Any rpg theory is a picture of actual roleplaying. A picture may be a simple sketch, a portrait, or a caricature. No picture is the the thing itself, it's just a picture - but the three different kinds of pictures each have different purposes.

A sketch is a brief description which covers a few elements, but not fully, and not all elements; but it nonetheless shows us something. The sketch artist is telling us what's struck them as interesting and definitive about the subject.

A portrait presents a particular view, which may or may not be flattering, but it's pretty thorough compared to a sketch. The portraitist is trying to present a complete picture of the subject.

A caricature exagerrates certain features for humour or mockery. The caricaturist is trying to make you see the subject as they do.

GNS says it's a portrait, but in fact it's a caricature.

...I don't think you've quite hit it with that analogy, but that's not bad.

QuoteAnd you guys are still following the Gospel of Ron.

GNS is bollocks. The categories are arbitrary and meaningless. My daily horoscope in the newspaper has more insight into my game play style than does GNS.

Once you accept the three definitions (using the word "definition" in its most generously loose sense), then you basically have to accept that "Narrativist" is the only worthwhile approach to play. Trying to discuss "Simulationism" with a GNS fan is like trying to debate the Holy Ghost with a Catholic - it's an intrinsic part of the faith, yet at the same time is very foggy and undefined to most of them. Once you even talk about the Holy Ghost seriously, you may as well just give up and go and get yourself baptised at the local cathedral - you've become a Catholic.

Likewise, once you talk about "Simulationist" seriously, you may as well just sign out of all your forums and join the Forge and story-games. You're accepting all their definitions and terms, however vague and ill-conceived. You've joined the Revolution.

QFUT!

Quoted for utmost truth. Go, JimBob.

We´ve had enough of this shit. Either denounce GNS, or leave for another venue to "discuss" this muddled trainwreck of incomplete refelection on games.

It´s against the principles of these boards, please honour them.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s against the principles of these boards, please honour them.

No it's not. This board is a haven for free speech. One can discuss nearly everything. Don't go trying to change the tone of this board while the Pundit is not around Sett.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniEither denounce GNS, or leave for another venue to "discuss" this muddled trainwreck of incomplete refelection on games.

"Spit on the big model!  Spit on it!  We want proof that you have shed those ridiculous ideas!"

God, man, that is some stupid shit you just spouted.

I think I'll start another ten threads on Big Model. Should be fun....

Quote from: droogI think I'll start another ten threads on Big Model. Should be fun....

Hey, I've got a night to kill, and what's left of my bottle of rum.

Throw down, baby, I'm in.

QuoteOne can discuss nearly everything. Don't go trying to change the tone of this board while the Pundit is not around Sett.

Actually I´m the last sane person left keeping the tone!

Be enlightened:

QuoteSo please do NOT come in here talking about GNS or other Forge theories as if those were acceptable theories or proven fact that everyone takes for granted. They do not. Especially here. In fact, here it is taken for granted, due to the miracle of common sense, that GNS and almost anything else that's come out of the Forge is utter bullshit, mental diarrea of the worst kind, and that there are turds floating in gutters with more claim to being viable gaming theories than GNS. This forum is an attempt at working with theory to actually do something productive, and to be quite possibly the only place on the entire net where you can talk about theory without having to pretend that GNS works or is real.

Quote from: droogI think I'll start another ten threads on Big Model. Should be fun....

You do that. I'll contribute although I don't think you're talking about Bridget Nielsen...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniBe enlightened:

That crap you posted means nothing. Nothing.

Regards,
David R

Doesn't say you can't talk about them at all, Sett. Just says you can't expect to find unflinching support. I had all that out with the Pundoodle months ago.

You are conspiring to change the boards!
Here we have proof!

Alert the Swine-Watch, man the reply buttons, send forth a messenger to all of the proxies!

Quote from: JimBobOzAny rpg theory is a picture of actual roleplaying. A picture may be a simple sketch, a portrait, or a caricature. No picture is the the thing itself, it's just a picture - but the three different kinds of pictures each have different purposes.

A sketch is a brief description which covers a few elements, but not fully, and not all elements; but it nonetheless shows us something. The sketch artist is telling us what's struck them as interesting and definitive about the subject.

A portrait presents a particular view, which may or may not be flattering, but it's pretty thorough compared to a sketch. The portraitist is trying to present a complete picture of the subject.

A caricature exagerrates certain features for humour or mockery. The caricaturist is trying to make you see the subject as they do.

GNS says it's a portrait, but in fact it's a caricature.

...and sometimes it might be a three-panel comic strip that after looking at it awhile  you STILL think "What the fuck were they smoking?"

Quote from: SettembriniYou are conspiring to change the boards!
Here we have proof!

Alert the Swine-Watch, man the reply buttons, send forth a messenger to all of the proxies!

You're on drugs, aren't you?

QuoteDoesn't say you can't talk about them at all, Sett.

Which is why I, we, must defend!