TheRPGSite

Pundit!
Listen up!
I challenge you to a duel-thread. 50 Posts should be enough. You, as the challanged person, choose who starts. The matter of discussion should be obvious.

(takes pipe out of his mouth)
Challenge accepted.
(puts pipe back in)

RPGPundit

Who´s first?

You are. You issued the challenge.

Weapons of choice?


RPGPundit

QuoteWeapons of choice?

I assume written words shall suffice.

If I go first at a count of 50, that means you´ll have the last post.
I´ll open a new thread, noone else is to post therein.

Quote from: SettembriniI assume written words shall suffice.

If I go first at a count of 50, that means you´ll have the last post.
I´ll open a new thread, noone else is to post therein.

Good boy.

RPGPundit

I'm just bumping this thread as it looks like some people might want to join the conversation, and that other thread is supposed to be mano-a-mano.

Good idea. Unfortunately, I had to delete one post by WArthur, who apparently didn't get the memo/read the opening message on that thread as to what a "pistols at dawn" thread is about.

RPGPundit

Yeah, that's the one that triggered my bump. Mayhap he'll see this and repost.

Quote from: RPGPunditGood idea. Unfortunately, I had to delete one post by WArthur, who apparently didn't get the memo/read the opening message on that thread as to what a "pistols at dawn" thread is about.

What the?

I honestly don't remember making such a post - a million apologies if I did, I knew full well that posting in the duel thread was a no-no. It is just about possible I was meaning to post in here as the peanut gallery, but I'm really having trouble remembering posting any kind of response to stuff in that thread - because I was thinking so hard "mustn't reply to this, it's a duel thread".

Are you sure you're thinking of me?

Oh, damn, now I remember. I should stop using tabbed browsing in web fora, it makes it far too easy to post things in the wrong threads - the other World of Darkness thread must have confused me.

Sorry.

Its not a problem. I figured it was unintentional; I had assumed you hadn't noticed the warning and didn't know what these kinds of threads are about; but not having realized where you were posting is as good a reason.

Anyways, feel free to post any comments here, or to start your own threads.


RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniYou are now diluting the war effort, by bombing everything indiscrimensately.

You should differentiate:

Brain Damage means: Swine
It´s basically the same. You get brain damaged by playing Vampire. That´s the whole deal. So brain damage hits the right persons: pretentious railroaders.

Ron Edwards

Forge Gamewrights

and

Swine Masses

Right now, you are fighting against all, even though their aims, methods and goals are very different.

Ron Edwards: He is just a guy. And he´s a nice person. He´s also an alpha person, who talks a lot (like many people, and most GMs). He´s also an academic. He saw that internet debate is screwed, and he formed a community to his liking to change

1) debate
2) the games being written

Those goals are working against each other, especially as he is also trying to change

3) the way RPGs are marketed

There is conflicts in his aims. None of his aims is destroying mainstream RPGs.

He´s a guy with conflicting visions, and he works for them. He doesn´t work against anything else than sometimes against himself. And he has come a long way, I´d say That´s really nothing to be afraid of.

Forge Gamewrights: Some are okay, some are pretentious fuckwits, but they are few, and they sell not very much. The last thing to fear is cannibalizing sales from D&D. Those games generated their own demand. Again, nothing to be afraid of. They aren´t even posting a lot on forae.

Swine Masses: Their aim is lessening the tragedy of their miserable lives. They are unhappy, unhappy with gaming, with their life, with the weather. Oh yes, and the government. Therefore, they elevate themselves above the other people. By being pretentious. By furthering a conspicious consumption culture. by gaining Mod Status. By being passive aggressive. By theorizing without designing a game. By playing what the kool kids play, without getting the point. By trying to be intellectuals through imitation of their habits.

Forge gamewrights and Ron Edwards happen to be intellectuals. Some pretentious most not. Therefore, their level of reflection is relatively high. When they speak, they know how to speak intellectually fair (most of the time). Thusly, a lot of other reflecting people will drink their kool-aid, as it is  the only real reflecting discussion going on. Look at Dr. Rotwang!, he surely is a prime example. He had to do a lot of thinking to come full circle and realize the ill workings of the Swine Masses behind the fog of reasoned discourse.

So in conclusion, if thematic games and adventure roleplaying games come to be known as seperate, then the swine masses will loose their current  main weapon:

GNS-Trashtalk.

You yourself have said many a time, that the Swine will follow whoever gives them the feeling of being special.

Take that away from them, and they are a huge confused mess of ill-beings, caught between the high and mighty fortress of manly man adventure roleplaying games, and the no-bullshit-let´s-work on some hippy-navel-gazing-thematic-games crowd.

They will realize their loneliness and seek out whoever else is giving them fuzzy feelings.

The swine masses are the enemy, not the flavour of the season they use as an excuse.

If there really were a war, I'd be rallied by this speech. :)

Oh no, I don't fit into any of the Swine categories. Damn it, guess I'm an enemy combatant :eek:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David ROh no, I don't fit into any of the Swine categories. Damn it, guess I'm an enemy combatant :eek:

I figure I must be part of the Swine masses, as Settembrini doesn't seem to have supplied any more choices.

Oh well, I'm used to being slotted into groups by others.

Quote from: droogI figure I must be part of the Swine masses, as Settembrini doesn't seem to have supplied any more choices.

Oh well, I'm used to being slotted into groups by others.

I was going for the masses category because I'm unhappy with my goverment and although I don't play what the "Kool Kids" are playing I do play with cool cats :hmm:

Regards,
David R

I have no idea what Pundit means by Swine anymore.  Is Ron Edwards a Swine?  Is Vincent Baker a Swine? Is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?  Is Rebecca Borgstrom a Swine?  Or are Swine only the people who play the games?  Or is it just a generic insult like "Jerk"?  :confused:

You're a Swine!



[Hey, I gotta say, though, Pundarr's latest rave at the top thread there made me giggle like a maniac.]

My take so far:

Pundit identifies two groups clearly: The Vampire-y swine and the Forge-y swine. He advocates raising the black flag and commencing to the cutting of throats. I have to suppress an urge to say "Hell yeah!" here, just because, well, you know. That would be fun.  

Settembrini describes a situation slightly differently. He also sees two groups. Forge Gamewrights (some, but not all of whom suck) and the Swine Masses (a malicious yet ultimately pathetic lot) that will follow whoever makes them feel good. But the groups are not mutually exclusive, as there's also a lot of Chris Chinn er.. I mean crossover of Swine Masses who identify-themselves-with Forge Gamewrights.  

I think Settembrini is suggesting a fairly slick method (the seperation into thematic and adventure games) by which the swine masses will have effectively segregated themselves out of the entire hobby. He surmises that once the division is complete, the Swine Masses effectively become 'their' problem community instead of 'our' problem community.

Which I say, good call.

So what's a "Vampire-y swine"?  Someone who plays Vampire?  A goth?  Or is it somehow connected to "storytelling"?

Far more importanly...

(http://beatles.ncf.ca/rolls2.jpg)

'John Lennon's newly painted psychedelic car drew some public outrage when a old woman, in London's downtown, attacked the car using her umbrella and yelling: "You swine, you swine! How dare you do this to a Rolls-Royce." '

:eek:

Maybe they ARE "Hippy Games"!!!

I hate that 60s memorabilia thing.

Peronally- I don't think just playing or liking anything makes you particularly swiney. I have two copies of Vampire on my shelves (two editions, really). I have three copies of Mage, if you are including the Sorcerer's Crusade. I liked those games and I played them plenty.

