Quote from: SpikeThe disconnet we are having is this: I view gaming as I do almost any sort of activity, rather than something special.  It's a group activity, certainly.  I've got people that I'd rather not game with. Hey, imagine that, I also have people I'd rather not work with. Sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes they are different.

I'm not sure I understand you here. I'm not saying gaming is anything "special." I don't think it has to be to apply the concept of dysfunction. I've dealt with dysfunction in family relations, the workplace, choir, student newspaper, and church, to name a few. I think it's useful to look at the reasons for those dysfunctions and how to aviod or mitigate them. There are more helpful ways of looking at them, and less helpful ways. But the base value of looking at them at all still stands, and I'm calling that "Dysfunction.

Now, different people's tolerance for analyzing different topics varies greatly. If you're just saying that you don't have much tolerance for digging deeply into this particular subject, then OK, fair enough. But there's no need dump on a perfectly good word to make that point.

Quote from: SpikeI don't see inherent value in getting together with other people and trying to develope an entire body of amature studies on why I do or do not want to game with Joe. Joe may be an asshole. Joe may think I"m the asshole. It doesn't matter.  Joe could be an awesome guy to go get drunk with and stare at strippers and still be the worlds biggest asshole at the table.

Quite right. The set of people I would enjoy drinking with is probably a lot larger than the set of people I would enjoy gaming with. :toast:

Quote from: SpikeThe answer isn't to talk about different creative agendas, the answer is 'don't game with Joe'.

[SNIP]

Of course, all this talk of Creative Agendas and shit is really just window dressing for 'don't game with Joe'.  Oh, he's got a different CA... whatever.

I'm a bit confused here. You presented the advice, "don't game with [someone you don't enjoy gaming with]" as an alternative to CA, then a bit farther down you said that this advice is thereal core of CA. I mean, without going into whether CA is accurate or useful, which is it? If you're saying that the analysis doesn't need to go deeper than "don't game with Joe," then let me assert that (whether CA/Big model is the answer or not) looking into the reasons why gaming with Joe isn't fun is valuable to me. Especially since there's a much broader spectrum of solutions than "game with him"/"don't game with him."

Quote from: SpikeYou presented your pre-Forge gaming as something akin to RPG hell, and your post Forge gaming as 'enjoyable'. I won't try to exaggerate and say you claimed it was perfect, but it was most certainly 'not-hell'. But you haven't said anyone told you 'don't game with Joe'.

I don't recall saying anything about it one way or the other, aside from mentioning some techniques I've gleaned. Why is the absence of a statement, "They told me 'don't game with Joe'" being repeatedly taken as evidence that they didn't tell me that? Hell, we haven't really even begun to discuss my experiences with the Forge and related blogs. It seems to me that  there's a certain profile (I hesitate to type this as it seems a laughable understatement!) of "The Forge" and its denizens that's current around here, that gets applied in the absence of evidence to any reference to interacting with it. In fact, I have recieved advice akin to "Don't game with Joe" on several occasions, though it was more like "I wouldn't play with Joe if he acted that way" or "maybe you shouldn't game with Joe if you have that much frustration with him." (I find the shorthand we've created to describe this rather amusing, by the way, since the player I've had the most trouble getting along withis in fact named Joe. )

Quote from: SpikeAs for my comments about bringing your own ruckus to the table rather than just defending other peoples ruckus: I'm not talking about just in this thread. It seems like every time I see you post you are busy claiming someone else is misunderstood, and that their ideas saved your gaming.   Peachy, I'm glad you are having fun. Really.  But if Ron or Chris or whomever needs to defend themselves, let them come in and defend themselves.  Bring YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions, not theirs and I'll be happy to talk to you.  I can go read their ideas all over the Forge and elsewhere.  More, I can't debate their ideas with you. You didn't come up with them, and all you are doing is 'spreading the good word'... that same shit is annoying when the Jehovah's Witlesses do it on Saturday mornings in the real world.

I, uh, don't think this is coming up as often as you say it is. I did dive into a subject like this related to Ron when I first came here. . .and now this. In both cases I was genuinely trying to understand where people were coming from and offer my perspective. I am new around here and still getting a feel for what conversations are worth having, and how best to have them. Now that this thread has becoem completely unraveled I'll just have to regroup and consider the best avenue for dialogue to approach next.

