History of Post 392
- 2007-05-18 11:15:49
Good GOD! Okay... look... I'm 36, I have a high tested IQ, I took philosophy in High School, where I trudged through Herodotus, and that might have been less painful than the first of those game theory essays. I think I'd be hard pressed to make a more obfuscated piece of writing.
The first article, on Simulationism starts off by NOT defining GNS, and only seems to get harder to comprehend as it goes along. I sat through a LOT of IT meetings where it seemed the sole purpose was to shell-game people into thinking you knew what the heck you were talking about by BSing a verbal maze so intricate no one could follow you, making them all have to either nod as if they followed you, look wise and say nothing, or stop the person and say "Why don't you just say something straight out?" and look like an idiot, when in fact you're not.
I felt like I was reading a paper, required to be 5000 words for a psych class or something.
Seriously. Could I just get the Cliff's Notes version?
Maybe it's just that I'm tired, and cranky. Or, maybe this author (and presumably the people he's been debating with on whatever boards) are overly long-winded, and are overly analyzing something that to me seems pretty straight forward.
Maybe when i'm more well-rested, and willing to wade through theory of practicum of hypothesis of quantified algorythm of pseudo-simulated double-decaf paradigms, I'll make it through.
Maybe if the author just did it like math papers, present your findings and apend your proofs, then it wouldn't have seemed so painful.
This post probably isn't helpful, but hey, it oughta generate some responses. :)
ADDENDUM: Right. So, having woken up after a few hours useful sleep, I tried plowing through the first essay again, and again abandoned it for the much more concise Wiki article covering the subjects of GNS and the Big Theory (linked above. thanks!)
Suppose you are playing a character that is a military strategist. Part of the character's work is what would be called 'Gamist' in the GNS model, but you are exploring the character in a Simulationist game. The GNS model seems to fail to understand the possibility of such a situation, stating rather that these are mutually exclusive and that players with different agendas will wreck each other's game, as if only one agenda is clear in any given game. Further, every game, in my opinion, should pose moral delemas (what seems to be the idea of Narrativist style games). So, let's say you are playing a ship captain in the Birtish navy in 1813, faced with hunting down a personal friend of yours that has defected to the American navy. Is this a Gamist (since you must use naval strategies to attempt to stop him, in theory), a Simulationist (since you are immersed in the role of a specific class of person, in a particular time and place, theoretically trying to imagine yourslef living that person's life), or a Narrativist (because you are exploring the themes of betrayal, friendship, patriotism, and possibly the rights of the common sailor) game?
Now that I have an understanding of the terms, I have to say I don't solidly fit any of the categories, nor do the games I run. I suppose I lean toward Simulationist, but often fit the other two categories as well.
- 2007-05-18 03:23:42
Good GOD! Okay... look... I'm 36, I have a high tested IQ, I took philosophy in High School, where I trudged through Herodotus, and that might have been less painful than the first of those game theory essays. I think I'd be hard pressed to make a more obfuscated piece of writing.
The first article, on Simulationism starts off by NOT defining GNS, and only seems to get harder to comprehend as it goes along. I sat through a LOT of IT meetings where it seemed the sole purpose was to shell-game people into thinking you knew what the heck you were talking about by BSing a verbal maze so intricate no one could follow you, making them all have to either nod as if they followed you, look wise and say nothing, or stop the person and say "Why don't you just say something straight out?" and look like an idiot, when in fact you're not.
I felt like I was reading a paper, required to be 5000 words for a psych class or something.
Seriously. Could I just get the Cliff's Notes version?
Maybe it's just that I'm tired, and cranky. Or, maybe this author (and presumably the people he's been debating with on whatever boards) are overly long-winded, and are overly analyzing something that to me seems pretty straight forward.
Maybe when i'm more well-rested, and willing to wade through theory of practicum of hypothesis of quantified algorythm of pseudo-simulated double-decaf paradigms, I'll make it through.
Maybe if the author just did it like math papers, present your findings and apend your proofs, then it wouldn't have seemed so painful.
This post probably isn't helpful, but hey, it oughta generate some responses. :)