It's really only when you turn it into some kind of supremacist ideology about how this makes you superior to the peasantry that you actually grow a curly tail and your eyes shrink down to little piggy eyes.

If we could all agree to stop giving a shit about Ron Edwards, how much debate would be left?

Quote from: jrientsIf we could all agree to stop giving a shit about Ron Edwards, how much debate would be left?

Have you seen Pundit's blog today?

Quote from: StuartI have no idea what Pundit means by Swine anymore.  Is Ron Edwards a Swine?  Is Vincent Baker a Swine? Is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?  Is Rebecca Borgstrom a Swine?  Or are Swine only the people who play the games?  Or is it just a generic insult like "Jerk"?  :confused:

I think perhaps it used to mean something, but has degenerated into "anyone that disagres with me."

Quote from: StuartHave you seen Pundit's blog today?

Dude, it's all I can do to stay focused on his longer posts when he's "being the Pundit." Reading his blog is out of the question. Can you give those of us with low pain threshols the summary version?

Quote from: James McMurrayDude, it's all I can do to stay focused on his longer posts when he's "being the Pundit." Reading his blog is out of the question. Can you give those of us with low pain threshols the summary version?

Here's the abridged version...

Quote from: RPGPundits BlogKnowing a Lot About Bat Penises Don't Make You an Expert On RPGs

This is Ron Edward's Curriculum Vitae:

>> Ron Edward's full C.V. <<

Note the absolute lack of any qualifications relating to actual RPG theory.

* SNIP *

Ron Edward's specialty, apparently, is animal genitalia.

Quote from: StuartHave you seen Pundit's blog today?

Yes.  The fact that the dude's curriculum vitae lumps RPGs in with 'other marginal activities' is the single most insightful commentary on the Theory Wars in the history of RPGs.

Ummm... Is there any places to go to get a RPG Theory degree? If not it seems pretty moronic to try and bitch about someone not having an RPG Theory degree.

What are pundit's qualifications for anything RPG related. Apart from being a loudmouth with lots of opinions he has one unpublished and unoriginal game. Somehow we're supposed to think that's better than a guy who has written (and published, and sold) two different games and a theory that is often quoted as an industry standard.

When's the last time you were on a board and saw someone post the insightful, "ah, but you see, Pundit says you're a fucktard" and walk away with a debate victory?

The source for that CV is here (http://condor.depaul.edu/~biology/edwards/aboutme.htm). It's a college website which is presumably either his job or it was his job. In other words, it's a resume. How many people put "I Play D&D" at the top of their academic resume? That it's on there at all says to me he's very serious about games. You'll certainly never see D&D at the top of my resume unless I write something for it and am applying for a job that it applies.

He also doesn't list any of his RPG publications, but they certainly exist. Basically, pointing at an academic resume that obviously does not include someone's RPG experiences and saying that it means they don't have any RPG experience is Punditry at it's most pathetic. Is Ron Edwards really such an unhittable target that he had to ignore reality to get a jab in?

Quote from: James McMurrayThe source for that CV is here. It's a college website which is presumably either his job or it was his job. In other words, it's a resume. How many people put "I Play D&D" at the top of their academic resume? That it's on there at all says to me he's very serious about games. You'll certainly never see D&D at the top of my resume unless I write something for it and am applying for a job that it applies.

I agree with this 100%.  I've worked with a lot of Academics and IT Professionals, and looked at hundreds of resumes over the years -- and never seen someone put "role-playing games" on there in any way.

Quote from: James McMurraya theory that is often quoted as an industry standard.

Really?  The only time I saw a D&D product that quoted GNS it was in a joke Dragon article.  Am I missing the GNS talk among the industry veterans?  I've not seen Mike Mearls make much of it, or S. John Ross.  Nor has Gygax, Kuntz, Ward, or Mentzer, as far as I can tell.  Is Greg Costikyan using GNS nowadays?  Robin Laws?

Quote from: James McMurrayIs Ron Edwards really such an unhittable target that he had to ignore reality to get a jab in?

Pundit takes every little opening he can find.  No matter how ridiculous.  It's just how he rolls.

From this interview (http://mattstaggs.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-rpgpundit.html).

Quote from: RPGPunditA Swine is, fundamentally speaking, someone who prefers to give off airs of superiority rather than actually trying to be superior. Someone for whom appearance matters more than reality, and who will always choose the easier way out of picking the false over the true, so long as the false can look good. It's people who have no claim to arrogance trying to be arrogant. People who care more about others thinking them smart than actually being smart, or people who care more about appearing artistic rather than being an artist. Swine are frauds, in other words. In gaming, the Swine are the ones who use gaming as a substitute for something else in their life to generate a sense of self-importance. I've found that usually, people who game to just have a good time are people who have jobs, who have a family, who have a sense of purpose in their life, and who therefore don't need gaming to provide that purpose; so an RPG can be just a game. Whereas the swine, on some level, NEED RPGs to be "art" or to be "academic" or to be "the elite" or to be "the industry" or whatever,because they have nothing otherwise. And they need others to think like they do and to agree with them,or else this illusion falls apart.

And the Pundit is not a Swine because:

QuoteYou have to understand, as Ive mentioned before, that my goal is to use the Swine's own methods against them.  
 
The difference between them and me, and the key reason I'm NOT a swine (as per the definition of Swine above), is that I'm talking about the TRUTH, whereas what they're talking about is false, and they're lying.
 
To the Swine, their own agendas are more important than the truth; perception and appearances is more important than the truth.  Hell, most of their activity on the net is a desperate effort to create a web of lies that allows them to nestle comfortably in a delusion about what the "gaming world" is like.  
 
The stuff I talk about as  "the pundit" is usually not IMPORTANT, but it is TRUE.
 
RPGPundit

Wow.  Not what I thought he meant when he said Swine at all.

I hope my use of the word Swine is clear. If not, I´ll be happy to elaborate. Ironically, I´m sort of an orthodox Punditrian: I use his old definition from the BlueRose Wars era.

double post

Quote from: jrientsReally?  The only time I saw a D&D product that quoted GNS it was in a joke Dragon article.  Am I missing the GNS talk among the industry veterans?  I've not seen Mike Mearls make much of it, or S. John Ross.  Nor has Gygax, Kuntz, Ward, or Mentzer, as far as I can tell.  Is Greg Costikyan using GNS nowadays?  Robin Laws?

I didn't say who was quoting it. Nor do I really care what their names are. If nobody was paying it any attention it wouldn't be "the enemy." Ergo, someone of importance must be talking about it, or pundit's panties wouldn't be so wadded up about the idea.

Theories are fun to debate at times, but don't belong in actual games. The only real measure of success for a game is not whether it matches category X with method Q, but if it sells and the people that play it want more. You can fit the theories perfectly and be crap, or you can not even care if they exist and rock.

Quote from: James McMurrayTheories are fun to debate at times, but don't belong in actual games.

I love it when an author puts his pet theory in the designer notes.  It's one of the things that's great about Sorcerer, for instance.  It wears its agenda on its sleeve.

It's still two more games then Pundit's written, making his claim that there's a lack of credentials an outright lie.

Sad really. I've only read a little of Ron's stuff because his writing style annoys me, but there's other holes available. By resorting to this sort of stupidity Pundit weakens every other point he makes because you can't be sure if he's lying again.

But as I've theorized before, I'm sure he knows this and does it because he doesn't want to "win." Doing so will lose him the following of the three people that think he's cool, returning him to nobody status (instead of nearimperceptible blip status like he has now).

