So the Forge is back/Questions

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Brian,

Welcome to the Forge, and please consider this post a do-over from events earlier today. I'd be glad to do some back-and-forth.  

As for the reviews stuff ... yeah, hey Clinton, I guess the pumpkin site should lead over here now, eh? And who knows WHAT about the GO situation - ever since they scrubbed my reviews from the archives, I've known where I stand with them.

Best,
Ron

[james_west]

On 2001-05-18 22:16, Brian Gleichman wrote:
And since my general impression of the Forge is as a 'Mechanics-Lite' focused site,

Not that I've noticed; however, it does seem to be a "narrativist" focused site (not explicitly, but by inclination of many of the posters).

Hero Wars, for instance, which has its own newsgroup now, is not what I'd call mechanics-lite.

           - James

[Ron Edwards]

Brian,

Take a look at "All out for Gamism" thread, which at least hints that such a perspective is welcome.

Personally, my GOAL for the Forge is that it can be useful for those who want to develop the activity of role-playing, rather than merely rehash what has already been done in prettier or over-hyped packages. That development can be in ANY coherent direction.

As it currently stands, much of the discussion has been about Narrativism because that particular outlook has been the most difficult for many to grasp, and has had several inappropriate notions grafted onto it. And yes, most folks here are inclined toward that mode of play. But this is a matter of demographics of participation, not design or range of focus for the site.

Rules-lite or not rules-lite is irrelevant to the body of theory & practice that I favor. It's a matter of rules-FOCUS: do they actually facilitate the desired activity? Some of those activities are going to need some rules ...

Anyway, please feel free to raise some Gamism-focused questions. I'm interested. (Incompetent in that realm, but interested.)

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

Hey Brian,

It's a shame you've decided not to post here. I read over the "All Out for Gamism" thread, and I'd be curious to know what your take is on the elements of a good Gamist game. From the perspective of most (if not all) of the Narrativist-prone folks here, I should think your input would be welcome, particularly since your posts seem articulate and well-reasoned. One of my buddies in my gaming group is a Simulationist par excellence (Squad Leader is his other passion), but I don't have a good handle on a Gamist view.

On the other hand, your quick withdrawal does honestly make me wonder whether Logan's uncharacteristically Neanderthal post has some meat to it. Rather than simply dismiss the Gamism post and disappear into the electronic ether, how about offering your thoughts as to why you disagree with Clinton? Why not explain what you see as the real issues in a Gamist approach? This site holds robust discussions. Your participation would be fruitful and interesting. It'd be a shame if a single troll post scared you off.

Best,

Blake