JimBobOzOn the one hand I post the occasional joke about wearing the Viking Hat. On the other hand, I post a lengthy description of how I created my best game ever - best because I asked everyone what they wanted, and carefully created the game and its style based on that. So whether I really dominate the game session as my personal ego trip, or whether it's closer to what you'd call, "shared narrative control," well, I leave to your judgment. You can go on the occasional joke, or the lengthy description.

Yes, I do fudge.

I want not to get personal here. There are other reasons you might go for that style than ego. I'll also take your word for it that you're not as extreme as you sometimes portray yourself. It actually seems to me from your stuff that you've either read Forge narr stuff or spontaneously recreated some of the ideas.

I don't want to play a game where people fudge the dice. That's straying into a kind of storytelling I'm not keen on. I like randomisers.

Quote from: JimBobOz"You were having fun in a way that proves my theory wrong? Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!

You know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorYou know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Peace,
-Joel

I don't know if this counts, but it's a quote from one of the links provided earlier in the thread:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThat would give us Gamism and Narrativism as "real" RPG goals, and Simulationism as a historical, perhaps even regrettable artifact of bad design.

But I could sure see someone taking it as such.

I'm sure people with more time invested in Forge-ness will come up with something better...