On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:02:03 -0700, psychohist <psychohist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>The arguments surrounding the threefold were fundamentally arguments
>about what sorts of games people personally found to be good, combined
>with a sprinkling of incredulity that other people could enjoy
>different kinds of games.
>
>I find nonexclusive 'types' to be less than useful, myself: if you
>can say "all of the above", they don't serve any real purpose as
>categories or types. Nonexclusiveness applies better to attributes -
>things like, "does a lot of preparation" or "has a big miniatures
>library".
A lot of the argument about the threefold concerned how exclusive the
three corners were, whether one could claim e.g. "I'm both a
simulationist *and* a gamist" rather than just "I'm a mix of
simulationist and gamist; sometimes I give priority to simulationism
at the expense of gamism, and sometimes to gamism at the expense of
simulation."
But from the very beginning the proponents of the threefold did claim
that most GMs were mixed cases rather than pure corner types.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
