Quote from: James McMurrayWaitaminnut. Edwards and Pundit also both hate Vampire?

Is there anything these two don't have in common?

Edwards believes in narrow-focus games.

Pundit thinks such games are destined for the bargain bin.

Ah, so they're practically the same person but for one core belief?

Quote from: James McMurrayAh, so they're practically the same person but for one core belief?

*Snerk*

No, there's plenty of attitude difference, too.

Ron's very much an academic.  Even when discussing things that, plainly, aren't academic.  He denies playing the provocateur, generally, instead stating that he simply has ideas that sometimes cause a furor.  Ron often has great ideas, but you need to dig.

Pundit isn't anti-intellectual, but he is anti-false-pretense.   He doesn't deny being a provocateur; he revels in it.  Pundit often has the exact opposite kind of great ideas, but you need to dodge the flying shitstorm he gleefully drags along with them.

As, so Edwards is also better spoken and more rational. Cool.

James M. We get it. Anytime the pundit posts, you're going to post some kind of moronic "gotcha" type post. You can be secure in the knowledge that nobody's going to ban you or anything.  

That said, your one-note schtick has begun to bore the living crap out of me.  

Now the real subject:

QuoteImpossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

The most important thing about "the Impossible Thing" to know that it is a total lie, designed for suckers. It is primarily used for the following purposes:

1) Make bad gm's feel like it isn't their fault that they suck, and suck hard. See also: most forgies. Ron must recognize that forgies are created by gamers who experience constant failure. This is the sugar that draws the flies.

2) Promote a perception of gaming as a culture of victimization and dysfunction! In traditional gaming, the GM is of course always using abusive "fiat" and when the players do anything at all- they only really have the "illusion" of free will.. until they discover the wonders of Narrativism!  If they think otherwise, they might be fooling themselves- they may even be psychologically deranged. Directly controverts and invalidates the so-called 'Lumpley Principle', but hey.

3) Promote a design aesthetic where a false perception of constant GM fiat is replaced with an ironclad design spec involving constant unshakeable Game Designer fiat. 'The rules force you to play exactly as the designer intended!' or so they crow.

So it's bullshit, but it's bullshit with a purpose. I think it is mostly out of vogue, now. At one point it fed the cultists and made them feel important. It generated a lot of chin waggery. It's mostly over with except for a few people still breathing the fumes.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs, so Edwards is also better spoken and more rational. Cool.

I think whether Ron is better spoken is very debatable.

Quote from: WarthurIt can make sense if you work hard to interpret what Ron is actually saying there. And add some words.

Referring to that idea as "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" and putting it in a Glossary of Misfit Terms is really stupid.

Maw, who's trying to get banned? If I wanted that I'd start posting links to porn or something. I'm just giving Pundit a little good natured ribbing. He's certainly demonstrated he can handle it, why can't you? Honestly, if it bothers you that I give him a dig every now and then you'll probably want to put me on ignore. Metaphorical cow-tipping is a hobby of mine.

QuoteI think whether Ron is better spoken is very debatable.

Less moronic sounding then? Not so much words, as methodology. Edwards has an academic style and pundit a gutter one. As such, Edwards wins that comparison. However, when looking at style, Edwards is boring and Pundit laughable. Pundit wins that one on the entertainment value. Finally on the message level of "what they're actually saying" they're both ludicrous because they both present opinions as facts and hug the extremes when doing so.

I've tried to read Edwards's essays and they bore me to tears. I try to read poundit's blog and I'm too busy laughing how insane and inane it is. But at least he gives me a frothing mouthed cow to poke in the eye.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs, so Edwards is also better spoken and more rational. Cool.

Not more rational.  More rationalist.  A rational man would understand that words have connotations as well as explicit meanings.  A rational man would understand that people sometimes have strong emotional reactions to plain speech.  A rationalist ignores these issues, often because such concerns are consider to be beneath them.

Edwards is a sophist. He likes to play little games with words, invent jargon, and generally play the pseudo-intellectual.

I like to speak in a way that people understand what I'm saying, I don't see being complicated to understand as equivalent to being intelligent. Apparently, Ron does.

I don't know what its like in the sciences, but in the Humanities its usually first year undergrads that pull this sort of shit, using unnecessarily complex words and occasionally made-up ones, to try to sound like they're smarter.  Usually this is to cover up the fact that they didn't do any real research, and that in terms of real comprehension or imparting of truths, they've got nothing.

RPGPundit

And it's middle school children that shout curse words trying to sound cool. Do you really want to make that comparison?

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't know what its like in the sciences, but in the Humanities its usually first year undergrads that pull this sort of shit, using unnecessarily complex words and occasionally made-up ones, to try to sound like they're smarter. Usually this is to cover up the fact that they didn't do any real research, and that in terms of real comprehension or imparting of truths, they've got nothing.

This is true.  Anyone working in Communication, Marketing, Design, Journalism, etc. would recognize how poorly worded Ron's essays actually are.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd it's middle school children that shout curse words trying to sound cool. Do you really want to make that comparison?

Ah, the one-issue wonder strikes again.

RPGPundit

I spent about 5 minutes on this.

Original:
Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

Updated:
Authorship Paradox
Many RPGs describe the GM as being the author of the story, while the players direct the actions of the protagonists.  The paradox is that it's the actions of the protagonists that make a story.

It's not worth spending much more time on rewording Ron's term because it's simply describing how many other RPG texts are (possibly) poorly worded.  The actual solution is for the RPG texts mentioned to be improved.  Possibly something like this:

"The GM is the author of the story describes the environment of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

...

Keep pulling on that thread and watch the entire Forge theory start to unravel.

I'm wondering if maybe it's a reflex action he has no control over... Sort of like gagging on too big a chunk of food. Poor boy just can't help himself!

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAh, the one-issue wonder strikes again.

What's that kid? I couldn't hear you over your recess bell ringing. It's time to put down the cigarette and come out from behind the gym now.

Quote"The GM is the author of the story describes the environment of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

That's a piece of GM Advice I could get behind, although there are groups out there for whom it wouldn't work because some folks actually prefer the story mode of gaming.