Resolution
I have been thinking more about elements of my Social-Play Model, especially the IIEE pieces of it, and doing a little reading. I found Victor Gijsbers' old post, Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text (April 2005) to be very enlightening. I know next to nothing about Derrida, structuralism, semiotics, and the like, so I tread on thin ice here, but
( Read more... )
Re: What people mean by talking about CA.
I mean, yeah, I wasn't getting my way, and I played and had a reasonable time of it, but it didn't compare to those games where everyone at the table knew what they'd be getting out of the game, and the play delivered it. Those games rocked.
I can sign to this. It doesn't have any GNS-jargon in it.
I don't believe that's 'what people mean when they talk about CA'--or, rather, after the closure of the theory boards on The Forge, something fundamental changed in (most) of the GNS dialog which brought it closer to what you mean--but still not there.
Basically, if you can say what you say without any jargon whatsoever, I'll likely agree (note: I think that there can be productive creative tension produced by either sudden shifts in the dynamic of the game or by having players who don't do the group-think thing with you--but that's neither here nor there).
But if you start talking CA, I think it brings in a bunch of toxic baggage when you start looking at what those words try to mean that you don't need and don't help.
-Marco
Reply
I also don't believe you when you say you'll agree if I talk without any jargon whatsoever. I think you mean Forge jargon. If we talk for more than a few paragraphs in any detail about game theory, we're either gonna be using someone else's jargon or making up our own. The topic is just too complicated to discuss without jargon.
Hell, I spent two or three comment-posts hashing out with Bruce that he and I meant something different when we said "play."
Reply
Leave a comment