OK, let me first of all state my position clearly:

I remain entirely agnostic as to how widespread this model of dysfunctional play, or dysfunctional play itself, is in the RPG hobby. We've got some internet folks saying "I see this all the time!" and others saying "I never see this at all!" and some folks inbetween, like "I've seen it but not often." I've experienced it, so I know it exists, and human nature plus the law of averages says that it's out there in some percentage, but I have no idea how much.

My basic point is that given that it exists, applying study and effort toward a solution is vaulable.

Now, I thought that was clear in my original post. If not I apologize. Several folks have claimed I was being indirect or evasive, but that was not my intent.

Levi: Yes, I see some folks objecting to the "funny clothes," but I see plenty of objections of the "how dare he say something like that about gamers!" sort, starting with the OP. That's what I'm reallytrying to address here.

Eric: Hey, maybe I'm thick, maybe I'm not, but John asked if I had taken Forgers to task the way I'm doing here, and my honest answer was that in my experience, I've not experienced that phenomenon in the threads that I've started or posted to. I'm not saying nobody posting on the Forge has ever been rude or stuck up or whatever. I'm just saying that I don't recall anything in my direct interaction. So we're talking about different people having different experiences with a site. Presumably there are umpteen-whatever Forge participants who don't experience the pretentious dickage you do, and presumably that's not in every case because they're pretentious dicks themselves. I haven't experienced the dickage of the Forge the way many folks here say they have. All I can do is throw up my hands and maintain skepticism, maybe occasionally ask for some evidence and get called an undercover Forger for my trouble.

Elliot: I see what you're saying. Yes, I got suckered. I'm an easy mark for this kind of shit, 'cause I think "yeah, it's a troll, but it should still be rebutted!" I keep thinking that this time I'll put things in just such a way that people will understand my point. Plus I'm new here, so I'm still getting a feel for what'll fly and what's worth attempting. Bottom line, I need to work on my "pick your battles" skills.

But since I'm here:

Lee: I'm reading through the whole entry (diagram and text), and what I'm seeing Chris actually say is that this is "the common form of Dysfunctional Play" and it's "a common form of play and a recurring model in the hobby." Neither one of those says "most gamers are playing dysfunctionally." They say that this is usually what dysfunction looks like, and that dysfunction is "a common form of play." Both of these are debatable. There are some reasonable points about the accuracy of the model buried here among all the angry cries. But I don't feel like it's very easy or even possible to have that discussion without stilling the angry cries. Which may not be a realistic expectation.

My original post basically did say "I'm not prepared to comment on how widespread this is, but it does resonate with me." Maybe I should work on brevity, but it's there. Yet still the cries. I'm not sure how else to go about it, y'know?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: StuartThat's a really bad chart.

/sign

Quote from: MelinglorLee: I'm reading through the whole entry (diagram and text), and what I'm seeing Chris actually say is that this is "the common form of Dysfunctional Play" and it's "a common form of play and a recurring model in the hobby." Neither one of those says "most gamers are playing dysfunctionally." They say that this is usually what dysfunction looks like, and that dysfunction is "a common form of play."

And if you look up-page to the April 28, 2006 entry then you will see:  

QuoteIncoherence in Play

Contrary to what many think, it doesn't always result in a flaming wreck of a game. More often, it just results in boring, dissatisfying play with occassional schizo flashes of things some, but not all, of the players find fun.

At the very -pinnacle- of play, some people have fun, for some of the time.

So maybe you didn't notice this before, but it's right there in black and white.  See also this entry where he says

QuoteEven more, add in the usual "Land of Broken Wheels" style of gaming- where no one at the table will openly communicate about what it is they really want out of play.

Emphasis added.  

If you didn't see those before, I can understand your interpretation of Chinn's comments about dysfunction.  But this quote makes it clear that in his opinion most games are "broken," and most gamers are "broken wheels."  

Again:  try and look at Chris' post for just a minute from the perspective of someone who's had a long history of mostly-functional gaming: Chris is telling you that your games have mostly been not fun, that you have lied to yourself to make yourself believe that they are fun, and that Chris has all the answers to make you really have fun. Now, do you see how that is offensive?

