All the Worthwhile Opponents are Dead
So
how far can one get, exactly, claiming that a word actually is meant to
convey something different than what 90% of the population claim it
means?
Pretty freaking far, as it turns out.
At least 25
pages and counting, according to a certain RPG.net thread. On which
they are debating the value of the concept of "incoherence".
When someone at the Forge says a game is "incoherent"; what do you think it means?
What does it sound like?
To
me, and to most reasonable people, it would sound like they're using
the term as it is commonly used, to denote the concept of "makes no
sense".
If I say "arglebargle fible nous brak brak brak!"; I'm either speaking Cthulhu-language or being....
...yes...
INCOHERENT! That's right.
So, all together kiddies: "Incoherent" means "Makes no fucking sense".
So
when you label an RPG as "Incoherent"; you would label it as "making no
sense". Or more accurately as a game that is poorly made.
If
you want to get really technical, "incoherent" means "lacking
coherency"; where "coherent" means "functioning in a rationally
organized way".
So if you wanted to be extremely generous, you could
say that when Forge-Swine call a game "incoherent"; they are saying
that said game "doesn't function rationally", which is really just a
slightly more intellectualized way of saying "makes no fucking sense".
Is there any sense in which this is not insulting to said game?
Apparently,
some of the Forge-Swine are trying to claim its not meant to be
derogatory at all. Sure, the GNS-context of "incoherent" is in
reference to a game that claims to be "G" but plays like "S" or claims
to be "N" but plays like "G", or makes no claims at all and combines
"G" "N" and "S" all at once.
(Remember, the basic premise of
GNS, and the most fundamental reason why this theory is WRONG, is the
assertion that an RPG cannot effectively work for Gamist, Narrativist,
and Simulationist play at the same time, that these "modes of play" are
mutually exclusive)
So basically, the GNS theory defines an
"incoherent" game as a game that is flawed because it doesn't follow
the GNS model for success (nevermind that there's never been a single
widespread-success in the gaming world that followed the GNS model).
How the fuck can it not be a derogatory application then?
And
yet, there are a few shitheads out there, so determined to try to hide
their own prejudice, and yet so unwilling to abandon their theory, that
they have spent 25 fucking pages trying to pretend that "Incoherent" is
actually not meant to be an insult to a game, or that there is
something useful that can be derived from the term "Incoherent" other
than saying "game x sucks because its incoherent".
What a bunch of fuckwits.
Now its time for some advice for the Swine from old Uncle Pundit: Either shit or get off the pot, bitches!
Either
embrace your prejudice openly instead of hiding behind jargon like
little fucking cowards, or give up said prejudices because you lack the
courage, the conviction, or the will to hold onto them.
When I say a game sucks, I just say it sucks. That's called being a man.
Look,
its easy: "Vampire in all its versions is an RPG that sucks shit. Its
poorly made, it removes player power, its supposed to be about
sophisticated introspection but its got a system that's made for
fighting with uzis and katanas, and all of its so-called "Innovation"
amounts to pretentious twaddle with no real originality"!
See?
So
why the fuck hide behind a 400 page theory talking about "incoherence"
and using Vampire as an example, only to later try to argue that when
you're saying "incoherent" you aren't really insulting vampire? Fuck, boys, where are your 'nads?
You
can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to get some kind of
imaginary kicks from claiming a non-existent moral "high ground" of not
being about hating the other guys, then I'm sorry to tell you but, you aren't allowed to do that and actually hate the other guys.
You either accept that GNS theory is designed to denigrate certain
games (some games that deserve denigrating, others that don't, but none
of which really need GNS to explain anything about them) and proudly
denigrate these games; or you accept that GNS theory denigrates certain
games and thus reject GNS theory.
You can't accept GNS theory and then pretend that GNS theory isn't elitist.
Fuck that.
Fuck
you for trying it. Fuck you for being such cowards! Where are the
enemies worthy of me?! I'm so sick of these fucking Grima Wormtongues
that will always try the backhanded stab and the double-entendre rather
than just admitting their position and showing the will to fight for it
with some modicum of valor, even if their convictions be wrong.
Oh Great Magnet, give me an honest opponent worth fighting, at least, instead of these scum!
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Egg + Aylesbury's Latakia Blend
(Originally posted August 9th, 2006)
Comments (4)
Is this debate still raging?
not this particular thread, but the issue itself still hasn't fundamentally changed.
Well, calling game incoherent from view of some theory isn't insulting that particular game, it's just naming some aspect of such game... unles you also claim that incoherent games sucks...
That's the point of this rant, Fritzs; in English, at least, the word "incoherent" implicitly suggests that something sucks.
There's no way you can use it in a normal context and NOT be insulting.