>From: "Rob" <robert_m_davis_at_...>
>Its just I notice Mike using American Football phrases, like 'being on the
>same page' and Forge phrases which mean something different to what we
>might imagine they mean if interpereted in every day language.
The Forge dialectic is, in fact, very dense and takes a long time to get. This is precisely why I *don't* use it here or anywhere else other than The Forge. That is, I work very very hard to try to use "common English" to explain what I mean when I get into such areas. So, no, no term that I used was intended to have the weight of any Forge use behind it.
That said, I've been known to slip. In this case, however, I think I've done OK. Last I looked, Trotsky and I were agreeing more than disagreeing. Agenda does have a lot to do with the Forge's term "Creative Agenda" but I don't think we have to worry about GNS mode so much.
>Now we may think that we recognise what these terms mean, and in some
>respects we would be right, but not exactly. And they are key to
>understanding the position.
Well, yes, if you read this position, it helps understand the whole theory. But you're presenting an out of date version of the overall theory, Rob (which I warned you about). The fact is that the "isms" are not all that important in this context.
In any case, I'm now definitely sure that this has gone off topic for this list. anyone should feel free to contact me on The Forge about this, or any neutral site you like (or mail me). But I think it's going to distract from purely HQ stuff here. In part because...
>'Forgites' have a preferred style of course, but I don't believe that they
>say any one style is intrinsically better than the other, just that;
Every person who posts at the Forge has their own agendas that they prefer. I think that most of them would tell you that they like all agendas, as long as they are clear. In any case, there is no one "Forgite" agenda, any more than there is one here. It's all individual players and groups.
Same thing with play of HQ. As such, it's not all that beneficial to talk about what HQ may or may not be superior for. Yeah I have my bias, but I try to restrain it from "wokrs best" to "works well" and the like.
>... Coherence is measured by how much a game is of a given agenda. For
>example D&D is strongly 1. Heroquest is strongly 3.
Mark is right here, Rob. While I think that HQ supports narrativism well, and that's how I play, what other people think it supports is a matter of their own perspective. I have no investment in trying to convince people to play HQ my way over any other agenda. I will help those who want to know about the way to use it for narrativism. But for those who are having fun playing some other way, why should I want to alter that?
To completely disclose, I have tried to bias some of the Issiaries authors to make stuff that works better for my form of play. But don't worry, they seem largely impervious. :-)
>Now, both can enjoy playing the other game, but they must be 'on the same
>page'. This term I believe (Mike will correct me) is from American
>Football where the team uses a 'Playbook'.
Well, actually I used the term sheet, too. Meaning music, in my mind. In fact I think this was originally a British phrase, but...
In any case, while there is a large UK audience here, do I have to avoid all Americanisms? I'm sure I'm using more. :-)
>What I think this means is that people with different RPG agenda's can
>enjoy the same game, but only if the game presents 1 agenda.
Not presisely. The idea is that if you present one clear agenda, players will tend to all play by it. You won't have players playing with different agendas anymore, because they'll gravitate to the one supported by the rules and techniques that you're using. So you won't have the problems of conflicting agendas in play.
>This is what I think Mike is getting at: Present Heroquest with its strong
>narrativism agenda intact. Thats when its strongest, and you could argue
>that it follows thats when its best.
Well, I'm saying that's what works for me. I think I've seen some pretty good sim adaptations of the rules, too (who wrote the "crunchy" extended contest rules?). Anyhow, what I will often say, however, when somebody posits such an alteration is to consider narrativism instead. I think this is valid because I think most people really don't know it's an option. That is, used to sim play, or something else, they see the value of the suggested alteration without considering that they might want to play in the alternate mode.
If I sound like I'm trodding carefully, I am trying to. Too often these ideas cause flame wars and such that really aren't merited, especially because they're presented with too much zeal. May have been my original problem with this. Congratulations to all here who have avoided that pitfal.
Mike
Powered by hypermail