I'm repeating this because it's the key to have a rational discussion about some of Chinn's points without having to get mired in discussion of the crappy things that he's said.

Because he's said some pretty crappy things (some of which I've posted above).  

If you want to have a level-headed discussion of some of the good things he's said (and he has said some good and useful things), what you need to do is this:  come out and clearly admit that the crappy things that he's said are crappy, rather than refusing to admit that.  Then point out the things that he's said that you have found useful and try and get a discussion going on those.  You've totally taken away JimBob's ammunition, and then you get to have the conversation you want.  

Lee

Jeez. Just read the rest of the blog:

He says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html


So tell us, "Are you really having fun? Or are you just hanging out from habit?"

Read the comments:

Two brief stabs at sanity by John Kim and Mike Mearls. The rest is plenty of agreement from fellow forgies. (Many of whom went on to not having gaming groups afterwards, which is kind of a funny karmic reward in itself).

So is being a forgie fun? I imagine it's a lot less fun now.

Or are you just hanging out from habit?

Folks:
Let´s all agree that bankuei is a pathetic whiney ass and move on.
It´s been proven time and time again, Melinglor was just not up-to-date.

Forge bashing is sooo 2005.

Lee: thank you for working with me here. Thanks also to Elliot, upthread, for your patience. I appreciate being treated as if I'm not a dishonest twat.

Quote from: Lee ShortSo maybe you didn't notice this before, but it's right there in black and white.

No, 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.

I'm pretty sure I have read those posts at one time or another, since I've spent a lot of time wading through his blog in the past. And, y'know, I probably didn't pick up on or retain those comments due to the blindness of my perspective: "Hey, he's speaking to me, wow, somebody gets it," to the point where "this is most people's experience" doesn't really give me pause. I can understand where someone whose experience doesn't match is going to look at the "most gaming" stuff and go "what the fuck?"

Now, if we can set aside the "most gamers are like this" claim, I think it's valuable to look at a post like Chris' as a diagnostic: if your game group looks like this, you may have a problem. If it doesn't, great, move on and assume the "hey, dickhead!" wasn't meant for you. This is particularly true in the case of the denial issue: this can definitely happen, and it's good to point it out in the hopes of highlighting it for the denial-group, but clearly not every group is in denial.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html

Hey, that's Frank Filz disagreeing with him! I haven't met him yet, but he's local. Cool.

Yep, Chris clearly says that, and it is indeed ass. Kind of like your contemptuous attititude. But thanks for the link anyway.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTwo brief stabs at sanity by John Kim and Mike Mearls. The rest is plenty of agreement from fellow forgies. (Many of whom went on to not having gaming groups afterwards, which is kind of a funny karmic reward in itself).

This is an odd characterization of the discussion. First, Frank Filz is a Forger himself, and providing the main voice of dissent. And besides that, none of the posts were simple "me toos." Most of them merely said "I've experienced that," and provided anecdotes and such. And losing gaming groups afterward--I'm tempted to ask your source for this information, but really, it's irrelevant. People get gaming groups, people lose gaming groups. What is this, a chain letter? Did their dicks shrivel up after posting as well? I can see no value in this line of comment, unless it's laughing at others' misfortune.

Anyway, Chris did admit that he can't prove the 95% claim, so that's something.

Also, I would like to note: Chris has a terrible habit of responding dismissively and rudely to opposition. That IS something I noticed back when I was reading the blog.

Finally,

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo is being a forgie fun? I imagine it's a lot less fun now.

Or are you just hanging out from habit?

Um. . .I'm no more a "Forgie" than, I dunno, anyone who posts on the Forge as well as other PRG boards. In fact I rarely post there. And as I said above, my personal beliefs (and I'll add, my personal happiness) is not dependent on the 95% of gamers claim, or on any personal beliefs of Chris Chinn.

Quote from: SettembriniFolks:
Let´s all agree that bankuei is a pathetic whiney ass and move on.
It´s been proven time and time again, Melinglor was just not up-to-date.

Forge bashing is sooo 2005.

