GNS Showdown

[Fabrice G.]

Joe,

hum...I understand what you mean. But I don't see where you're going. You say that we make categories, witch are artificial, old school, etc.
Well, first that's the way the huaman psyche works. You make categories in order to be able to deal with the mass of information that you receive. It lessen the cognitive charge of your brain.
So, IMHO we NEED categories.

Second. If you decide that in your game, you 'll want to include one particular aspect ; one aspect that will make the difference in the way you choose witch game you play...and if this aspect is the fact of creating and playing a fictional personna witch will be a significant part in the creation of the enjoyment of the game...why not simply name your game a role-playing game ?

Granted, if i want to co-create a story with some friends I don't need a rpg, but when i choose to play an rpg it's because i want to use the fictional personna modality. Otherise I would simply play "Let's write together" (rules, goal, etc.)

So, IMO the de-categorization doesn't solve anything, because you're just saying that we can have fun with games that don't use the "interpretation of a fictional personna (tm)" as a fixed modality. Yes we can.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you want to go deeper in "general game" design, but i just think that simply using goals to make a games insn't enough. You've got some mode of play (cards, discution, dices, ") that define how you treat your subject, how you come close to your goal.

You may have transcended the "fictional personna" stuff, i don't. To me, it's the major element that drives me toward rpgs (not board games, cards games, etc.)

Fabrice.

ps: i don't mean to personnally criticize you, but just to make you notice that "rpg" is just a name given to a certain fixed modality kind of game (just for sheer pleasure of repeting myself :interpretation of a fictional personna (tm)  :)

pps: well, this one too came more from the heart than from the mind.

[Le Joueur]

What I need to know in order to respond is which is it? Are you a GNS convert or have you disposed of it? Have we witnessed an epiphany?

I'm beyond GNS.

I too am so beyond GNS.  I am beyond trying to grasp it, comprehensively understand it, preach it, double-check it, find fault with it, attack it, build things based on it, conceive things from bits of it, generate theories in the shadow of it, hate it, and ignore it (that's all the stages I went through).  No, I am definitely over it (as in: indifferent to it).

Can we please more on?

Games are catalogued by people. People tend to overemphasize a certain game element to their like/dislike. So in a way I'm the biggest fan of GNS but would never support or encourage its principles.

Yeah, and we have to live in the world with these people.  I maintain fluency in GNS only in order to communicate with people.  Since you may still be in the 'attack it' phase, you may find it difficult to communicate.

Have you any terminology you care to use to classify anything?  (If not, how shall we discuss anything?)

Here's the blunt version: The GNS model is on to something but it got stuck in the middle.

Agreed.  But what other communal languages are present?

We need to let go of the 'old skool' term of 'RPG game design' and start dealing with 'game design'.

Actually, Scattershot began as a toy to play by myself.  A 'make up a character' toy.  Only when I felt it could 'catch' the flavor of everything, did I begin to consider other "elements."

I wanted a cool 'melee' "element."  I struggled for awhile and then Magic: the Gathering hit.  A card game based melee "element" was exactly what I added.  And since I desired to be able to play this game while exploring the park, I maintained a derivative that allows something remarkably similiar to 'old skool' role-playing game combat systems.

Next, I desired a role-playing "element."  What I concluded, even before subscribing to the Forge was that such should be kept separate from the other "elements."  Mind you, I do a lot of my best thinking defending my ideas in the face of controversy.  When it came to the 'melee' "element," I found that at groups.yahoo.com/rpg-create.  When it came to the role-playing "element," I found that on the Forge.

I also found a lot of encouragement and I realized that when I had all the "elements" I wanted, there really wasn't anywhere else to go to discuss what I had put together, namely the Scattershot 'toy.'  Because of that I realized that I needed to 'blend in' with the natives here.  No offense intended, but I do consider role-playing games in a fairly different perspective than is the common parley here.

I still need a place to discuss things.  So I have become fluent in the terminology of Ron Edwards' essay on the GNS.  Certainly it isn't the best match for how I look at things, but like a second language, it allows me to communicate with my peers.

What am I going to do with my Scattershot toy?  I plan to make up several games of course, and while my theories don't really match cleanly up to yours either Joe, you could say that each of them has a goal.  Actually, that's indirectly how I differentiate them, by goal.  I have clustered all my potential games around 12 loosely defined 'genres.'  (And in the way I explicitly define and use them, you would clearly refer to my 'genres' as yet another "element" I plan to add to my toy before writing games with it.)