Quote from: James McMurrayBut as I've theorized before, I'm sure he knows this and does it because he doesn't want to "win." Doing so will lose him the following of the three people that think he's cool, returning him to nobody status (instead of nearimperceptible blip status like he has now).

You say that, and yet here you are...

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's still two more games then Pundit's written, making his claim that there's a lack of credentials an outright lie.

I'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

Quote from: SettembriniI hope my use of the word Swine is clear. If not, I´ll be happy to elaborate. Ironically, I´m sort of an orthodox Punditrian: I use his old definition from the BlueRose Wars era.

That would be helpful / interesting to me at least.

Quote from: jrientsI'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

I don't think Ron Edwards ever brings it up, but every once in a while one of the followers would do it. "You call him DOCTAH EDWARDS!!"

This has fallen out of vogue in recent years, but it was always kind of fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPeronally- I don't think just playing or liking anything makes you particularly swiney.[...]It's really only when you turn it into some kind of supremacist ideology

I agree.

There are at least two problems with gaming discourse, neither of which GNS solved, in fact arguably GNS made them worse.

1. People unable to express their opinions of certain styles of play, without attacking the aesthetic judgment of others. Or at least being seen to do so. For example the guy who says that exploring themes is superior to overcoming tactical challenges.

2. People "agreeing to disagree" about aesthetic judgments, while reserving a priviledged aesthetic interpretation (which implies an aesthetic judgment after all). For example the guy who says "How wonderful for you that you enjoy playing games with a traditional GM!" but adds, "Good on you for enjoying being led through the GM's story. I personally don't like that stuff."  Basically it's a version of the Loaded Question.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen2. People "agreeing to disagree" about aesthetic judgments, while reserving a priviledged aesthetic interpretation (which implies an aesthetic judgment after all). For example the guy who says "How wonderful for you that you enjoy playing games with a traditional GM!" but adds, "Good on you for enjoying being led through the GM's story. I personally don't like that stuff."  Basically it's a version of the Loaded Question.

I personally experienced that one a lot, and it eventually made me into the merciless caveman I am today.

I hasten to add, saying "X is crap" ought to be preferable to saying "I think we can agree that X is an unoriginal rehash without any surprises, so I'm sure our difference is only a matter of taste. De gustibus, you know! I like original, challenging works, you like unoriginal rehashes. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not my cup of tea."

Edit: But with RPGs the problem is that differences in taste really are informed by differences in interpretation, and those in turn are related to differences in practice (how your group plays Stormbringer, for example). I can't seriously look at Monopoly: Star Wars Edition and say, "That's a really bad simulation of a galactic rebellion." I suppose I can say, "Isn't it kind of dumb to have a Star Wars edition?" but I'm missing the point that the game really isn't intended to connect with Star Wars on anything but a shallow level. Similarly someone who points to a game on modern tank warfare and complains about lack of balance because a T-72 isn't able to stand up to an M-1 is obviously missing the point.

Quote from: StuartI have no idea what Pundit means by Swine anymore.  Is Ron Edwards a Swine?  Is Vincent Baker a Swine? Is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?  Is Rebecca Borgstrom a Swine?  

Yes to all of the above.

QuoteOr are Swine only the people who play the games?  

Not necessarily all of them.

QuoteOr is it just a generic insult like "Jerk"?  :confused:

No.

RPGPundit

Why is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?

Quote from: jrientsPundit takes every little opening he can find.  No matter how ridiculous.  It's just how he rolls.

This wasn't a particularly small Jab. The Forge's identity depends on the idea that it is somehow a "legitimately academic" way of looking at RPGs.  That they are using "academic" methods, and have people qualified by way of their expertises to be able to look at RPGs in an intellectual and academic way.

My point in posting his C.V. is to say that essentially, he is NOT an academic in any meaningful way that could be related to RPGs, and that the methods he use have no bearing with the academic disciplines that could be used to do REAL research on RPGs.

Not, note, that real research on RPGs would be particularly desireable.

RPGpundit

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's still two more games then Pundit's written, making his claim that there's a lack of credentials an outright lie.

He might be able to make some sort of a claim of being a successful RPG writer (though he wasnt yet at the time he formulated GNS), but that's neither here nor there with anything to do with any claims of being an "academic expert" on RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartWhy is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?

It's that little dot thingy.  I hate it when Pundit seems to be calling half the gamers on the internet swine, but that frickin' dot makes me think he's got at least one guy pegged correctly.

Quote from: jrientsI'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

Not only does the forge as a whole do so, trying to present the veneer of academia and intellectualism in everything they do, but Edwards' fanboys have repeatedly pointed out that he's a professor so he must know what he's doing.

Ironically, Edwards himself used the fact that he's a biologist as his justification for expertise as to being warranted in claiming that Mainstream RPG gamers are all Brain Damaged.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartWhy is Mark Rein·Hagen a Swine?

He was one of the early and foremost proponents of the idea that RPGs are a higher art, and that a certain type of RPG (Vampire) is a HIGHER higher art than other games, that those people are therefore playing RPGs wrong, and that RPGs are meant to be serious artwork for goths.

For all of that, he deserves the Spiked Baseball Bat of Truth to the head.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIronically, Edwards himself used the fact that he's a biologist as his justification for expertise as to being warranted in claiming that Mainstream RPG gamers are all Brain Damaged.

Yeah.  It's the one figleaf you've got going on here, I think.  If he had said "I know all about bat wangs, so let me tell you..." then would we even be having this discussion?

I'm thinking there better be a poll thread to follow the current pistols at dawn:

Who won?

Pundit

Settembrini

Spike?


:D

Quote from: SpikeI'm thinking there better be a poll thread to follow the current pistols at dawn:

Who won?

Pundit

Settembrini

Spike?


:D

The Swine because they are so few but yet give so much :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe Swine because they are so few but yet give so much :D

Regards,
David R

Alas, hoist by my own petard... beaten by the write in vote!!!



Now I'll never by famous.:p

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou say that, and yet here you are...

I'm not quite sure what that means.

Quote from: jrientsI'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

True, but Pundit didn't say he "lacked academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory." He said "the absolute lack of any qualifications relating to actual RPG theory." That's a whole different beast there. It's the difference between the two that I am calling an outright lie. Pundit might not like his games, but as a credited and selling* game designer, he has more qualifications under his belt for theory than Pundit.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI agree.

There are at least two problems with gaming discourse, neither of which GNS solved, in fact arguably GNS made them worse.

1. People unable to express their opinions of certain styles of play, without attacking the aesthetic judgment of others. Or at least being seen to do so. For example the guy who says that exploring themes is superior to overcoming tactical challenges.

2. People "agreeing to disagree" about aesthetic judgments, while reserving a priviledged aesthetic interpretation (which implies an aesthetic judgment after all). For example the guy who says "How wonderful for you that you enjoy playing games with a traditional GM!" but adds, "Good on you for enjoying being led through the GM's story. I personally don't like that stuff."  Basically it's a version of the Loaded Question.

I seriously doubt any amount of theorizing will fix either of those, because they come down to a personal choice on whether to be an ass or not. If you want to be an ass then you mix in judgement calls when explaining about your favorites, and you refuse to agree to disagree. If you don't want to be an ass you maintain the stance that others' opinions are different but work for them.

QuoteHe might be able to make some sort of a claim of being a successful RPG writer (though he wasnt yet at the time he formulated GNS), but that's neither here nor there with anything to do with any claims of being an "academic expert" on RPGs.

