Re: [FateRPG] Re: GNS, where would you locate FATE?
- On 5/2/07, Jim Henley <jimhenley@...> wrote:
> Thanks, Landon, but I was going for the Godwin. <g>I bow to your superior meme knowledge. You win 10 internets. :D
- LOL Thanks, I needed that reminder.
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
- Hehehe is that a thread ender attempt
Jim Henley wrote:
> It's not just "disheartening." It's worse than Hitler.
> On 5/2/07, *Blake Hutchins * <blake_hutchins@...
> <mailto:blake_hutchins@...>> wrote:
> I have to say I find the number of misconceptions about a pretty
> basic model -- only part of the model developed at The Forge --
- Fred Hicks wrote:
> It's undeniably game-y, but this is where misunderstanding of the GNSI think the biggest flaw in GNS theory is that 80% of the people talking
about it don't understand it. :) (Me included, which is why I stay out
of it. I know just enough to be dangerous.)
Carl D Cravens (raven@...)
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.
>From: Blake Hutchins <blake_hutchins@...>Quite correct. Only actual play is categorized as being G or N or S (or any
>FWIW, the model is, as I understand it, not meant to be applied to games
>per se, or even to particular gamers, but to behavior and choices
>manifested by gamers at the table. Some rules sets may encourage more or
>less of particular behaviors.
other such partition of the Creative Agenda). As such, one can only talk
about what a particular system might tend to promote in play, or support
well. Further, as I've recently argued, that's going to depend quite a lot
on how people fill in the "gaps" in technique of how to play. So the same
system will tend to promote different things with different groups.
(Which is not the same thing as saying that the system doesn't matter, BTW,
quite the opposite)
>My two cents. I'd probably locate FATE between "N" and in terms of genreFred and Rob have consciously decided not to pursue a game that supports any
>emulation, "S," but the Fate points sort of offer a bit of a "G" option,
>depending on the group. It's a pretty versatile game.
one particular sort of agenda. A possible criticism of this is that with
other such "incoherent" games (meaning ones that have elements that support
more than one way to play), often players have trouble with particular
mechanics because they don't fit their personal agenda when playing the
The argument in favor of this approach is that RPGs tend to get modified
anyhow, so why not provide a framework that's broad enough that lots of
people can figure out how to modify it without much effort into exactly the
sort of game they want to play. As opposed to the game, in theory, appealing
only to a limited crowd of players (there's a good counter-argument to this
That's a debate that won't be solved here. But sales of FATE, it's reviews,
and the obviously good play of it that has occured do say that the game
isn't so incoherent as to cause a lot of problems for the people who play
it. Or not so much that the positive features are blotted out by such
Might makes right, I guess. FATE works, so any GNS analysis of it's
"problems" is probably academic at best. What does FATE support? A broad
array of agendas, as the designers intend. With a little creative
interpretation. Which is all in the good FUDGE tradition.
Download Messenger. Join the i�m Initiative. Help make a difference today.