What does this mean on the Forge?  Not a whole hell of a lot.  The common parley does not support talking about "elements" as separate units, and probably never will.  Neither does it support looking at entities with role-playing "elements" as toys either.  (This is a community; you cannot make a community change its way of doing things.  Well, if you have a really fantastic idea, you may be able to win them over, but that has a lot to do with alpha-theory; and let's just say that I don't see that happening.)

We need to investigate this element and we need to do it without messing around with issues that are not specificly concerned with it.

Then stop ranting and stand and deliver!  I for one will listen carefully.  Go for it.  Enough bashing, start building.

There is too much noise here.

Then I guess this means goodbye?

What I'm going to write is aimed personally at Fang but y'all can listen in if you like :)

Fang, we speak the same language.

Well, possibly.  I am inclined to believe yours and mine may be similar dialects, but not the same.  However, as a philosopher, I am fluent in a number of "languages."  Will I gain anything speaking a 'foreign' one here at the Forge?

When it comes to game design, we need to establish some common ground. In the process, we will create TEMPORARY types and categories simply for the sake of better understanding of each other. These concepts could change in time - grow bigger, smaller, or disppear altogether.

You seem to grasp the use of the concept of language.  I hope you learn the patience for how the language of a community progresses slowly.

Now that you've cleared the air, I need to point out that since Mike pronounced, "Deconstructionists begone!" we have been banished.

Let's make a clean breast of it, take the "elements" theory over to the so-called RPG theory forum and get 'building.'  You first.  Go establish some common ground, a few temporary types and categories; be warned I won't understand what they are at first and will ask questions to learn.  Do not take them as attacks; curiosity is one of my passions.

I look forward to your constructions.

Fang Langford

[joe_llama]

Well, first that's the way the huaman psyche works. You make categories in order to be able to deal with the mass of information that you receive. It lessen the cognitive charge of your brain.
So, IMHO we NEED categories.

Exactly. What we need are NEW categories. The old ones are hindering us. I'm saying, let's take the GNS model and Greg's model and other models I'm not yet familiar of, disassemble them, take all the good parts and build a bigger better theory. Surprisingly, this 'bigger' and 'better' theory is actually more simple. Why? Because it has better structure. It will probably include many things you already know from GNS and other theories but the order will make more sense. We have Greg's article as a good start to how this new model would possibly look like and GNS as a good start to how one 'tree branch' of this model would possibly look like.

Should we work on a 'Universal Game Design' model? Yes. Will it ever really be complete? No. Does it stop scientists from looking for the Grand Unified Theory? No. Game design is like science in a way. You build theories and hope they predict results. GNS was damn good at it, but only in a certain narrow field. You wanna make games with a strong element of role playing? Cool. Think about all the potential we are still unaware of in the dynamics between the role playing element and other elements. Think about all the complemenetary elements (to RPing) out there we are not yet familar with. Think about game goals yet uncovered. There is very little theory about it that I'm aware of.

We will build categories and use them because they will produce good games. Then we will disassemble these categories and assemble new ones which will bring even more goods games. We will increase the game design potential every time.  
     

Second. If you decide that in your game, you'll want to include one particular aspect ...why not simply name your game a role-playing game ?

No problem here. But the current definition of the term is incorrect. It creates the wrong kind of discussion (the 'factions' I mentioned earlier) and a whole bunch of dissatisfied players. The GNS model was trying to treat and prevent such cases, and succeeded to some extent. But the greater illness comes not from playing the wrong RPG - it comes from playing the wrong game in general. We are widening the circle here. We are throwing away an old definiton given to us by our 'ancestors' that is holding us back. Once you accept that 'role playing' is not a game but an element, you can call your game RPG and it will be understood within the right proportions.

You may have transcended the "fictional personna" stuff, i don't. To me, it's the major element that drives me toward rpgs (not board games, cards games, etc.)

No way. I'm right here. I want to play games with role playing in them. I have played them my whole life. But I want to play good games. I want to play new games. I want "RPG's" in the traditional meaning of the term to grow into a new and even more beautiful tree. It can do that ("I have seen the light" :) But there are issues that hold it back. Let's overcome the obstacles, bring the role playing element into a larger area, and let it grow.    
 

Can we please move on?

Yes! That's what I'm talking about, moving on.