I never said it did. I just said you're a liar. I don't really care whether Edwards is a liar or not, because I'm not around, and he's not as fun to poke in the eye as a paranoid delusional fool with an inferiority/superiority complex and more "fucktards" coming out of his keyboard than good idea. :D

If I were to frequent the forge and saw Edwards telling lies about you I'd say the exact types of same things.

QuoteHe was one of the early and foremost proponents of the idea that RPGs are a higher art, and that a certain type of RPG (Vampire) is a HIGHER higher art than other games, that those people are therefore playing RPGs wrong, and that RPGs are meant to be serious artwork for goths.

See, when you say your favorite game is better than Pundit's, you're swine. When you say his game is better, you're smart. It's all about which direction your words stroke the ego.

Quote from: SpikeNow I'll never by famous.:p

Sure you can. All you gotta do is learn how to call someone a derogatory name, pick a group you don't like, then start a blog about how they suck. :) The hard part, that I give Pundit credit for, is starting a board where a bunch of people will come and talk games even though it means sometimes being ranted at when they "cross the line in the war." I don't know how he did that. It's not him, because I see a lot of folks posting without caring what he does, although he does add a laugh every now and then with the frothing and the spittle.

From the challenge thread:

Quote from: RPGPunditYour position is so intellectually confused it baffles reason. You admit that Ron was either wrong or lying in his claim that GNS is universal, yet you don't want to reject GNS.

I've got a theory, let's call it PIFOS. This theory, simply stated, is Pundit Is Full Of Shit.  It's a very useful piece of information to keep in mind when surfing these boards, and will help people stomach a lot of the insanity without getting too carried away.

It doesn't hold true for every single post he makes, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Quote from: StuartI agree with this 100%.  I've worked with a lot of Academics and IT Professionals, and looked at hundreds of resumes over the years -- and never seen someone put "role-playing games" on there in any way.

I think it varies a lot - I understand that there are big differences between American resumes and European CVs (European CVs tend to include interests and hobbies, resumes don't, is how it's been explained to me), but as far as academic CVs go you wouldn't put your hobbies on it. Academic employers are interested in what you've studied and what you've published; outside of academia employers might be interested in your hobbies if they want to hire well-rounded individuals instead of workaholics with no life.

As far as Ron's CV goes, it would make far more sense for him to say "I run a small publishing company as a hobby" than "I play D&D", because that shows that he has at least accomplished something.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, I think that, in a purely definitional sense: My Life with Master more deserves the title "Roleplaying Game" than D&D (which would be better called "Roleplaying Toy")

First off, I'm going with Settembrini's definition of "Roleplaying", for a start, i.e. "talking to advance a make believe situation". Both D&D and MLwM use that, so hence "Roleplaying" for both. But to distinguish it from, as the Pundit colourfully describes as "furries who go to online chats to masturbate at each other's fantasies", there must be something else:

Greg Costickyan's 1994 article "I have no words and I must design" (http://www.costik.com/nowords.html); (who is extending a classification proposed by Will Wright) a game is a toy with an intrinsic (& challenging) objective in it.

A ball, for example, is a toy. It offers many interesting behaviours, which you may explore. You can bounce it, twirl it, throw it, dribble it. And, if you wish, you may use it in a game: soccer, or basketball, or whatever. But the game is not intrinsic in the toy; it is a set of player-defined objectives overlaid on the toy.

That sounds rather like D&D, to me: The ruleset "offers many interesting behaviours, which you may explore". Combat, monsters, skill checks, settings and so on. But the GM and players the come up with the goals themselves to turn it into an interesting game (rack up the old experience points. Or fulfil the quest your friendly GM has just inflicted on you. Or rebuild the Imperium and stave off civilization's final collapse. Or strive toward spiritual perfection. Whatever.) But the goals are not intrinsic in the D&D rules themselves; it is a set of player-defined objectives overlaid on the toy.

If, for some reason, your players don't have a goal, they'll find one right quick. Otherwise, they'll have nothing better to do but sit around the tavern and grouse about how boring the game is. Until you get pissed off and have a bunch of orcs show up and try to beat their heads in. Hey, now they've got a goal. Personal survival is a good goal. That's D&D.

The rules to My Life with Master, on the other hand, has a very defined and rigid set of rules for when the "endgame" is triggered, and the exact type of ending (i.e. a "Win" or "Lose" condition) for each PC. The goal for anybody playing My Life with Master is clearly defined in the rules; Kill the Master.  The game simply won't support any other goals properly. It would be like trying to play of Monopoly when the goal for each player is to open the finest art gallery in London. It just won't work.

But it's not wholly fixed, either. In Monopoly you don't know that whoever plays the Boot will win, or how they will do so before you play. You know that eventually, the game will end, somebody will have got more money, somehow, than everybody else, and will win. Same with MLwM. You know that the game ends when the Master is killed. But you play the game to find out who does it, how, and what that means for each PC.

In that case, I can see MLwM being closer to other games ("Football", "Monopoly", "Scrabble", "Clue", "Poker" and so on) than D&D. D&D is more like a ball or a deck of cards; it's a toy you use to play games with.

This, I think is the good thing and bad thing that separates these two forms of roleplaying. A single toy (like a ball, or the D&D rules) can support many different goals pretty well, and doesn't impose any on the people playing with it. Some toys may suit some goals better than others of course, but generally, a toy is pretty versatile and adaptable to the group playing with it.

A game (like Monopoly, or the MLwM rules), on the other hand, has an inbuilt objective that it supports, and it doesn't really work if you try and go outside that objective. On the other hand, having a goal built into the rules means that any bunch of random people can get together and play the thing without having to do anything else. Toys, due to their versatility, don't get that luxury. (Imagine if somebody brings a deck of cards to a group, and tells his group that they will be "playing cards". One guy might want to play Poker, another Bridge, and a third Snap. If something isn't sorted out, nobody is going to have much fun that evening.)

So "D&D=Toy, MLwM=Game".

(Waits for the Pundit to explode!)

That´s correct.
But don´t overlook textual and historical development of Adventure Games:

Modules and campaigns are the time-tested frames of reference for them. And they have goals and endings. Thusly, there might not be in-built and expressed endings and goals, but in the way people actually play, it most often becomes a game.

So Adventure Games are way more versatile than Thematic Games, even on the thematic playground.

It is only when four or five GM-Alpha beings come together, that the limitations and focus of Thematic Games really serve a positive purpose.

Polaris (which I personally loathe) is a prime example:
A nice game for four GMs. (which is an actual sales pitch from the german forgers, not my idea)

It´s structurally built for those situations.

Quote from: SettembriniModules and campaigns are the time-tested frames of reference for them. And they have goals and endings. Thusly, there might not be in-built and expressed endings and goals, but in the way people actually play, it most often becomes a game.

Yeah, but I would suggest that these (published modules and so on) are kinda like the rule(book)s for soccer, or bridge, or whatever. They are a seperate thing that you use with the toy to provide the game objectives and structure.

And yeah, I totally agree that in actual play, groups using toys will come up with goals of their own, and therefore provide the game structure themselves. (See my 6th para; players will come up with their goals by themselves or get bored). Just that those goals (by design, I think) aren't hardcoded into the rules themselves. Now tradition accounts for a lot; most roleplayers are familiar with D&D and similar, so they can come up with a coherent set of objectives quite easily -- the GM does this, players do that -- and certainly rules lend themselves to some goals better than others (i.e. Phoenix Command isn't great for cinematic action, just like a Soccer ball isn't great for playing Tennis with). All that helps "everybody get on the same page" about the game they will play. But it's not perfect. Sometimes you can get a mismatch of expectations between players (the GM wants to run a political heavy game, when some of the players just want to kill dragons and take their stuff) which need to get ironed out, somehow, before the game starts to suffer.