Gee, thanks for elevating the level of the discourse, Sett. It
s like, just when we seem to be getting somewhere in communication on a couple of other threads, you suddenly needed to take a dump on my head to balance things out. Jeez.

I'm certainly not up-to-date on the ideas and opinions current on this site. I'm trying to get up to speed. I also haven't read the entire intarnet. Some people are more helpful in this than others. If being helpful isn't a goal of yours, then by all means continue in this vein.



With that: I would like to analyze the Chinn Dysfunction Model, but perhaps I'll wait to see if the air's sufficiently cleared before I delve into that.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: Just spotted a typo, I meant to say that I rarely post to the Forge anymore. Not trying to deny association, just saying that i've been drifting more toward other forums.

Wow, deja vu. This is the exact thing you did earlier.

"Wha? Forgies saying stupid things that are complete and utter BS? What? Prove it to me! Why.. he never says the majority of gamers are dysfunctional...he's just talking about something else I want to .. er.. make an excuse about.."

(I point out where he says exactly that)

"Oh that doesn't say... er.. exactly what it is says. Plus.. uhh. it might even be true... not that I'm agreeing with the sentiment or anything...! I mean it's completely ridiculous... But it totally could be true!"

The problem with cultists, is that they are all worthless snivelling liars. Public relations is tough, I realize, but COME ON.

Settembrini: Sorry.

Well, if "Yes, he does say what you said he did, and I agree that it's stupid" isn't enough for you, then I clearly am out of options.

Peace,
-Joel

Fair enough! I consider your ass status to be kicked. Send in the next forgie!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html

It's interesting to contrast that with the poll I did on rpg.net, "Is your gaming any fun?"

In the first place we've got the framing of the question. I ask basically three questions: Are you gaming nowadays? Is it overall good, okay or bad? And if not gaming, would you like to game?

Now, I would say that if a person says, "it's overall okay," then they're having fun. Not just if they say, "it's overall good." Whereas Bankuei says,
   "After every game night, if you come home, excited, hyped, and can't wait for the next game session, mark the calender . If it was just "ok", or "routine", then don't mark the calender." [sic]
So if you say, "my gaming is okay," he reads that as "my gaming is no fun." See, I'd say that the simplest way to break down happiness and fun is good/okay/bad. If you want to split it into only two options, then those who would have said, "okay" have to decide whether to call it "good" or "bad." But in this case, Bankuei's not offering them that option - if it's "okay", then he insists that means it's "bad."

Consider all the things in your life which are "okay". Now imagine that you'd call all those things "bad". You'd be miserable, right? So that's a negative way of looking at life. You could take the other view, the optimistic one, and say that everything "okay" is good. That'd be just as silly, and in fact Bankuei would take it as reinforcing his chart. The proper view is a balanced one - some things are good, some are bad, and some are just okay.

Okay is okay, it's not bad.

Second, even going on his definitions, well, let's look at the results of my poll -
   70% of people said their current or past gaming experience was "overall good."
23% said their current or past gaming experience was "overall okay"
6% said their current or past gaming experience was "overall bad."

Now, even if you slot the "okay" guys into "bad," still you're left with 70% of gamers being quite happy with their gaming, having fun.

Which is way off "95% of gamers aren't actually having fun."

Sure, my poll with (as of today) 347 respondents ain't scientific. However, it's a larger sample than "Bankuei's buddies on his blog". It's more useful data.

I think what we're looking at here is a question of focus. A person can focus on the shitty things in their life, and think of all the okay things as crap - that's a pessimist. Or they can focus on the good things, and think of the okay things as good - that's an optimist. Or they can more or less honestly understand good things as good, okay things as okay, and bad things as bad - a "realist" we might call it? I dunno.

And then of course a person can have an open view - say, listen to the 347 gamers - or they can have a narrow view - say, listen only to the guys you allow to post on your blog.

So the guy's chart is born out of pessimism and a narrow view he chooses to have.

Quote from: MelinglorThe 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.

Well, if we assume that "functional" play produces fun, and "dysfunctional" play produces "not fun", then looking at my poll, we've got 20/347, or 6% of gamers saying they're having gaming which is "overall bad." So, 6% might be having "dysfunctional play." That doesn't make your "even 1 in 10", so by your standard is not "worth dealing with in group discussion."

