Quote from: SettembriniWhich is why I, we, must defend!

Well, of course. You're into gamism and you want to prove your guts and tactical ability.

Me, I just like to see the unfolding drama.

QuoteWell, of course. You're into gamism and you want to prove your guts and tactical ability.

Me, I just like to see the unfolding drama.                                                              __________________

Don´t try to take the seriousness of all this into the muddly puddles of humour. This is a WAR!

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t try to take the seriousness of all this into the muddly puddles of humour. This is a WAR!

Oh.

You are on drugs.

Somehow that makes it less funny.

I wish I had some drugs.

QuoteYou are on drugs.

Nope, I´m on cold turkey.

That's not a nice thing to call Levi!

Do you think this thread is ready?

See if the juice is clear.

Quote from: droogYou're on drugs, aren't you?

No, but he's Prussian.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is why I, we, must defend!

My dear Settembrini, your transparent efforts at shutting down the discourse do not fail to amuse me.

One day I'll tell you the story how I used to play Junta with Ole von Beust.

That day you will learn something about the infinitesimally subtle intricacies of pursuing an agenda, Mr. Sector Duke.

Quote from: SettembriniNope, I´m on cold turkey.

I'm on Wild Turkey.

Dear Pierce;

You had me at "I used to play Junta with"...

SO tempted to divulge details.

Sett, who's a foam-at-the-mouth conservative, would be mortified. He'd switch parties.

Interesting thread. There seem to be several different beefs that a lot of folks seem to have with the Forge/GNS/whatever, and they tend to get all bundled up and entangle together whenever the issue comes up. The issues, broadly, are something like: A) The Forgers (or some of them) are evil, deceitful conspirators that have a Sinister Agenda in promoting their Theory/games, B) The Forgers (or some) are pretentious pricks who are mean and rude and stuck-up to those who disagree, and C) the Theory itself is a load of crap for whatever reason.

I think it's far more profitable (to say nothing of friendly and inviting) to discuss these issues separately as much as possible. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to address some isolated point and recieving a dog-pile of "oh yeah? well, they're snobs, AND hate gamers, AND their ideas are retarded, so there!" Even if A, B, and C are all largely true, they don't follow from each other; one is not a proof of another. Hanging around here has been useful for exposure to a multude of dissenting perspectives on GNS/BM and starting to understand why people are skeptical or even upset and offended. But doing so is often a process or wading through shit to find gold.

So about this thread: the origila post seems to be asking about mostly B ("What's up with slighting other areas of gaming?") with a healthy dose of C ("Is this a deficiency in the scope of the Theory?") and just a splash of A ("Maybe there's an ignoble motive in this bias?"). These are all impossible to discuss at once. Some answers have been given mostly within the realms of B and C ("the favored area was the unscratched itch at the time, and that led to underdevelopment in other design areas, and a sort of rut for the movement"), but still there seem to be more responses in A-territory ("Yeah, of course that area was favored, 'cause Uncle Ronny said so and the sheep had to follow"). It's that kind of frustrating discussion-steering that frankly fules the skewing of the discourse toward "War" and battle-lines and entrenched positions.

The main voice for actually seriously debating C has been Jimbob, who's pretty clear and frank about not buying the theory as a model for gaming. That's cool, it's something we can talk about, without having to lapse into "Well, Ron's mean!" "No he's not!" territory.

(NOTE: I'm not saying nobody else is contributing to the discussion. But it's late and I'm not going to review the whole thread to catalog everyone's statements, cool?)

So, brass tacks time:

Quote from: JimBobOzThe point is that when you discuss things using their sloppy terminology, they've already mostly won the argument.

[SNIP]

The way to argue against GNS is to have your own ideas, expressed in your own words.

I can see this point, sort of. While I don't believe there's any kind of sinister "dialogue control" going on here, yes I agree that conceding a definition is conceding the point. One way to get around that (though not everyone's favorite thing to do, certainly not mine) is to agree, "OK, I don't believe your distinction is correct, but I'll accept your terminology purely provisionally so we can at least discuss the issue." Not perfect, but actually one way to argue your case might be to apply the terms you don't like and so demonstrate that they're flawed. In fact that's a major technique of logical reasoning: "let's plug that idea into a theoretical situation and see if it checks out--oh, no, see, it doesn't add up."

That said, I do think it's important to be able to express a concept in your own words as a test of true understanding.

Quote from: JimBobOzThing is, Levi, we have to be careful with this thing of seeing patterns everywhere. We like to think humans think logically, but that's not how our brains work. What happens is that we try to see patterns, to draw different things together. In fact, along with mathematic and linguistic and so on, "pattern recognition" is one of the measures of intelligence.

[SNIP]

That's what we do visually, we take bits of information and try to make them into a whole picture. We're so good at doing that, we even make pictures when there's nothing there. That's the purpose of the Rorsharch tests - show people a splodge, what do they see? What they see doesn't tell us anything about the splodge, it tells us about them.

So when someone categorises and describes your experience for you, they're revealing far more about themselves than they are about your experience. Your experience described and categorised by them is a Rorsharch test for them. If you feel their description is "true", that simply means you've got some inner similarity to that person, some sort of connection.