If the objective is an intrinsic part of the rules, on the other hand, everybody can get going in the same direction straight away. (And usually, because of that, the rules can be built to suit that objective perfectly. No having to use a tennis ball to play softball, if you see what I mean.) But if people aren't interested in that direction, the game isn't going to work for you.

Warren,

Aside from your casual dismissive of D&D and like games as 'toys'... which you have to agree sounds vaguely derogative depending upon your cultural context...

This actually reads like a case FOR D&D and like games.  Is, say, UNO ever going to eclipse Poker? Of course not, not everyone has a UNO deck, nor can other games be played with such decks, while an ordinary deck of cards is all you need for Poker. And if you don't like poker, you can play Spade, Hearts or any of a thousand other card games with that same deck.

UNO may be fun and easy but ultimately it is limited by its having only that one specific game built into the mechanism. Never mind that a very UNO like game could probably be played just as easily with your poker cards...

Spike you dastardly devious diminuitive Pika!
UNO and Poker cards, that´s a good one.

I also see more virtues in the LEGO of of Adventure RPGs than in those decks of coherent UNO...

Quote from: SettembriniSpike you dastardly devious diminuitive Pika!
UNO and Poker cards, that´s a good one.

I also see more virtues in the LEGO of of Adventure RPGs than in those decks of coherent UNO...

Thus, I am the creator of yet another RPG theory... UNOism!!!


;)

Quote from: warrenIn that case, I can see MLwM being closer to other games ("Football", "Monopoly", "Scrabble", "Clue", "Poker" and so on) than D&D. D&D is more like a ball or a deck of cards; it's a toy you use to play games with.

This, I think is the good thing and bad thing that separates these two forms of roleplaying. A single toy (like a ball, or the D&D rules) can support many different goals pretty well, and doesn't impose any on the people playing with it. Some toys may suit some goals better than others of course, but generally, a toy is pretty versatile and adaptable to the group playing with it.

A game (like Monopoly, or the MLwM rules), on the other hand, has an inbuilt objective that it supports, and it doesn't really work if you try and go outside that objective. On the other hand, having a goal built into the rules means that any bunch of random people can get together and play the thing without having to do anything else. Toys, due to their versatility, don't get that luxury. (Imagine if somebody brings a deck of cards to a group, and tells his group that they will be "playing cards". One guy might want to play Poker, another Bridge, and a third Snap. If something isn't sorted out, nobody is going to have much fun that evening.)

So "D&D=Toy, MLwM=Game".

If you don't like the word "toy" you could use "toolkit" instead. Some RPGs (like D&D) are toolkits to make a wide variety of different games.  Other RPGs (like MLwM) are specific games.

Do the games built with the toolkit RPGs have clearly defined rules / goals / challenges / endgames in the same way a complete game does?  Do groups sit down and play the same game with a toolkit RPG... or are the players in each "game" actually playing a lot of different games with the same toy, at the same time?

Quote from: SpikeAside from your casual dismissive of D&D and like games as 'toys'... which you have to agree sounds vaguely derogative depending upon your cultural context...

True, but I'm using the language Will Wright came up with (originally for Sim City, which he designed and described as a toy), as I'm from a video games background.

Quote from: SpikeThis actually reads like a case FOR D&D and like games.

I wasn't really trying to advocate one or the other with this metaphor (yeah, "toy" may not be the best choice of words, agreed). I think it shows the difference between the two pretty well tho' (as you point out with UNOism :))

Quote from: warrenTrue, but I'm using the language Will Wright came up with (originally for Sim City, which he designed and described as a toy), as I'm from a video games background.


I wasn't really trying to advocate one or the other with this metaphor (yeah, "toy" may not be the best choice of words, agreed). I think it shows the difference between the two pretty well tho' (as you point out with UNOism :))

Ah, yeah, I can see that then. Sim City is fun, but it's hardly a game. Legos are fun, but they aren't really games either.  So, Toy.  I suggest that D&D and it's kin are more like tools for games than actual 'toys' which can be harder to game with (see Sim City, which while fun ultimately is not to different than pushing matchbox cars around the table...)..

Quote from: StuartDo the games built with the toolkit RPGs have clearly defined rules / goals / challenges / endgames in the same way a complete game does?  Do groups sit down and play the same game with a toolkit RPG... or are the players in each "game" actually playing a lot of different games with the same toy, at the same time?

The way I see it, everybody has to end up playing the same game, pretty much, to enjoy a toolkit RPG. Taking it back to the card-game or ball-game examples; before people start having fun, there has to be some agreement over the real game being played.

Like if we are playing with a ball, and decide to make a game up. It involves throwing & catching the ball to each other, let's say. Your personal goal/game could be throw the ball the highest on each pass. My goal/game is to return a caught ball as quickly as possible. Now as long as there is somebody else who is interested in throwing high and returning the ball quickly, we can all have fun with this game. But if somebody comes along and kicks the ball out of the park, or the other person loses interest in trying to better your high throws, our fun, as a group, is going to be diminished.

So even with toolkit rules, I think that everybody needs to be playing the same game, or at least compatible games, for the play to actually be y'know, fun.

Quote from: SpikeAh, yeah, I can see that then. Sim City is fun, but it's hardly a game. Legos are fun, but they aren't really games either.  So, Toy.  I suggest that D&D and it's kin are more like tools for games than actual 'toys' which can be harder to game with (see Sim City, which while fun ultimately is not to different than pushing matchbox cars around the table...)..

Yeah, from the article I linked to earlier:

QuoteSim City has no goals. Is it not a game?

No, as it's own designer willingly maintains. It is a toy.

And the only way to stay interested in it for very long is to turn it into a game -- by setting goals, by defining objectives for yourself. Build the grandest possible megalopolis; maximize how much your people love you; build a city that relies solely on mass transit. Whatever goal you've chosen, you've turned it into a game.

Quote from: warrenThe way I see it, everybody has to end up playing the same game, pretty much, to enjoy a toolkit RPG. Taking it back to the card-game or ball-game examples; before people start having fun, there has to be some agreement over the real game being played.

Yes, I agree with this.  

So if you consider games like "My Life with Master" as "complete games" what would be similar examples of complete games you could build with a toolkit RPG?

For example, I think the original D&D dungeoncrawl game, where you explore the dungeon, avoid the traps, kill the monsters and collect the gold seems like a complete game you could build from the toolkit.

What about other toolkit built games?  Are they as solid as something pre-built like My Life with Master?  

What about the "players invent their own goals" type RPGs?  If the players all have different goals, is the resulting game something like baseball-soccer-football-tennis?  Is the GMing just refereeing 4 seperate games where the players sometimes run across each other's playing fields?

I just wish those two would hurry up and decide whether I'm allowed to be in "the hobby" or not. I need to mark up my calendars.

Quote from: StuartFor example, I think the original D&D dungeoncrawl game, where you explore the dungeon, avoid the traps, kill the monsters and collect the gold seems like a complete game you could build from the toolkit.

I'd agree with that.

Quote from: StuartWhat about other toolkit built games?  Are they as solid as something pre-built like My Life with Master?

I think that they can be, but there is nothing (outside of social forces in the group) which will guarantee that a toolkit game will be solid.

Quote from: StuartWhat about the "players invent their own goals" type RPGs?  If the players all have different goals, is the resulting game something like baseball-soccer-football-tennis?  Is the GMing just refereeing 4 seperate games where the players sometimes run across each other's playing fields?