To meet your benchmark, we'd have to either lower the bar for worth discussing to 1 in 20 or so, or assume that some of those gamers with "overall okay" experiences, and/or some of the "overall good" ones were having "dysfunctional play."

Now, I don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much. Maybe some things less deserve less attention than others. I brought up Bankuei's stupid miserableness because it's something we see often online. I mean, reading threads on rpg.net, you wouldn't think that only 6% of rpg.netters were having an "overall bad" experience - seems like a shitload more! I guess it's the same as anything else, unhappy people make a lot more noise than happy people.

So our discussions are shaped by too much consideration of stupid and miserable people's points of view. We forget the happy sensible people. And that's no way to understand what good gaming's about. When learning their trade, psychologists don't only study disturbed people, mechanics don't only pay with broken cars, doctors don't only learn about illnesses. All of them take a good look at healthy, well-functioning systems.

Bankuei and the other Forgers ask you, "What went wrong?" SteveD at rpg.net with his mindless optimism would ask, "What went right? What was AWESOME?" I'd ask, "what went wrong, and what went right?" That's what I'm working on with the cheetoism wiki - just a description of what actually happens in game groups, good and bad.

I think that's the way for a useful discussion, describing what actually happens, and asking a wide variety of people, not just "1 in 10 dysfunctional gamers", not just the miserable sods attracted to The Forge, or the kids attracted to ENWorld, or whatever - but a wide stretch of people.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's interesting to contrast that with the poll I did on rpg.net, "Is your gaming any fun?"

It's odd. The last time you brought up the poll you claimed it wan't scientific, and that Ron Edwards' impressions of the proportion of dysfunction was no more or less scientific. That's a fair point. But here you're holding the poll up as more reliable than the opposition. You can't have it both ways.

But, let me restate, I do NOT believe the claim that 95% of gamers are dysfunctional is a valid one. I find it likely, in fact, that dysfunction is in the minority.

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, I don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much. Maybe some things less deserve less attention than others. I brought up Bankuei's stupid miserableness because it's something we see often online. I mean, reading threads on rpg.net, you wouldn't think that only 6% of rpg.netters were having an "overall bad" experience - seems like a shitload more! I guess it's the same as anything else, unhappy people make a lot more noise than happy people.

I feel the same about what's worth discussing. My statement was more of a public plea to folks who might need more convincing to put the issue on the table. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere niggling at the exact numbers. Hell, I almost wrote "1 in 20" originally, but thought, "nah, 1 in 10 is strong enough to get the point across." Ah well.

Likewise niggling the exact wording for anyone's fun threshold seems like a dead end. Some folks are going to be satisfied if their gaming evens out to "just OK," whereas others are more content with low-key, less gonzo sessions. Myself, I'd characterize my gaming as a lot of stretches of boredom punctuated by cool moments. If you asked me how my session went and I said "ehh, it was okay," that could be miles apart on the contentment scale as someone else's "yeah, that was OK."

Quote from: JimBobOzBankuei and the other Forgers ask you, "What went wrong?" SteveD at rpg.net with his mindless optimism would ask, "What went right? What was AWESOME?" I'd ask, "what went wrong, and what went right?" That's what I'm working on with the cheetoism wiki - just a description of what actually happens in game groups, good and bad.

For what it's worth, my general reception at the Forge has been more like along the lines of "what went wrong, and what went right?" I agree wholeheartedly that it's important to focus on both sides. I just think you're unfairly characterizing the opposition.

Not that I expect that to stop, I guess. Just hoping to bring the characterization down to more sober levels, maybe.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorIt's odd. The last time you brought up the poll you claimed it wan't scientific, and that Ron Edwards' impressions of the proportion of dysfunction was no more or less scientific. That's a fair point. But here you're holding the poll up as more reliable than the opposition. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not.

First point, we're talking about different "polls." There's what people told Ron Edwards that prompted him to write that most gamers he meets are "tired, bitter and frustrated." "Perhaps over one hundred," he said.

