Okay, super condensed, this is what I get:

Because we play games that do not have a single protagonist, and each character holds onto the role of protagonist for a short period of time, our brains are fundamentally damaged and we cannot truly enjoy stories now, because of it?

Please tell me that's not what he said...

Quote from: VellorianOkay, super condensed, this is what I get:

Because we play games that do not have a single protagonist, and each character holds onto the role of protagonist for a short period of time, our brains are fundamentally damaged and we cannot truly enjoy stories now, because of it?

Please tell me that's not what he said...

That wasn't want I got out of it.

To me, the basic concept is that if you played 'Story' games like Vampire tM at a young enough age, you've *forever* damaged (on a physical brain-structure level) your ability to understand true Story and true Story based games. The reason for this is that such games promised Story, but provide no mechanics to create Story.

Condensed, this comes down to "Games I don't like are harmful", which if you think about it may explain his reaction to your friend's design...

If you do a google (or other engine) search on "Ron Edwards" "brain damage", you'll see quite the firestorm.

Quote from: TonyLB[example deleted]

I honestly don't know whether that "counts" in this context.  Is the question whether folks in the Forge community individually help out games designed by entirely different methods (they do, see above) or is the question whether they use the Forge's posting system as the medium for doing that?

Bravo, Tony--in all sincerity. In answer to your question, though, I think it's partly the latter, and it's also a matter of looking at the overall community. It's simply not realistic to deny that the social atmosphere of the community centered at the Forge is heavily biased against what they term "simulationist" gaming, to the point that, as I've pointed out many a time, there's an implication that virtually any expressed interest is a sign of a repressed "narrativist" urge (or maybe "gamist"), which in turn ought to be addressed through various "nar/gam" mechanics in order to assure a successful design. This is partly an accident of the way the community was formed but it's also reinforced by the foundational theoretical documents in which that implication is strongly embedded.

And then furthermore by the exercise of mod rights by Ron which effectively give him the power to publicly psychoanalyze and editorialize on the contributions of posters without having to deal with their public responses. (So often expressed in language such as "I do not want this to turn into a discussion of how you feel about what I've written.") Of course it's all within Ron's prerogative as long as he and Clinton see eye-to-eye and foot the bill, but it's not a particularly welcoming atmosphere to a certain class of gamers (and I would imagine designers, although I'm not a designer personally).

Quote from: gleichmanThat wasn't want I got out of it.

To me, the basic concept is that if you played 'Story' games like Vampire tM at a young enough age, you've *forever* damaged (on a physical brain-structure level) your ability to understand true Story and true Story based games. The reason for this is that such games promised Story, but provide no mechanics to create Story.

Condensed, this comes down to "Games I don't like are harmful", which if you think about it may explain his reaction to your friend's design...

If you do a google (or other engine) search on "Ron Edwards" "brain damage", you'll see quite the firestorm.

So...  "mechanics create story" ...  which explains why all the Forge games revolve around a specific mechanic, which (itself) "tells the story," thereby negating the need for a GM.

What I find fascinating is the attitude toward the GM "bullying" people.  I don't think I've ever "bullied" anyone as a GM.  (Well, okay, there was this one time where I bullied someone, but he smelled horribly and we just wanted him to leave, so I killed off his character and pointedly said goodbye to him.)

...but, anyway.

"Games I don't like cause brain damage." -- Ron Edward

Good synopsis.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOf course it's all within Ron's prerogative as long as he and Clinton see eye-to-eye and foot the bill, but it's not a particularly welcoming atmosphere to a certain class of gamers (and I would imagine designers, although I'm not a designer personally).

I'd tend to agree with that.  I don't want to get too far into the details, where I'd disagree with certain specific aspects of what's been said.  But yeah, I think the Forge boards have a strong slant overall in terms of what people respond to, and how.

I think that the Forge community (i.e. the real people) is a different beast from the Forge boards.  There's the tip, and then there's the ice-berg, and while they're connected they're not entirely the same, y'know?

I find it unfortunate but completely understandable that these two things get conflated so very often.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's simply not realistic to deny that the social atmosphere of the community centered at the Forge is heavily biased against what they term "simulationist" gaming, to the point that, as I've pointed out many a time, there's an implication that virtually any expressed interest is a sign of a repressed "narrativist" urge (or maybe "gamist"), which in turn ought to be addressed through various "nar/gam" mechanics in order to assure a successful design. This is partly an accident of the way the community was formed but it's also reinforced by the foundational theoretical documents in which that implication is strongly embedded.

As a bit of history, they originally were (and still are IMO) significantly biased against "gamist" play as well basically portraying them in the typical power-gaming framework at best.

There are however more people who leaned towards "gamists" than "simulationists" and it became more and more difficult for Ron to hang onto an obvious bias. So he wrote his Gamism: Step on Up article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as a dodge. It contained enough rational stuff in it to deflect further attacks on this line (heck, it even included references to my own work).