Since you may still be in the 'attack it' phase, you may find it difficult to communicate.

'Attack it' phase? I'm in 'praising it' phase!. I'm saying: "look guys! Ron came up with this cool idea and it made me think about another cool idea"

Have you any terminology you care to use to classify anything? (If not, how shall we discuss anything?)

Yes. The new terminology is what I'm saying here all the time. Let's talk game elements, let's talk game goals. You want more details? Read Greg's article and we could all start working together on even more details. (Fang, you've read it already - this is for those who haven't).

Agreed. But what other communal languages are present?

The one we are going to build ourselves.

Because of that I realized that I needed to 'blend in' with the natives here. No offense intended, but I do consider role-playing games in a fairly different perspective than is the common parley here.

Ok. I understand that. The Forge kicks ass when it comes to intelligent discussion about role playing, but as a member of this forum I would like to see MORE intelligent discussions about the RIGHT kind of things. I feel that everyone here (including yours truly) are still in a middle phase and that we have the works of Ron and Greg as 'kickers' into a new common ground of game design. Greg discusses the skeleton of game design while Ron addresses specific elements in more detail. That's great! This means we already have stuff working, we just need to assemble it properly.

The common parley does not support talking about "elements" as separate units, and probably never will. Neither does it support looking at entities with role-playing "elements" as toys either.

I'm hearing different voices here. Sure, we discuss this issue fervently but some people do agree here to at least some of the points that have been raised. There is room for further discussion. And I'll always lose to the alhpa-theory because that's the way things work. The GNS model lost to the alpha-theory too. There is a large group of people out there hating it as if it were a disease to be rid of. But this doesn't mean we have to sit quiet. We are not hiding away from the Inquisition. We will write these things down and people who have enough patience will give it some thought and discuss it further. This is why I write these things here at the Forge. In RPG Net I was completely ignored after one post for even trying to raise such a 'stupid' claim. Here I get support and discussion.

These are MY people. I AM a native. I speak fluent GNS and it was damn hard to achieve. I don't want to start a new 'tribe'. I want the good of MY 'tribe'. I raise a controversial concept - it's quite natural to hear different voices about it. When Mike says: "Deconstructionists begone!" he reflects the confusion and shock from such strange claims. And I'm not helping him either. I'm so excited about this new (actually very old) perspective that I speak in emotional and somewhat incoherent sentences. Maybe I need to calm down and write this thing in an orderly fashion. But I'm afarid this thing will die out and be remembered as "a bad idea that we all agreed earlier to drop". And this will happen on a subconscious level. No one will actually say it but everyone will feel that way about it.

Then stop ranting and stand and deliver! I for one will listen carefully. Go for it.

You got it, skipper! But I'm gonna need a few good men (and women) to help me with building this new huge theory. What I'm doing now is recruiting, I suppose. Of course I'll give the head start - it's the decent thing to do. You wanna help?

Then I guess this means goodbye?

Not really. But there are going to be some changes.

You seem to grasp the use of the concept of language. I hope you learn the patience for how the language of a community progresses slowly.

I'm working on it. This thread is supposed to generate the initial shock. It's supposed to bring this issue into the concsious level of the community.

Let's make a clean breast of it, take the "elements" theory over to the so-called RPG theory forum and get 'building.' You first. Go establish some common ground, a few temporary types and categories;

OK. It will be a tough one. I have very little time these days. This constant reply issue is eating away some real-life time slots. But I'm afraid once the flame dies away there will be no chance to revive it. I have the energy here and now - later could mean never.

People of the Forge, this is a call to arms! We have here the finest minds in the game design world. Let them come forth and put their hands into a new and exciting endeavor. See you soon in the 'RPG theory' forum.    

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Emily Care]

It is a useful distinction to say that role-playing is just one element among many in game design.

However, getting rid of role-playing games as a category because most of them don't have a "goal" ignores the reason why role-playing exists as a category.  The terms board-bames, ball-games, card-games, and role-playing games all exist because we humans use these abstractions called words in order to communicate with one another. Every word is a lie, to use hyperbole, because it is just a symbolic representation and useful (or it wouldn't be used, and words do slide in and out of use as they gain and lose usefulness) abstraction that facilitates interactions of human beings. Words also change meaning all the time.  Whoever coined each of these categories simply chose the element of the game that distinguished it from other types of games.