Then there's Bankuei, who's done no polls at all, doesn't claim that any individual has told him anything (as far as I can see from a casual glance at his blog), but suggests people examine their level of gaming satisfaction - while predicting the results of his study, and not actually asking for any feedback.

Ron Edwards asked for feedback and then ignored it anything positive that didn't sound "Narrativist"; Bankuei didn't ask for feedback at all. My poll was pretty open, and while I expected certain results, I didn't broadcast them while offering the poll.

Second, I never claimed that my poll was "scientific." I just said that because it's a sample of more gamers than theirs, (347 to Ron Edwards' 100+, and some unspecified number for Bankuei), it's more likely to be representative than theirs.

My poll, despite its numbers, is too small to give truly quantitative results, they can be qualitative only. Is it plausible that, say, only half of all gamers are satisfied with their gaming? Rather than the 93% my poll suggests? Yes, it is. Is it plausible that only 5% of all gamers are satisfied (Bankuei's claim), rather than the 93% my poll suggests? No, it isn't.

We're not going to get rigorous figures here, but I think we can make the qualitative statement: "Most gamers are happy with their gaming."

Quote from: MelinglorBut, let me restate, I do NOT believe the claim that 95% of gamers are dysfunctional is a valid one. I find it likely, in fact, that dysfunction is in the minority.

That's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

And do you think that we can just assume that "functional" = "happy" and "dysfunctional" = "unhappy"? Or do you think that some "dysfunctional" groups are unhappy (they don't know when they're not having fun, they delude themselves)? Do you think that some "functional" groups are unhappy - what does "functional" mean, then?

Quote from: MelinglorAnd we're certainly not going to get anywhere niggling at the exact numbers. Hell, I almost wrote "1 in 20" originally, but thought, "nah, 1 in 10 is strong enough to get the point across." Ah well.

Which would be why I wrote...

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much.

No niggling needed.

Quote from: MelinglorMyself, I'd characterize my gaming as a lot of stretches of boredom punctuated by cool moments. If you asked me how my session went and I said "ehh, it was okay," that could be miles apart on the contentment scale as someone else's "yeah, that was OK."

Sure. But the point isn't exactly what "okay", "good" or "bad" mean on some objective scale - only what it means to that person answering. It's like asking someone if they've had enough dinner. Whether it was 1oz of food or 4lbs doesn't matter in establishing, "have you had enough?" We just want to know if people's gaming is good enough for them. If someone is happy with 1oz of food, or not happy with 4lbs, there's no use my saying, "but you should be happy with more/less" - things ain't going to change for 'em. Likewise, maybe this guy should be happy with his gaming, and this girl should be unhappy with hers, looking at it "objectively" - but it doesn't matter a damn what it should be, only what it is.

Unlike Bankuei with his chart describing self-delusion, or Uncle Ronny with his articles describing brain damage, I think that people pretty much know if they're happy or not. If they say they're happy or unhappy, I'm not going to argue with them. I'll just ask them, "why?" And then from their responses, try to find out what seems to make lots of people happy, and what makes lots of people unhappy. That's how we get Cheetoism - it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Quote from: MelinglorFor what it's worth, my general reception at the Forge has been more like along the lines of "what went wrong, and what went right?" I agree wholeheartedly that it's important to focus on both sides. I just think you're unfairly characterizing the opposition.

I'm glad you've had a good experience there; many others haven't. And the end result of their questions has been their various articles, where they don't seem to have taken on board things that went right, only things that went wrong - thus, Uncle Ronny's "perhaps over one hundred" "tired, bitter and frustrated" gamers.

Joel,

I'll be more than happy to have that discussion.  I'm on vacation and my access is unpredictable for the next 2 weeks -- and I still owe droog a report on Shock when I have some time to collect my thoughts -- but, yeah, I'll be in on that conversation.  

The rest of you: lay off it.  Joel's clearly interested in discussing RPGs and doing so in a rather more open and honest manner than you often see on the internet.  So don't run around trying to stuff him into a clean little box labelled "Forgie" or "anti-Forgie".  Those labels are only appropriate for those who buy in to the party lines -- who are too damn common as is, so don't go trying to create any more of them.

