I get the feeling that James is not his real name...

Nope, it's my real name. I've used it online ever since I first found the internet. I don't feel the need to hide behind a persona. If you're really curious and want an address or something for proof, feel free to PM me.

Quote from: LeviThe Forge acts like a peer review community where you aren't a peer until you agree with certain basic principles; in practical terms, those principles aren't up for questioning.

QFT, brother.  QFT.

Quote from: LeviThe Forge acts like a peer review community where you aren't a peer until you agree with certain basic principles; in practical terms, those principles aren't up for questioning.

This would literally be like me only having the other faculty in my department and a couple of my friends take a look at my work and then consider it "peer reviewed".

"Pistols" threads are for having actual debates over a specific topic, not for hurling insults at each other.

I'm going to take James at his word that he's going to stop with the constant attacks, and we'll see how that goes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartThis would literally be like me only having the other faculty in my department and a couple of my friends take a look at my work and then consider it "peer reviewed".

So, you see why I consider it my strongest insult?

Quote from: SpikeWait... This man, this Ron fellow.... He's a PROFESSOR right? I mean, he fucking teaches people for a living in his real job?

I weep for the youth.  When a teacher can passionately hate explaining things in a coherent manner and still be considered a 'teacher'... that scares me.

Have you ever been to college?

In many parts of academia, teaching students is just something you have to do as part of your job, when what you're really interested in is pursuing your research and publishing papers and chasing after tenure. As such, you tend to get a few - and thank goodness I haven't encountered too many of these - who regard the whole "teaching" bit as a dull chore they have to get out of the way, and not part of their "real work" at all.

Quote from: WarthurIn many parts of academia, teaching students is just something you have to do as part of your job, when what you're really interested in is pursuing your research and publishing papers and chasing after tenure. As such, you tend to get a few - and thank goodness I haven't encountered too many of these - who regard the whole "teaching" bit as a dull chore they have to get out of the way, and not part of their "real work" at all.

I actually like the teaching bit -- I find it helps you constantly re-evaluate your methods / theories to make sure they're still relevant.

If you're incapable of explaining something to someone in relatively straightforward terms so that they can understand you, then there's a 90% chance that you yourself don't fully know what you're talking about.
And even in the case that you're one of the other 10%, what fucking good are you?

RPGPundit

I´d object some of Pundit´s statement. There is the very real chance of stupid and lazy students. If you don´t read what the professor says, than you do not deserve to understand.

In university.

And with references to real, reviewed books which are under constant scientific scrutiny.

Those are works that are painstakingly built by human society so one actually can send someone: "Go, read! Then we can discuss what you´ve read."
That´s their whole point.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe Forge acts like a peer review community where you aren't a peer until you agree with certain basic principles; in practical terms, those principles aren't up for questioning.

How is that different from "normal" society, where you have to accept certain basic principles that aren't up for questioning? Some of which are expressed through the law, whereas others are called social/cultural standards.

Not trying to be antagonistic or anything, I'm just wondering why you label this as deeply insulting, when it's essential for any civilized community. Yes, laws and cultural standards slowly change over time, but so do the stances at the Forge. Regardless of whether there's a theory sub-forum or not.

Quote from: WhitterHow is that different from "normal" society, where you have to accept certain basic principles that aren't up for questioning?

Our normal society doesn't act as a "peer review community" in the academic sense.  It's too big.

A community of peer review where some things aren't open to debate is easy to spot.  It slowly builds up a tendency towards the hidebound, dogmatic, and repetitive.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenA community of peer review where some things aren't open to debate is easy to spot.  It slowly builds up a tendency towards the hidebound, dogmatic, and repetitive.

They also make circular references. Often found in para-science as well as ideological cul-de-sacs, like world systems theory.

I'm only doing this because I know a lot of people make a point of "never going to the Forge," but picking up the random bits of unsubstantiated comments about the Forge by people who also, as far as I can tell, never actually read anything at the Forge...

This thread is now entering a sub-discussion on whether teachers actually teach. All off the point that Ron Edwards apparently doesn't teach...

And how did this come to pass?

First, Warthur posts:
"In fact, I get the impression that Ron passionately hates explaining things to people, especially when he's already explained an idea once. His tendency to respond to questions with links to old essays and Forge threads seems to be another manifestation of this."

The bandaged logic on these sentences is so bloody it's disturbing to look at.

We begin with the fact that the statement is nothing more than... sort of made up: "I get the impression..."

Then Warthur goes on to state "Ron passionately hates explaining things..." except, of course, "when he's already explained things..." which means, apparently, he doesn't mind explaining things at all. And then we find out that he really doesn't like to explain things again. To which I can only add, "Is explaining the same thing over and over in a medium which allow for linking to previous discussions something you want to do with your time?"

And then Spike jumps in with this:

"Wait... This man, this Ron fellow.... He's a PROFESSOR right? I mean, he fucking teaches people for a living in his real job?

