thread: 2005-03-05 : Policy in the Face of Failure
On 2005-03-07, xenopulse wrote:
Honestly, this is why I think efforts like Nate's (Theory Without Jargon articles) are so important. Yeah, I probably have many misunderstandings on the theory. It might be my fault, though I usually am a theory type of person (with an M.A. in political philosophy and international relations theory). But several times, I've encountered things like "Well yeah, that's what that article says, but since then things have changed, and here are the five threads about that." So I am constantly playing catch-up.
Example: You said in the Shitstorm Thread (TM) that the decision-by-decision take on GNS is incorrect. But in the GNS and Other Matters of RP Theory article, Ron wrote in chapter 2:
"Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, 'This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals.' Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, 'This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making.'"
Now, I can see, after the Shitstorm Thread, that your position is that we need to look at groups of decisions and not individual ones. But that's not the vibe I got from this article. In fact, the article seems to warn that we shouldn't lump them together because that leads to labeling.
So we can stop talking about things like this, or someone can sacrifice their valuable time and effort to bring the theory up to speed in one place, in an understandable fashion. I'd do it, if I understood it properly. But the place for that is the Forge, anyway, and you should use your blog to do your thing.
In any case, thanks for sharing your wisdom.
- Christian