I think this depends. If the various goals are all compatible ("We are all members of a backstabby royal family, looking to win favour with the dying King", for example) then individual goals aligned with that ("I want to kill the Grand Vizier", "I want to marry the King's hot daughter") are like everybody playing baseball, but with some players wanting to impress the girl watching from the sidelines, whereas another just wants to see how fast he can pitch a fastball, and so on. They all are going to concentrate on different things, but they are all playing the same core game.

On the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude  standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

Quote from: warrenOn the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

And whether it works or not, I don't think it would be as solid as either the pre-built game (eg. MLwM) or the solidly built game from the toolkit (eg. the classic Dungeon).  

I think things like a Game Prospectus (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3102) really help make a toolkit game more solid -- and that's exactly the sort of advice RPGs need to give players to help them build great games.

Quote from: warrenOn the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude  standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

I disagree. It's actually not that heavy going on the GM. That's fairly rudimentary stuff, as far as player desires. I also think it's not even the GM's primary responsibility to meet those kinds of needs, although it's great when they do. It's also important for players to have the skills to communicate what they are hoping to "get", and (this is important) the basic social skills to realize that the game isn't always all about them.

You, as a player may have important needs to be a trenchcoat guy or whatever.
The other players are also important.
The GM is also important.
The campaign world and it's integrity is an important entity.
The group is a gestalt entity that is probably the most important.

You have to recognize all of that.

Being a good player often means facilitating the stuff that doesn't apply to your character. I've often said that the GM's job is customer service, but in reality, expecting constant customer service is just selfishness.  

The truth is, the dragon-killer, the spiritual perfection guy and the leet guy in the trenchcoat can certainly exist happily in the same party.

Customer service is a fun term.  I got my recent hire by answering 'what is customer service' at the job interview properly.

See, customer service is commonly seen as 'customer first', giving the leet guy his leet-ness, the dragon killing guy his dragons, no matter what.  But the guy working customer service owes his boss, his employers... and in the case of the GM his game/group a duty. He can't give away the store. So customer service means balancing the customer's wants against the needs of the business.  The business doesn't want to lose customers....

But I am not going to make a Theory:GM is Mcdonalds guy!

Not gonna do it... nope. ;)

(http://lescahiersduburger.free.fr/Burger-stuff/Simpson-RibWich/Homer-caisse-krusty.jpg)
"We Played Dungeons & Dragons For 3 Hours, Then I Was Slain By An Elf."

Quote from: Abyssal MawI disagree. It's actually not that heavy going on the GM. That's fairly rudimentary stuff, as far as player desires.

In my experience, I much prefer to play in and GM for games where everybody is "going in the same direction" (even if it's a backstabby PvP, as long as everyone is happy with that). Playing in the "rabbi, monkey, half-elf necromancer" style games, where each player has his own direction is nowhere near as much fun for me, and, as a GM, trying to manage spotlight time, provide appropriate & interesting challenges for each player and trying to prevent all the PC's conflicting desires, approaches and so on from causing the game to collapse in a bickering heap is no fun at all.

Give me a simple focus at the start of play ("A backstabby struggle for the throne!", "An underground mercenary group in LA", "The crew of a small smuggling ship, evading the Evil Empire", etc.) and then riff off of that. Much more fun, in my experience.

Quote from: warrenIn my experience, I much prefer to play in and GM for games where everybody is "going in the same direction" (even if it's a backstabby PvP, as long as everyone is happy with that). Playing in the "rabbi, monkey, half-elf necromancer" style games, where each player has his own direction is nowhere near as much fun for me, and, as a GM, trying to manage spotlight time, provide appropriate & interesting challenges for each player and trying to prevent all the PC's conflicting desires, approaches and so on from causing the game to collapse in a bickering heap is no fun at all.

Give me a simple focus at the start of play ("A backstabby struggle for the throne!", "An underground mercenary group in LA", "The crew of a small smuggling ship, evading the Evil Empire", etc.) and then riff off of that. Much more fun, in my experience.

First of all, no, bullshit.

Forced or preset cohesion isn't the secret to making it more fun. It might make it seem more easy on the surface to certain types of people, but that doesn't mean fun. I'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

Forced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players. And it doesn't guarantee fun, create fun, or quantify 'more fun' in any way.

Players have things they want, and those things are varied and various. Part of the GM's job is to help facilitate a fusion in the group- helping all of the players to get as much as possible of what they want, while also serving the group, and the setting and getting his own part. Part of the responsibility of every single player in the group is to also find this fusion. Sometimes this means you can only be a trenchcoat Katana guy 80% of the time, or you have to help kill the dragon or provide support while the other guy seeks spiritual perfection.  Or sometimes you can all be 100%, all the time.

But these are the most basic of social skills in gaming.  If there is anything of worth in the so-called Lumpley Principle, than this is it. You find a way to play together.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

I can't speak for Warren, but I'm certainly not quoting the GNS littany... I don't really know what the Lumpley principle is... I looked it up once and it seemed stupidly obvious.  I can't be bothered looking it up again. At the same time -- even if the Forge-folk are saying some of these same things doesn't automatically make them untrue. ;)  

Quote from: Abyssal MawForced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players. And it doesn't guarantee fun, create fun, or quantify 'more fun' in any way.

Why would the use of a Game Prospectus (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3102) mean these things?  There are a lot of people saying that they sound great / are great in practice.  These are not Forge-folk -- they're traditional RPG gamers.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPlayers have things they want, and those things are varied and various.

In Classic D&D the players have a fairly standardized set of things they want, and generally work together towards that common goal.  It's mostly in newer RPG where the players are encouraged to have varied and various goals for their characters -- which in turn means varied and various types of games.

Quote from: Abyssal MawFirst of all, no, bullshit.

Forced or preset cohesion isn't the secret to making it more fun. It might make it seem more easy on the surface to certain types of people, but that doesn't mean fun. I'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

But he doesn't.  He ends it with "In my experience."

And he knows 100% about his experience, and you know zero.  He knows what experiences have been fun for him.  You only know what experiences you think must have been fun for him.  So the one insisting what fun must be is you.

Which is to say ... the crabs of illogic and hypocrisy have clamped their pincers onto the dangling unmentionables of your already feeble argument, and are pinching.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

So, let me get this straight. Everything in your post is fact...wait.. how about the truth?

Edit. Okay, that was unnecessarily hostile. But Abyssal, this is a forum about rpgs. Very little is about fact, most of it, is about what works for you. You dig ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawForced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players.

Who said anything about the game designer? Yeah, sometimes the game can dictate a strict focus (Dogs in the Vineyard). But even traditional RPGs have things which suggest a focus (Shadowrun, Star Wars). And even in games which are completely open (GURPS), you've never agreed/set a focus for your group before character creation? Even something like "You have all been hired to escort a caravan through the desert", or "Wouldn't it be cool to have a good old tactical dungeon bash"? That's a focus. That's what I'm talking about, nothing more.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPlayers have things they want, and those things are varied and various. Part of the GM's job is to help facilitate a fusion in the group- helping all of the players to get as much as possible of what they want, while also serving the group, and the setting and getting his own part. Part of the responsibility of every single player in the group is to also find this fusion. Sometimes this means you can only be a trenchcoat Katana guy 80% of the time, or you have to help kill the dragon or provide support while the other guy seeks spiritual perfection.  Or sometimes you can all be 100%, all the time.