I weep for the youth. When a teacher can passionately hate explaining things in a coherent manner and still be considered a 'teacher'... that scares me."

He takes Warthur's "impression" [not scare quotes, just quoting] at face value, without any support for Warthur's impression, and then leaps to a criticism of Ron's ability as a teacher?

And then, improbably, people actually continue and extend this critictism of Ron.

Now, I know this is hard for some, but if you actually go to the Forge, you'll find Ron explaining things right and left. You may find his explanations cantankerous? You may find his explanations horribly flawed. You might think that what he is explaining is a pile of shit. But he is explaining all the time.

Here are some links to examles:

Here explains how he set up the background material of his Shadows of Yesterday game, and talks at length about different kinds of "setting" material and what kind he finds valuable and what kind he doesn't.

Here's a thread where Ron and Levi talk about GNS stuff..

And here's the continuation of that conversation.

Again, you may not like the explanation, you may mind the tone grating, or wish Ron used more analogies involving clowns or whatever, but he is explaining.

So hate him if you must, use bandwidth disparaging a man who you've never met and really has no impact on your life if you really have that much free time in your life... but for cryin' out loud, let this particular bit of the thread go....

****

Also, somewhere around here, the Pundit claimed that Edwards said that if you played traditional games, you'd become brain-damaged.

Now, again, I don't know how much facts matter around here, but I thought I'd point out this simply isn't true.

What Ron said was, that if you play games that promise story, but the rules are designed to actually get in the way of story, you might well end up with a damaged brain in regard to constructing story.

The example he often gives is of Vampire -- it promises one thing, but doesn't deliver. As was recently noted, the Pundit agrees with this assesment of Vampire promising story, but delivering a bunch of kewl powerz and fightin' in the actual rules.

He, of course, parts company with Edward on the matter of story mattering and any concern that people who want story will have their brains damaged in the ability to form story by trying to shoe-horn the many RPG's call story into actual story. For the Pundint, any concern for story is foolish. And I both a) think that's great, and b) don't care much. I want the Pundit to play what he wants. Perversely, the fact I want to play something he doesn't makes me a bad man.

Anyway, Ron's point is that if you train yourself in storytelling by playing say, Vampire, you're going to have a pretty warped idea of what storytelling is how to make stories. The ability to think in terms of story -- a natural, human ability -- is actually impaired.

This is borne out, I find, that people who play games like Primetime Adventures or Sorcerer who've never played RPGs before "get them" right away -- because they're about storyteling, and people are natural storytellers. But people who know storytelling through traditional games get all caught up on the shoals and bumps created by games that mish-mash "story" with standard RPG rules (like Vampire.)

Disagree with him if you think he's wrong. Think he's an ass for even giving time to this matter.  But at least take stock of what he actually said. And don't believe a man who says Ron Edwards says playing tradional games causes brain damage -- cause the man is, as always, either a willful liar or a lazy instigator of conflict whose statements about the Forge and the games designed by those who hang out there are often so wrong it's just nuttty. (My favorite so far? RPGPundit's constant instistance the in all these new-fangled games the players get to always just make up whatever they want. I mean... it'd be laughable, but that his audience has seldom read the texts of the actual games he's talking about.)

By the way, if you read the original GNS essay (and god knows, who would? Better to read the glosses on the internet by people looking for reasons to be pissed off) Edwards clearly believes that some groups got past the "brain damage" part by simply ditching the rules found in the text and creaing a rules system that let them get around to story.

A game "book" doesn't create the damage -- but how we play can. And if we shoe-horn rules like the Vampire rules -- as written -- into expectations of getting good story, Ron thinks (and I think) there's going to be trouble with understanding how story works.

***

Finally, for the record, Ron thinks many traditional RPGs are great.

Here are three threads, about an AD&D 3.0 game he ran for some kids in his neighborhood. And look, he may not have run it the way you would run it, but reading his posts, he sure sound like a guy having a great time playing AD&D to me.

And here are four threads detaling a rough and tumble game of Tunnels & Trolls Ron wrote up.

(By the way, that fact these and other threads blows the whole "people at the Forge don't play, Ron only talks about theory" nonsense out of the water is just icing on the cake. I swear, when I read what people write about the Forge, most of the time I look at it go, "But that has no connection to, you know, reality!")

Now, again, I'm not sure how much facts matter around here. My guess is that gross generalizations and inaccurate statements are part of the fun in the whole "It's us against them," thing the RPGPundit depends on for attention.

But I did feel the need (foolish, misguided, yes I know) to set out some corrections.

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikBut I did feel the need (foolish, misguided, yes I know) to set out some corrections.

Actually, thanks.

Oddly, for all that I dislike Forge culture and am iritated that it's impossible to talk theory without it intruding, I like the people fine.  Ron explained his views very well in those threads you linked to.  As stated, he explained to me exactly what I wanted to know.

Unfortunately, I didn't find it practically useful, myself.