I think most of us are here, at least in part, because we honestly like discussing RPGs, and many of us are unhappy with the us-vs-them that permeates RPG discussion online.  Well, we're not going to make it any better by using others' honesty against them.  I guess it all depends on what you really want:  a tit-for-tat where you get to amuse yourself by calling others names, or an open and honest discussion.  So, yeah, do some tongue-in-cheek stuff if you want.  But if you keep laying it on, it pretty quickly goes beyond tongue-in-cheek.  

Now I'm not the one to cast the first stone here.  I've certainly had some times when I read something that pissed me off, and said some things that didn't help the situation.  But we've got to fight the impulse to reflexively support "our team" regardless of the merits of the situation -- if we want an open and honest discussion.  OTOH, if what you want is snide comedy, then keep on.  Honest discussion, snide comedy, and a bit of payback are all goals that are appealing to the human psyche.  That's the paradox.  How much of each are you willing to give up to get the others?

Quote from: Lee ShortI'll be more than happy to have that discussion.  I'm on vacation and my access is unpredictable for the next 2 weeks -- and I still owe droog a report on Shock when I have some time to collect my thoughts -- but, yeah, I'll be in on that conversation.

No worries, there. My own internet access is sporadic, and it's all I can do to keep up with the forum. If the conversation progresses slowly, I will, in fact, be relieved.

Quote from: Lee ShortThe rest of you: lay off it.  Joel's clearly interested in discussing RPGs and doing so in a rather more open and honest manner than you often see on the internet.  So don't run around trying to stuff him into a clean little box labelled "Forgie" or "anti-Forgie".  Those labels are only appropriate for those who buy in to the party lines -- who are too damn common as is, so don't go trying to create any more of them.

God, thank you. I'm finding I'm spending three times the energy I should have to just clarifying and reiterating what I mean.

Jimbob: I must say, this is starting to look like as level-headed and respectful a conversation as we've been able have on this subject, much better than our last effort. So thank you.

About the polling: I can see where your data carries more weight than Chris' experience or even Ron's, but I remain unconvinced that the this weight is anything like conclusive or convincing. In short, I'm not sure if it's useful at all. I'm extremely suspicious of statistics.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

I do. I think the reason (or one reason) the dysfunction gets more airtime is that it's easier to point out what's not working than what is. And just more to say about it. Often if things are going fine, you don't need to think about it, and if you do analysis tends to be a bit fuzzy.

Quote from: JimBobOzSure. But the point isn't exactly what "okay", "good" or "bad" mean on some objective scale - only what it means to that person answering.

Well, that's actually the weakness I was trying to point out: "what it means to the person answering" is impossible to pin down within the context of, say, your pole. For me, personally, "Just good enough to get by" is a pretty bleak picture for a regular activity. When my roleplaying sessions are in such a state (and the dysfunction I've encountered has usually been closer to that end of the spectrum than the "tutally fucking awful" end), I start wondering "God, why am I staying up till 3AM on Friday nights to do this? I could be staying up on Friday nights with my girlfriend instead." So it really all depends.

Regarding the delusion issue: I think it exists, I should say know it exists, because I've seen it. It comes in various severities and forms, but the most common is "well, it's not that bad, really" accompanied by a good dose of "these are my friends, I can't quit/leave." But again, this is my experience and a "thing that happens," not the norm or indeed any definite percentage.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm glad you've had a good experience there; many others haven't. And the end result of their questions has been their various articles, where they don't seem to have taken on board things that went right, only things that went wrong - thus, Uncle Ronny's "perhaps over one hundred" "tired, bitter and frustrated" gamers.

I'm aware that my experience is not universal, and was only pointing it out because the opposite assumption is the rule here, and wished to provide a counterexample. Which has been getting me called a liar or dense or whatever, but that seems to be subsiding now, thank goodness.

The point about the essays is a whole 'nother topic, and I'm not even quite sure where to begin. On top of the monumental effort to delve into it sufficiently, I'm at a disadvantage in such a discussion since any agreement with the Forge essays is suspicious around here.

Peace,
-Joel