Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games. Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466878That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

I agree with you, I just wanted to note that number of sales is a particularly poor way to judge quality. I am a Burning Wheel fan myself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;466862Its not a thing, it never really was; but now, all but the most absolutely fanatical devotees have utterly surrendered even the attempt to defend it.

RPGPundit

Some of those sad refugees have been lapping up on the shores of EN World lately.

Quote from: Newt;466872+1 from D101 Games

I'm much more interested in looking at games that work in a fun interesting way, and taking best practice from them than GNS theory.

I have always felt that those who were the strongest proponents of GNS, actually either do not play, or play so infrequently, that they forgot that this is games. For me, the trend that took place a few years ago to apply a more scholarly approach to game design, is an example of people not playing regularly enough.

Richard

Quote from: -E.;466877If you mean the game is fun when everyone's on the same page... and working together toward a common goal, well yeah.

That's true of any team activity. For me, the most powerful and satisfying gaming experiences have come when I'm highly immersed, and I feel a sense of deep emotional and intellectual attachment to what's happening in the game -- I'm /fascinated/ by the in-game action and experiencing it to such a degree that if it's thrilling, I'm thrilled... if it's suspenseful or tense, I feel anxiety, etc.

That happens best, when everyone's going through the same thing.

... but when you use the jargon term "creative agenda," you lose me.

Those words -- in GNS / TBM theory don't have arbitrary meanings; they define three, and only three agendas... which are, themselves, poorly defined but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't focus on immersion.

The words have all kinds of implications about the kind of games I've played -- those most-fun games? Broad, CA-less games that the theory says are "incoherent." Those absolutely riveting, remember-it-forever-experiences? Neither Nar nor Sim... some... combination of the two? Maybe?

It all falls apart.

And if I look at *campaigns* that were awesome, I see dramatic shifts -- some sessions focused on tactical battles, some on story-without-force, some on exploration or celebration, or whatever Sim is this week... Far from having a narrow focus, over time, they're all over the map.

So, while I can agree with what is maybe the *spirit* of your assertion, when I try to fit the term Creative Agenda into my experience, I can't get there.

Cheers,
-E.

Fair point. I was only (mis)using term in a broad sense of "being on the same page".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466878That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

I didn't know incoherent was a scale.  That's not my reading of it, at all.  Especially considering Edwards has some contempt for the more automated "story-games."

Also gratz to theRPGsite for being the first site in a long while to bring up GNS.  For wanting it to stay buried, you folks bring it up a helluva lot.

Quote from: Peregrin;466972Also gratz to theRPGsite for being the first site in a long while to bring up GNS.  For wanting it to stay buried, you folks bring it up a helluva lot.

For someone with close on 2000 posts, i think we can dispense with the "you folks" can't we?

Quote from: One Horse Town;466974For someone with close on 2000 posts, i think we can dispense with the "you folks" can't we?

I guess you're right.

More aimed at the people who have a grudge against the forge. I just figured this would be the last place id see a gns specific thread pop up, especially after the whole "forge winter phase" announcement.

Quote from: Peregrin;466985More aimed at the people who have a grudge against the forge. I just figured this would be the last place id see a gns specific thread pop up, especially after the whole "forge winter phase" announcement.

Wrong!

Old battles are fun. They're nostalgic.

Much like a liking for od&d, Starsky & Hutch and lard sandwiches.

Quote from: Peregrin;466972I didn't know incoherent was a scale.  That's not my reading of it, at all.  Especially considering Edwards has some contempt for the more automated "story-games."

That's nice and everything, but coherence is certainly something which a game can have more or less of. It's not a binary. That Edwards doesn't like extremely coherent games is just his unwillingness to follow the consequences of his own theories to their logical end.

I don't see dogs or bw as incoherent by Edwards standards, basically.

I certainly wouldn't have started a thread on this subject, as I said, its a dead issue for certain.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;467019I don't see dogs or bw as incoherent by Edwards standards, basically.

Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Ssss!!!

Quote from: pawsplay;466603It's like Ron designed the salt, pepper, garlic theory of game design, and he won't admit that there's salt in just about everything (including chocolate chip cookies) and he was never able to explain what the paprika as doing, to say nothing of the onion (when he wasn't calling it drifted garlic).

And he insisted on referring to any salt that had iodine in it as "garlic". Just for kicks.

And although the model he started with was actually talking how people decide which food on their plate to taste next, he decided to modify it so that it was also attempting to classify meal-planning, cookbooks, and the organization of your refrigerator.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466667It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

Specifically successful because they're versatile tools which can be employed to satisfy a wide palette of tastes. Not just in the market, but at any specific table.

This is one of the reasons why I find the Threefold useful, because it was entirely about understanding discrete decision-making. It allowed for multiple influences on single decision points, and also allowed any given game experience to be made up of decision points coming from and addressing many different tastes. It's a tool I can use to make Suzi and Bob happy at the same gaming table.

GNS, OTOH, is about telling either Suzi and/or Bob to take a hike and find a different game.