Yeah, cool. I have found it (much) harder work to do things that way, but whatever works for you. In any case, this is a process by which the players adapt and comprimise so that everyone is headed in the same direction -- the "fusion" as you call it. And that was the main point I was trying to make.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut these are the most basic of social skills in gaming.  If there is anything of worth in the so-called Lumpley Principle, than this is it. You find a way to play together.

Yep. The point I was trying to make is that getting "a way to play together" is very important. (Hell, I'd even say it was a prerequisite for the group to have fun.)

Well, I have a feeling there are some misinterpretations of what I'm saying.

I totally call BS on the argument that players all have to be tightly concepted before going in, or you get a baseball-tennis situation. It's simply not true. Obviously you need to have as much communication amongst all players as possible going in, but forcing the situation (whether through game design or decree) is not the answer.

What really happened: at one point, as Stuart pointed out- there was a baseline expectation that players would work together. This is how D&D has always worked, and still works today. And many other games.

Then everyone got all avant-garde and decide to have games where the 'party concept' is sort of out the window.

And that's where you have problems. On that, I guess your'e on your own. All your'e really doing is trying to go back to a situation where the players don't split off and go 'griefer' on you.  

I think it's 'more fun' for players to find their own comfort level and achieve group cohesion on their own. We used to call this 'group bonding'.
So when warren says he considers concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun, I have to object: it's a process. It's ongoing. It is often fun in itself. But to force it to happen before you play-- or even worse- to force it to happen before you play as a precondition to fun-- is not a good expectation.

If you go down that path very far, you'll likely end up only being able to play with highly trusted associates at cons.

Wait, who does that describe?  

Game prospectus: I'm ambivalent on these. I've spent the past two days looking for the old ads I put up at Wizards and Enworld and they seem to have all aged off, but those are my version of this. They really aren't that rigid as I recall them: I said something like 'the campaign world is designed to fit in with standard D&D expectations. I provide the setting, you provide the story..." So I'm not sure if that even counts. I had no idea what I was going to get. (Turns out, I got an evil cleric, a grim but good ranger, an alien-ish psion, a gnome trickster, and a comic relief 'buffoon" type PC.  They are about as different as any group of PCs could be. ) I should also point out that the ranger, the trickster, and the psion were complete strangers to me in real life before the campaign started. Great guys, all of them.

I have an advantage in that I never wanted to mess with the basic play expectation of players being part of an adventuring team that worked together. New style games seem to break that expectation, and thus have to rely on a whole set of extra conditions all just to re-establish that situation.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo when warren says he considers concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun, I have to object: it's a process. It's ongoing. It is often fun in itself. But to force it to happen before you play-- or even worse- to force it to happen before you play as a precondition to fun-- is not a good expectation.

Nope, I didn't mean that "concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun". What I am saying is that it's hard to have fun when you have got situation where the players are spliting off and doing there own thing without any regard for each other or the game. One way I have found of solving that is to have a strong focus. But, as you point out, building a bond in the group, and letting the players build that group cohesion together, works as well.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf you go down that path very far, you'll likely end up only being able to play with highly trusted associates at cons.

Quite the contrary, in my experience. When you run or play a con game with a strong core concept (Paranoia, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Mountain Witch) everybody starts off going in the same direction straight off the bat, even if they are all total strangers.

I'd guess (never played/run D&D at a con) that classic "party mode" D&D works in the same way, because the focus ("A team that works together to kill things and take their stuff") is just as strong -- albeit an unspoken, "basic expectation" focus.

Quote from: StuartI don't really know what the Lumpley principle is... I looked it up once and it seemed stupidly obvious.

Lumpley Principle, RPGsite style:

"System is the actual process used at the table to make decisions.  Fuck the books.  Fuck the advice.  What you actually do?  That's your system."

Levi, thanks for putting that in the local argot!  My own concern with the Lumpley Principle is that my behavior at the table is not systematic, it's idiomatic and intuitive.  So i feel weird thinking about my actions as part of a system.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLumpley Principle, RPGsite style:

"System is the actual process used at the table to make decisions. Fuck the books. Fuck the advice. What you actually do? That's your system."

Thanks Levi. :)

Why don't they call it the "Actual Process of Play" or something similar?  Then people know what they're talking about.

Continuing to call it the "Lumpley Principle" is, quite frankly, retarded.

Ego getting in the way of practicality..

Amongst other things it has absolutely fuck-all to do with the guy who calls himself Lumpley.

According to Vincent Baker (i.e. Lumpley) it was named after him because he provoked Edwards into formulating it (http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/LumpleyPrinciple).

Hmmm... Lumpley Principle... Borgstrom Law... Maybe Pundit and Edwards are the same person. They seem to have the same habit of naming something after someone whose only relationship to it is having been on their minds while the neurons fired.

Quote from: StuartContinuing to call it the "Lumpley Principle" is, quite frankly, retarded.

I see that you subscribe to the Samuel Jackson Principle.  Which, of course, is:

"English, motherfucker!  Do you speak it?"

:D

Quote from: James McMurrayAccording to Vincent Baker (i.e. Lumpley) it was named after him because he provoked Edwards into formulating it (http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/LumpleyPrinciple).

Hmmm... Lumpley Principle... Borgstrom Law... Maybe Pundit and Edwards are the same person. They seem to have the same habit of naming something after someone whose only relationship to it is having been on their minds while the neurons fired.

Mine was both a response to one of Borgstrom's own laws, and a mocking of the idiots who make up these kinds of laws and name them something unintelligible.

RPGPundit

Yes, of course it made perfect sense. It certainly wasn't named after her because she was on your mind when the neurons were firing. :rolleyes:

Sorry dude, you can't distance yourself from Edwards on this one. You both used the same naming scheme for your laws. Ha ha on you, and all that. :)

Dude, he's got names for things like "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" and  "Fortune in the Middle"; I couldn't hold a candle to his ability to think up utterly stupid names for Laws if I tried.

RPGPundit

I'm not declaring equality, just parity. If you don't want to be compared to the guy, don't use his methodology. For example, he doesn't like being compared to you (presumably, who would?) so he (again presumably) doesn't rant about people being fucktards. ;)

By the way, "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" was stolen from literature (Alice in Wonderland). I don't know about and so have no idea where Fortune in the Middle came from, mayhap he was having a Pundit morning? I'd be willing to guess though that they make a lot more sense in regards to their topic then "Borgstrom is a Moron." :D

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. See Narrativism: Story Now.

Wow.  That is really stupid.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not declaring equality, just parity. If you don't want to be compared to the guy, don't use his methodology. For example, he doesn't like being compared to you (presumably, who would?) so he (again presumably) doesn't rant about people being fucktards. ;)

No, just brain damaged.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartImpossible 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.

Wow.  That is really stupid.

Yes, yes it is.

RPGPundit

Well, if he calls you brain damaged he won't get much complaint from me.

And besides, it's just his "swine" right? So yet another way you two are alike.

Quote from: StuartImpossible 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.

Wow.  That is really stupid.

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

If the players control the actions of their PCs, and we assume that the PCs are the protagonists of the game (not unfair, since they are the characters we spend the most time with), then the GM is not the sole author of the story - the players are choosing what the major viewpoint characters of the story are going to be doing, which is a pretty damn major component of the story. (If you define "story" as "the sequence of events that gets played out over the course of an RPG".)

At the same time, if the GM is the sole author of the story, then the players do not have absolute control over their player characters - if the players can't choose to ignore the GM's story, then the PCs can't meaningfully do anything aside from follow the railroad.

If Edwards put the word "sole" between "the" and "author", and if he substituted "PCs" for "protagonists", and used the definition I use here for story, then the Impossible Thing is, indeed, impossible. It's also not something which many RPGs actually claim.

