On RPG Theory: E
Analysis and Commentary on the RPG Theory Glossary: E
Effectiveness: "No Spiked Chain Fighters or CODZilla's! Guys! Why are you ruining my game?" Thankfully, not really a problem in old school play, being that the rules are 'whatever we agree to as a group.'
El Dorado: coined by Paul Czege, whoever that is, that represents the search for a simulation system that allows narrativist play. The whole thing seems like a false dichotomy to me, but it's hard to prove because there are no clear definitions of simulation or narrativism. (in the GNS context of course). It seems trivial to me that a game contains both, based on my understanding of those terms. I.E. a character through play discovers relevant themes and goals and attempts to accomplish and experience them within an environment and rules system (comprising character, setting, situation, system and color, no?).
Exploration: Just FYI, Simulationism is 'defined' in this glossary as 'prioritizing exploration' which is this. This is defined as the process of establishing fictional events interactively, which is the process or role playing.
When I was first exposed to these ideas (GNS) I thought it was pretty brilliant to describe some issues I'd had in play, and I still think the general idea of defining things is a pretty good idea. I've got one player that's interested in fighting, and a bunch of others who like in character role-playing. Knowing what each player finds most fun is helpful in running a game to their tastes.
But as to the actual theory itself - where is it? What do these words mean? It seems like when you dig, instead of declaratory statements, you find circles within circles. There will be something to be gleaned from this. When I find it, I'll dig it out and show it to you.
That's all for the wacky world of weirdness today folks!