The reason why I say it was a dodge is that while the theory was 'updated', the behavior at the site wasn't. Traditional games designs are still generally ignored and their gamist designs are more boardgame than rpg in style.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that the Forge community (i.e. the real people) is a different beast from the Forge boards.

I was looking for a place to wedge this point in, but you said it yourself.

It seems like a lot of former and continuing forge fomumites have made a constellation of blogs. I think that this has helped me recognize some of them personally unfettered by the tenor of the forge itself.

Yes, although in a few cases I think it's resulted in some of the more extreme (or narrowly focused, whatever) taking the Forge gospel and representing their interpretation of it in universal terms, which then redounds unfavorably on the Forge. Not sure what can be done about that.

Perhaps one solution would be to, you know, stop identifying with The Forge. Hang on, I've got a point here that's not as offensive as it might first seem. What I'm talking about is the way that some people respond to criticisms of "The Forge" by denying that "The Forge" is a meaningful category...but if that's so, then on what grounds would anyone be offended by an attack on "The Forge"?

Anyway, there are quite a few people in the wider "Forge" community whom I really enjoy sharing thoughts with, and while I don't want to alienate anyone by publishing a list (which would make the exceptions rather conspicuous), you're among them, Tony.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that the Forge community (i.e. the real people) is a different beast from the Forge boards.  There's the tip, and then there's the ice-berg, and while they're connected they're not entirely the same, y'know?

Taking your word for it, I wish then that this wider 'community' would do something about the boards. Something that doesn't reflect them, does them no credit. Such action includes leaving those boards, and dropping any association with them if no other course is open.

As is, silence give assent.

Brian:  You're saying that if I participate in the Forge boards, even though it includes people (perhaps even a majority of people) who say things that I wouldn't (personally) say then I am taking responsibility for all those people by the mere fact that I haven't gone thermonuclear and stormed off in a huff?

Bullshit.

I mean ... I'm posting here too.  I sure hope nobody takes my silence on the many things that get said on this site as assent.

Quote from: TonyLBBrian:  You're saying that if I participate in the Forge boards, even though it includes people (perhaps even a majority of people) who say things that I wouldn't (personally) say then I am taking responsibility for all those people by the mere fact that I haven't gone thermonuclear and stormed off in a huff?

I'm highly unimpressed with your response.

Would you show up a KKK rally adding your voice and number to theirs to boost the marcher count for the news broadcast? Unlikely I think.

You are one of the reasons for the success of the Forge- it exists like all messages boards based upon its active user base. That online presence that you yourself seem to object to is standing on your shoulders and the shoulders of others like you. I can't see how you can avoid responsibility.

Unless of course you're wrong, and the number of 'reasonable' people at the Forge is insignificant.

Quote from: TonyLBI mean ... I'm posting here too.  I sure hope nobody takes my silence on the many things that get said on this site as assent.

Currently (unlike the Forge) I don't believe this site has much of a group mindset. There are too many differences due to where the current user base has come from.

Where it goes remains to be seen.

Edit: I should note by the way that I have serious concerns about the future and current nature of this site due to the 'Landmarks' and RPGPundit's ownership. Neither are elements I wished to be associated with over the long term.

If I can jump in here: absolutely right, Tony. Nobody should take your silence as meaning you agree with whatever somebody says here.

On the other hand I've seen people leap to defend "The Forge" over something somebody didn't like that got said there, or which got said by someone who self-identifies with "The Forge" or Ron. Whether or not the initial offending comment really was representative of "The Forge", the defensive reaction tends to confirms the perception that "The Forge" is a cohesive community of thought. Not necessarily logical (though it might be in a nonobvious way) but c'est la vie.

[Edited to add: I personally find Brian's KKK comparisons distasteful and likely to derail this thread. Although he may be illustrating a point--and if so, rather effectively--about the use of language, since I've seen some pretty wild use of metaphorical language among the Forge community, including references to the KKK, sexual abuse victims, &c.]

Quote from: gleichmanI'm highly unimpressed with your response.

That's cool, Brian.  I wasn't trying to impress you.

Quote from: gleichmanCondensed, this comes down to "Games I don't like are harmful",

You know, looking at this, it could be a distillation of either RPGPundit or Ron Edwards.

Funny how that works, ain't it?

-O

Quote from: Elliot Wilen[Edited to add: I personally find Brian's KKK comparisons distasteful and likely to derail this thread. Although he may be illustrating a point--and if so, rather effectively--about the use of language, since I've seen some pretty wild use of metaphorical language among the Forge community, including references to the KKK, sexual abuse victims, &c.]

Dang it!

You scared them away. I was *so* wanting a Pro-Forgie to call me on the language