It is dangerous to start seeing patterns everywhere, but it's kind of a baby-with-the-bathwater attitude to dismiss pattern entirely for that reason. The universe does arrange itself into recognizable, repeated configurations, and when humans are involved, those configurations can be even more ordered than in the natural world. They can be awfully chaotic and irrational too, but patterns do exist.

Whether Ron and company hit one of ultimate significance is debatable, but your position is starting to sound dangerously close to a militant agnosticism, a denial that we can ever meaningfully apply pattern recognition to our lives.

As far as your inkblot analogy goes, I think it's flawed for the reason you mentioned: a roleplaying experience isn't as meaningless and unordered as a Rorshach blot. As such, there is potentially something meaningful to be said by analyzing the experience. That doesn't mean you're wrong; the application of The Pattern does say a lot about the one applying it, but it can also say something about the subject as well. if it couldn't, we'd all be helpless to analyze anything, ever.

So, Levi's standard for such an exercise seems pretty similar to mine: it doesn't have to be Ultimate Truth but it should at least be a useful tool. Many here argue that GNS fails in that. Levi found it to yield useful results on at least one occasion. If that was more ronm than the Theory, then so be it. But at least something's happening there that's helping somebody think about their games. Me, i've come to an understanding of my gaming through the Theory that is at least broadly useful to me. My understanding of the Theory is my own, and may or may not jive with the "canonical" interpretation of Ron and the gang. But who cares? It's mine, and it's helped me, and I didn't need to renounce anything or declare war on anybody to get there.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorOne way to get around that (though not everyone's favorite thing to do, certainly not mine) is to agree, "OK, I don't believe your distinction is correct, but I'll accept your terminology purely provisionally so we can at least discuss the issue." Not perfect, but actually one way to argue your case might be to apply the terms you don't like and so demonstrate that they're flawed.

Been there, done that, bored now.

Thing is, though, you're still not getting it. Once you accept the terminology - provisionally or otherwise - you're discussing the issue in their terms - you're understanding it the way they understand it. So you're going to come to the same conclusions.

It's like trying to tell an astrologer that astrology is wrong, while talking about Geminis, Aquarians and the rest.

Fact is, the definitions are bollocks. One of them just means "a story that isn't boring," another isn't defined at all, and the third is something no-one does past the age of 13. You can't argue against something whose definitions are nonsense while at the same time accepting the definitions.

Quote from: MelinglorIt is dangerous to start seeing patterns everywhere, but it's kind of a baby-with-the-bathwater attitude to dismiss pattern entirely for that reason.

I'm not dismissing pattern itself, of course patterns exist. I'm dismissing this particular pattern. Do I have to argue rationally against each and every pattern anyone's ever seen, and which has since been dismissed by all reasonable persons? How many times do we have to have the same argument? Do I have to argue again against creationism, a flat Earth, phlogiston theory, N-rays, holocaust deniers, global warming deniers, conspiracy theorists who say Mossad town down the Twin Towers, and, and, and...?

"Baby out with the bathwater" presupposes there was a baby in there. It's not bad to throw out a theory if there was nothing worthwhile in there. Or shall we chat about the crystal spheres model of the solar system's motion? How long do we have to keep dimissing rank nonsense?

Quote from: MelinglorWhether Ron and company hit one of ultimate significance is debatable, but your position is starting to sound dangerously close to a militant agnosticism, a denial that we can ever meaningfully apply pattern recognition to our lives.

I didn't say that. You're falling for the old "fallacy of the excluded middle" again.
"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them go?"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?"
"That wall is not black."
"What, so it's white?"

There exist middle grounds, shades of grey. If I caution that we are over-eager to see patterns, and often see patterns where there are none, that does not mean there are no patterns anywhere. I simply mean that this particular GNS-pattern is a load of old bollocks.

Quote from: MelinglorSo, Levi's standard for such an exercise seems pretty similar to mine: it doesn't have to be Ultimate Truth but it should at least be a useful tool. Many here argue that GNS fails in that. Levi found it to yield useful results on at least one occasion. If that was more ronm than the Theory, then so be it. But at least something's happening there that's helping somebody think about their games.

And again, some people find creationism useful, and holocaust denial, and phlogiston theory, and conspiracy theories. That they find them good and useful does not make them true and good. They're still wrong.

"But I found creationism useful. Also, playing with snakes and babbling madly made me feel closer to God."
"Yes but you're still mad."

Quote from: MelinglorIt's mine, and it's helped me, and I didn't need to renounce anything or declare war on anybody to get there.

I've not declared war on anybody. I've simply said that GNS is not true and not correct, and that any useful insights a gamer gets from it are purely coincidental and accidental, and astrology would do as well.

Offer me any particular class of things, real or imaginary, and I can categorise gamers using those things as a reference. Go on, try it. Could be anything - types of freshwater fish, kinds of shoe, subatomic particle, whatever you like.

The categories are simply arbitrary. What's special about the GNS categories is that they're vague and ill-defined with the aim of promoting one particular style of gaming.