So, anyway, most games that do not have a role-playing element have a very specific victory condition.  Diplomacy, Hearts and Volleyball all have this in common.  I would argue that they don't have goals--they have objectives, they have victory conditions, and those are both types of goals, but the word goal is broader than either of these. It also includes things like "create a complex and interesting society or world", "co-create a compelling story with the following moral conflict".  

Roleplaying has elements of gaming and elements of fiction. Fiction does not have victory conditions--unless you count being on the best-seller list as such, or making beaucoup bucks; but I would say that either of those is a side effect of writing. A meta-writing concern. It could be the goal of the author to be financially successful, but it is not a goal per se in the system of writing, if you grant that such exists.

Some roleplaying games do have specific objectives or even victory conditions.  Traditional "hack and slash" play has tended to have informal objectives along the lines of "get your character's abilities to godlike levels", "get the best, biggest and baddest weapons you can find", and the classic "get the most treasure". These end up being open ended victory conditions, since there's always more power, better weapons and more treasure.  Campaigns often have a specific objectives: kill the dragon, etc.

However, it ain't gotta be that way. And roleplaying lends itself to not having such a narrow objective.  Because role-playing, which specifically--to even extend your point--may even be a seperate game element from Authoring, has access to all of the techniques and possibilities of writing.  The addition of narrative to a game is no small thing.  However, I think it has been seen as such and, finally, this is changing.

A toy is a system of play that has no victory conditions.  How do you win playing with a yo-you? You don't, until you bring the yo-yo to a trick competition. A toy may or may not have a goal. However, many sports have goals without having implicit victory conditions. Many sports have the goal of self-improvement in one or more specific ways (ex. running faster, and  increasing endurance in running) and the victory condition only comes into play when you introduce the element of competition.  An rpg toy may be a system that has not been married to a goal (The Pool etc) or one that has a goal so broad (create a world etc.) that it's not meaningful to call it such. Perhaps we could introduce the concept of rpg sports for systems that have extremely broad goals, but into which objectives and victory conditions can easily be introduced.

There's my 2 cents. I'll be taking names, just send me a private message. :)

--Emily Care

[Valamir]

I've studiously avoided replying to this thread so far.  I've read it.  I've reread it.  I've just reread it again, but I've avoided participating because I just don't get it.

I can't follow what you guys are talking about.  I get a vague sense but it hasn't come together for me.

This is what I'm hearing.  I'm summarizing it this way so that you can provide clarification.


1)  All games have goals.  Roleplaying Games that have goals are games, Roleplaying Games that don't have goals are toys.  Therefor the term Roleplaying game is a misnomer and shouldn't be used.

Question:  So what?  And I don't mean that to be snarky, but truely so what.  What is added to our ability to play or craft RPGs by the distinction between game and toy?  What is promoted by inventing yet another new term (or several) to relabel what we call RPGs?


2) You are "beyond GNS".  Near as I can tell you aren't disagreeing with GNS but merely find its focus on RPGs to be too narrow.  You desire a theory to address games in general.  

Problem:  From your (Joe) opening remark in GNS I'm not convinced you have it down.  You say "Ron says (at least, my impression of what he says): "There are three types of RPG's - Gamism, Simulationsim and Narrativism"."  I believe it would be more accurate to say "There are three types of decisions people make when playing RPGs".  Its a subtle but profound difference.  Finally recognizing the implications of that difference made me realize that much of what people have been argueing about against GNS (myself included) is missing the point by a wide marging.  It is what motivated me to write my Primer here in this forum.

Question:  What do you hope to gain by broadening the theory to all games in general?  How would such a theory be more useful then seperate theories that address each type of game?  Now I'm a fan of combining types of games.  In my youth I invented a monster board game that combined elements of traditional board games (like Clue and Monopoly) with traditional war games (complete with stacks of cardboard counters) with Role Playing (complete with character sheets and in character dialog), so I can see the value in thinking outside the box in terms of what elements to include in a game design.   But I have no idea if this is what you are talking about when you say thinking only of RPGs is too narrow.


3) You want to craft a brand new overarching theory of game design that is not limited to RPGs, and are looking for people to help you do it.

Question:  What aspects of games are you trying to analyse...why people play them, how to design them better, what?  I get the sense that you want to "build a better mousetrap", but I get no sense of what type of mice you're hoping to catch or way those mice need catching (to extend the metaphor).


