Interesting Threefold Model Essay

[Mike Holmes]

I'm tired of quoting.

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalaidate everything, even itself. Yes, our entire discussion is formed around the fact that we are products of Western Society and as such our dialect is biased by that (which is where deconstruction usually leads to in the end). So what?

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstuct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of. Yes, Fang, I'm a construcionist if you will. I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have sucumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for wahtever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions? Yes, if you attack my assumtions and say that they are incorrect, then all I have left is that those assumptions are just that. You have me trapped, sir, where can I go? On the other hand, you have no firmer ground to stand on yourself, and therefore, yes, we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis, may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?

My apollogies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people. Obviously anyone who can understand deconstruction is someone of a mental acuity that I'd like to deal with. Yes, I'm flattering you. Not to win this argument, but because I would hate for something as silly as this debate to get in the way of us (and others here like us) from coming up with neat stuff.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance  that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules). In my game (played again on Thursday night) players rarely come down out of director mode.

  I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

If I am understated, you are now a comedian. Brief tone? I understand what you mean, but under the circumstances it is an ironic statement to say the least. Was it meant as a play on words?

Don't apologise for anything. Would I still be sitting here typing if this wasn't engaging. OK, maybe I am demented, who knows?

I am reminded that in the past that I have been wont to say that we may find that discussions of paricular motivations to be more important in the end than the overall GNS model. And if you feel so inclined I would love to move on to doing so.

Oh, yeah, what about the game? Something to cater to the Immersionists, perhaps?  :wink:


Mike

[contracycle]

[contracycle]

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalidate everything, even itself.Quote

So what?like<

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstruct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of.

I can think of some.<

I'm a constructionist if you will.

Actually, I think<all other games).  A generalist works towards a working general theory, quite the opposite of a deconstructionist who wants to particularize everything.

I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have succumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.This does not mean it is of poor use to me!  Quite the contrary, it really opened my eyes (and obviously a whole new can of worms).

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.Quote

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for whatever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions?Quote

Yes, if you attack my assumptions and say that they are incorrect,Quote

we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.Quote

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis; may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?he<is<

My apologies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens, I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people.

Unlike many deconstructionists you may have debated, I have no problem continuing past this point.  I hope I have (used deconstruction that) made clear what problem we are addressing.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules).

I appreciate this type of clarity and take your point very well.  I like it; separating gamemaster-absent and gamemaster-filled role-playing gaming.  You will understand my confusion over the lack of clarity; for the record, I really was talking about games that do not have gamemasters (or much authorial stance or any<

I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

If I am understated, you are now a comedian. Brief tone? I understand what you mean, but under the circumstances it is an ironic statement to say the least. Was it meant as a play on words?

Not exactly.  Right away, I simply took it as read that you understood some of the underpinnings of my deconstructive analysis style and what would have been six or seven postings shorter had me backtracking to explain what I had glossed over early on (for the sake of brevity then).

I am reminded that in the past that I have been wont to say that we may find that discussions of particular motivations to be more important in the end than the overall GNS model. And if you feel so inclined I would love to move on to doing so.

Certainly (if you can handle the particularization inherent in my mode of expression), I can.  Can you list what types of motivations you see for players and gamemasters?  (There I go again, looking for the particles first....)

And would that go under another title?

Fang Langford