And who says you can't have a debate about ideas that didn't originate with yourself? That seems. . .awfully limiting.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardOH AND I used to LARP with a guy who played a Drow. He wore blackface the first time, but quit doing it after that. His explanation was something along the lines of "WTF, I'm black..."  :haw:

Personally, I like my Dark Elves better in grey, anyway.:cool:

Peace,
-Joel

I deny the very premise of your arguement melinglor.


Please tell me, what you think the point of a chart is?

I'm rather curious. Because I learned in Pre-K that a chart was a "graphical depiction of complex data so that data becomes easy to understand."

Later, perhaps 3rd grade, I learned about more complex, flow-charts, which are a graphical depiction of a complex process (usually with multiple steps) so that it can be easily understood.

If you have to sit down and explain the meaning of a chart for me, the chart ain't doing shit! Your ideas are complete bunk!

Quote from: MelinglorQuite right. The set of people I would enjoy drinking with is probably a lot larger than the set of people I would enjoy gaming with. :toast:

If I can't game with you, I won't drink with you

Edit: Bad phrasing on my part

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KashellI deny the very premise of your arguement melinglor.[/B]

Umm, I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to here. I've said a lot of things in this thread, some about the chart, some not.

What is the "premise of my argument" that you're referring to here?

Peace,
-Joel

From your first post on this thread.

QuoteAnyway, about the diagram and accompanying prose:

I'm not for a minute going to try to say anyone might be right, wrong or sideways about whether the setiments are an accurate picutre of the majority of gamers. Or whether this represents hate/bile/contempt on Chris Chinn's part. But consider: What if, just if, someone came to Deep in the Game or the Forge or wherever, and read descriptions of gaming like this, and instead of saying "Oh my God, what hateful bullshit! My gaming isn't like that at ALL!" what if instead, they said "Oh my God! This is exactly the kind of shit I've been going through in X years of gaming! Someone's seen the same problems,and maybe has some sort of useful analysis and solution!"

That person exists. Me, for one.

For another 5 posts and 3 pages, you essentially repeat yourself and attempt to defend your orginal statement.

So let me summerize your original premise:

"This diagram helped me, and therefore it should help someone else too!"

After you realized that Chris did post that he believed most gaming play was disfunctional, you wrote...

QuoteNo, I didn't see this before. Or the other quote. I was only reading the post at hand. So Chris Chinn does say that most gamers aren't having fun. The vast majority even. This is stupid. I'm entirely comfortable saying that.

The reason that this is stupid is that it may well be true, but how can we really know? It may well be not true.As I said upthread, there's a bunch of internet folks reporting the experience, and a bunch of other internet folks reporting its absence. And my personal beliefs or philosphy are not dependent on dysfunction being the majority. To some degree they are dependent on it being a significant presents, but hell, even 1 in 10 is significant enough for this purpose. Common enough to be worth dealing with in group discussion is my benchmark.

So let me summerize your second point:

"I think Chris' opinion about the majority of dysfunctional play is stupid...I mean, it could be right, but I don't know, but I think it might be OK."

Until your very last post, you do nothing but repeat yourself senselessly in addition to try to defend yourself from namecalling.

Let's recap, shall we?

"This diagram helped me, and therefore it should help someone else too!"

"I think Chris' opinion about the majority of dysfunctional play is stupid...I mean, it could be right, but I don't know, but I think it might be OK."



Now, from the mere walls of text you created, I can figure out one of a few things things:

1) You personally detest "labels" and thus, made a bunch of derailed posts just to defend your "no label" status.

OR

2) You really enjoy making fruitless arguements

OR

3) You don't know how to make an arguement

OR (finally)

4) You are Hulk Hogen.


You fail to understand that this thread is not about you, your experiences, your life, or anything else pertaining to you. It is about a retarded diagram and an obviously incorrect statement about all gameplay being disfunctional.

い所。

Quote from: kregmosier

Your pyramid is upside-down.

Quote from: John MorrowYour pyramid is upside-down.

OMG it's the brain damage, i swear.

More fun with charts.

Science and faith: two flowcharts

Stuart - hahaha fantastic.  i <3 graphs and flowcharts when they're used for silly effect.  (which on the internet is actually more often than not...)  thanks for the link.