Finally, a plea.  Can we be a bit more direct and succinct in the points that are being made.  Some of these posts are so stream of conciousness and so philosophical in nature that they are quite difficult to follow.  Discussions of language is all well and good, but as someone who routinely deals with legal documents, I can tell you that language in general and jargon specifically can obfuscate as well as clarify.  There's alot of opacity in this thread.

Fang, I beg you to not take this the wrong way - and you can put it down to my simple American public education - but better than half the time I can't even follow what you're talking about.  Its not that I don't understand the syntax...but you often delve into some pretty rarified philosophising that quite frankly leaves me, at least, scratching my head.



A humorous aside:  A philosophy major once told me that philosophy was the practice of inventing new ways to communicate that seem more profound because the common man can't understand what you're talking about.  





      What I'm not seeing currently is what issues regarding the larger definition of game you are not seeing adequately addressed

[Ron Edwards]

Nadav,

I am going to call for something here - for you to settle down for a while and decide just what you are asking for. A great deal of your posts are based, by your own admission, on "feelings" - and while that was fine for your initial post, you are beginning to use that kind of rhetoric as a form of response, which is not fine. In order to generate meaningful responses, you're going to have to make sense from the bottom up.

This thread is also starting to show signs of line-by-line responses, which is a fairly bad way to conduct a discussion. Points get missed in favor of a lot of free-associating and misreading. Quoting is fine, but responding as a kind of "wave front" through someone's post is highly discouraged.

Please also consider the following.

1) No one is stuck. You are projecting your own sense of synthesis and re-wording, for your own purposes of understanding, onto the community. If we are to understand your point, it will only occur if you can explain why such a point will improve or help the overall discussion.

You wrote about how the GNS notions are "hindering us." How, exactly? If you are referring to the writings of Jocelyn, he is not being hindered - he is simply not comprehending what's being said (e.g. the confounding of goal/mode with stance). A crucial part of any call to arms - which you are getting rather fervent about - is to demonstrate to your listeners that "something needs to be done." Please elaborate why that is so. Because someone out there doesn't get it does not constitute any reason for me to be concerned.

2) The GNS essay is not a stopping-point. I wrote it so that people could discuss things that mattered within role-playing, not so that people could adopt the essay as "something to believe." In terms of the discussion so far, I too am "beyond" GNS. So are many, many people here. The only reason we continue to discuss it is that the concept is a very powerful door for people to move through, in order to get to the real topics, and as people arrive at the Forge, many of us are willing to help them through the door. You are, I think, mistaking the mentoring performed by (say) me as a fixation on the topic as an end-point in itself.

3) I only use the word "game" as a historical artifact. The use of a more technical meaning of "game," as well as its relation to "toy," "play," and "entertainment," makes for an interesting discussion - but not as a criticism of my use of the term, which is deliberately all-inclusive and not intended to be "boxed" in or out of other categories.

Incidentally, that means that I have never disagreed with Fang about his use of "toy," which seems reasonable to me but also not especially interesting or important (given that my use of "game" is overtly inclusive). Fang tends to take tacit agreement for tacit disagreement, i.e., that lack of praise must be disagreement or dismissal. To some extent that's my fault for not saying, "Fang, I agree," but there is a limit to which a person can do this, especially in dealing with several thousand words at a time.

Similarly, the notion of "elements" of games is a fine one, and I have no objection to anyone discussing them. Nor do I see any reason why I'm obliged to approve in order for people to do so. Why you and Fang seem so eager to embrace the status of "ignored voices in the wilderness" is beyond me. If you want to discuss game elements, do so, and be happy.

4) The focus on self-designated role-playing at the Forge is an aesthetic, not critical choice. I agree with you that elements of GNS are found outside role-playing games (obviously!); I agree with you that role-playing per se is is found outside role-playing games. However, this is a "problem" only if one's goal is to create an uber-theory for role-playing, gambling, competition, and many other forms of social interaction. The Forge isn't set up to address that goal - the goal is, given the existence of things called role-playing games, what terms and goals need to be addressed in order to talk about how much fun they are to play or how effectively they can be designed?

If you want to address that much larger goal, I suggest that you can discuss it here in detail in RPG Theory, or if you think that the GNS-context or role-playing-only context of the Forge is too limiting for that purpose, then on a free website or mailing list of your own. We'll be happy to link to it in the Resources section.

5) I am completely puzzled by your perception that GNS is fundamentally about design goals. It is not. It is about play-goals, of exactly the sort that you are talking about. When you repeat, over and over, "Games have goals. Games are made of elements. Rules are
elements of the game. Games have rules that lead to the goals," you are effectively quoting me, not adding content or nuance to my essay.

You have apparently misunderstood Premise completely, as you associate the term with the Narrativist goals. This boggles me - I have broken down Premise not only in terms of experience (embryonic to developed) but also in terms of goal (which is what GNS "is," basically). Your entire point, in my terms, reads, "We need to talk about Premise!!" I agree. The essay was written so that we could do that, instead of circling about with terms like "balance" or "realism" or "story."

At this point, identifying all our discourse so far as chaotic babble with fortuitous and occasional insight - which is a fair paraphrase of your exact words - borders on insulting, especially because I pinpoint my own, existing discussion of Premise as being precisely what you are looking for in terms of "goals."

Best,
Ron

[joe_llama]

Hi Ron,

First of all, let me say that my time is VERY short. I wish I could discuss all these issues in more detail with you and any other memeber at the Forge. I can't do that. I'm in 'read and run' mode :)

I agree with you completely. I will not even get into details. My posts were highly emotional, I was somewhat 'out of control'. It took me a few posts to realize that and when I did, I stopped posting. Many thanks here go to Chris (thickenergy) who saw this coming and notified me. Of course, thanks to you, Ron, for giving a detailed analysis of what is messy and confusing in my words.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone and I'm really sorry if this happened. I was trying to express an idea that's composed of many concepts and terms and they all got tangled up in my head. This is why they come out twisted, confusing and sometimes completely wrong. The best thing for me to do right now is rest and think things over. This could take a while - sorry to disappoint all of you who expected an answer to their questions.

To all Forgefolk, thank you for the tremendous patience you have demonstrated these last few days. This is what I like about the Forge - people stay civilized even when someone freaks out and loses control :) I was being an ass, I know. I just need to cool down a bit.

I hope that my ideas will take a more coherent shape by the end of this week - only then they will be posted in 'RPG Theory'. Until then, I let the issue rest and will not discuss it with anyone. I REALLY want to think about it - who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong?

Thanks again for all your patience.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Blake Hutchins]

No worries, Joe.  Passion's a fine thing, and it gets all of us wound up and carried away at times.  Glad to have you here.

Best,

Blake

[Le Joueur]

Incidentally, that means that I have never disagreed with Fang about his use of "toy," which seems reasonable to me but also not especially interesting or important (given that my use of "game" is overtly inclusive). Fang tends to take tacit agreement for tacit disagreement, i.e., that lack of praise must be disagreement or dismissal. To some extent that's my fault for not saying, "Fang, I agree," but there is a limit to which a person can do this, especially in dealing with several thousand words at a time.

Hey, you know what they say, "If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the precipitate."  I just chalk it up to serious neglect during early childhood and move on.

(Really, I apologize for being so thin-skinned.)

Similarly, the notion of "elements" of games is a fine one, and I have no objection to anyone discussing them. Nor do I see any reason why I'm obliged to approve in order for people to do so. Why you and Fang seem so eager to embrace the status of "ignored voices in the wilderness" is beyond me. If you want to discuss game elements, do so, and be happy.

Joe's being emotional, I expected most responses would be, "huh?"  So, I put up a post I felt would show empathy and followed it with a reciprocal call to action.  Like you, Ron, I could not see clearly where it was going, but I thought getting him there might require empathetic backing.  Sort of 'meet passion, with passion.'

And the whole 'toy' thing was pretty much ignored.  It is a central concept to generalist game design, and I didn't get any mileage out of it at the time....

Fang, I beg you to not take this the wrong way - and you can put it down to my simple American public education - but better than half the time I can't even follow what you're talking about.  It's not that I don't understand the syntax...but you often delve into some pretty rarified philosophising that quite frankly leaves me, at least, scratching my head.

Yeah, I get a lot of that.  At least on the Forge, people ask enough questions that it tends to get explained.  Elsewhere, I find myself out in the cold after 'a good one.'  So, no, I never take that the wrong way (no one around here seems to think I'm just being a pseudo-intellectual).  If you (and that goes double for everyone) ever have a question, no matter how trivial you think it, my private message box is always open.  (And I am very comfortable explaining myself.)

(Is this about that 'concept of language' thing?)

Fang Langford