This is another case of Ron Edwards not enjoying Vampire and getting upset about it.

Waitaminnut. Edwards and Pundit also both hate Vampire?

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

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

The worst every savaging Ron's essays ever got... at least that I have seen came from someone going line by line and working hard to interpret what was being said and adding the right words.  

THAT is the big problem with Edwards, his deliberately obscure writing technique is a fig leaf covering a scarcity of real ideas.

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.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat'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.

And again! This is hilarious!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd again! This is hilarious!

RPGPundit

Told you! He's helpless in the grip of his strange compulsion! :D

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd again! This is hilarious!

RPGPundit

Yep, that's why I do it. Because it makes me laugh. If it makes others laugh that's just an unexpected bonus.

I think the point is, nobody else is laughing (anymore).

Ever seen the Spongebob episode where he rips his pants?

If you really want to read into it, it's the idea that someone, anyone, whether it's the GM, the players, or some combination thereof, needs to be the author of a story.

This makes some sense if you want to play a Story Game.

It makes little sense if you are playing a Role Playing Game.

Quote from: James J SkachI think the point is, nobody else is laughing (anymore).

Ever seen the Spongebob episode where he rips his pants?

Good comparison.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachI think the point is, nobody else is laughing (anymore).

Then you obviously don't understand the point, despite having been told in plain English. I'm laughing, and that's all that matters. If I want to make lots of people laugh I'll forward email jokes and surveys to everyone in my address book.

Quote from: James McMurrayThen you obviously don't understand the point, despite having been told in plain English. I'm laughing, and that's all that matters. If I want to make lots of people laugh I'll forward email jokes and surveys to everyone in my address book.

GRRR! Was that you? Why I oughta...

-clash

I said "if I want." I do not forward jokes, news stories, warnings, or anything similar. I may forward a warning if it's verifiable and requires more than common sense to avoid the danger. Usually I'll uncover the hoax that was forwarded and hit reply all to link everyone to the real story.

But I certainly don't forward jokes, nor do I forward anything indiscrimiately.

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

I think Ron likes to have a shorthand for referring to ideas he considers important so that he doesn't have to explain them every time he refers to them. Which is sensible. I don't think Ron is at all good at coming up with clever, pithy shorthands that accurately describe the idea they are talking about. And I don't think the Impossible Idea Before Breakfast is actually as pervasive as Ron thinks it is.

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.

Quote from: StuartIt'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."

Heck, "The players direct their player characters, and the GM controls everyone else in the gameworld" is both a pithier way of putting it and one that I've seen more frequently.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm laughing, and that's all that matters.

If it is only important that you are laughing, can you send your jibes to the Pundit via Private message?  That way, we all get what we want.

Quote from: James J SkachIf it is only important that you are laughing, can you send your jibes to the Pundit via Private message?  That way, we all get what we want.

Yes, it would certainly be healthier and more productive for the forum...

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, it would certainly be healthier and more productive for the forum...

RPGpundit

Hmm.... Irony much?

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachIf it is only important that you are laughing, can you send your jibes to the Pundit via Private message?  That way, we all get what we want.

Yes, it would certainly be healthier and more productive for the forum...

Yes, I approve of insults only going in private messages, and I agree it's more productive.  As a suggestion for how to do this, it often works best to lead by example.  RPGPundit?

Bullshit. The issue isn't with the fact that someone is insulting someone else. That's allowed here, especially if said "insults" are about gaming and not just general trolling.

The issue is when someone appears to be specifically and only participating in this site for the sake of hounding another person, and doing so to try to get some kind of approval from others.

Check out Jame's number of posts, and the percentage of which are direct or backhanded attacks on me. Its stunning. The guy is more obsessed, percentage wise, with attacking me than Dominus Nox is obsessed with SJG or Islam. That's pretty pathetic.

Out of seven hundred and eighty posts, he has only started seven threads.  Dominus, in comparison, only has 606 posts but has started a whopping 91 threads.  Granted, a lot of these are attack threads; but James has 2/7 technical threads (ie. question threads asking for technical help, one of which, ironically, is about how to use the ignore function), and 1 thread that is a direct attack thread, and second one that is a backhanded attack thread.  So only 3 threads that are actually about some topic other than himself or myself. The man is a waste of oxygen; a bigger waste of oxygen than Nox.

Really though, the guy is a one-issue wonder, and the issue isn't even RPG related. That's the nature of the problem.

Now, James has claimed that he only wants to make himself laugh by insulting me.  So that means he shouldn't have any problem with only sending the insults by email or PM or whatever, right? Unless, say, there's some other reason for posting it publically, like being a miserable squalid little attention-whore who wants to intentionally disrupt the smooth running of this website out of some kind of psychopathic impotent hatred toward my person.

But that couldn't possibly be true, right James-y?

RPGPundit

1) Please shows some numbers instead of just saying that my posts are mostly directed at you. Because you're full of shit.

2) I don't start a lot of threads, that's definitely true. But then again, you start hundreds of them and it hasn't seemed to make you a better person (or even a better poster).

Generally if I want someone's opinion on something I can read it in a thread that already happened months or days ago. If I have a new question, as in the Amber boards, I ask it. The fact that the answers eventually seem to come back as an RPGPundit self-centered rant only speaks to your own brand of obsession.

3) Smooth running? These boards? LOL! What, I'm the only person around here who says bad and/or off topic things? Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

4) I'd suggest you invest in a dictionary. I don't think "psychopathic impotent hatred" means what your persecution complex is telling you it does.

5)

Quotemiserable squalid little attention-whore

Somebody call a repairman, my ironimeter just blew up.

Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit. The issue isn't with the fact that someone is insulting someone else. That's allowed here, especially if said "insults" are about gaming and not just general trolling.

The issue is when someone appears to be specifically and only participating in this site for the sake of hounding another person, and doing so to try to get some kind of approval from others.

OK, so you're fine with people insulting you and others publically, but you want them to mix in more gaming-relevant discussion in between insults.  That makes sense to me.  You might want to note that as a policy statement.  

Or, excuse me.  You might want to note that as a policy statement, you moronic asshole.  :p

Quote from: WarthurIn 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.

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.

Depending on where he works his focus may be more on doing labwork to get his campus grants then teaching in the classroom.

Quote from: James McMurrayDepending on where he works his focus may be more on doing labwork to get his campus grants then teaching in the classroom.

Not the point, James.  The purpose of professors is, or should be, the disemmination of knowledge and, if you want to be ambitious, teaching people how to think.

Ron has made his gaming career out of being obtuse, obscure and even obstructionist in advancing gaming knowledge, and hates explaining things...passionately.

Not just to students, we can assume, but to peers.  So, lets say he learns some earthshaking fact about bat wangs. Not only can he not be counted on to teach this, or how to discover similar things, to his theoretical pupils, but he can't even be counted upon to convey this life saving knowledge to other biologists working in the same feild.  

Is he knowledgeable about Bat Peckers? Undubitably...

Is he knowledgable about gaming? That is highly debatable, given his communications techniques.  


So... professor?  

Again. I weep.

I wasn't trying to excuse him, just musing that it might not be as bad as it seems.

Also, I haven't read much of his stuff (too boring). How much of that "hates to explain" is rooted in rpgsite hatred of the man?

Quote from: SpikeNot only can he not be counted on to teach this, or how to discover similar things, to his theoretical pupils, but he can't even be counted upon to convey this life saving knowledge to other biologists working in the same feild.

Peer review of papers and journals is the accepted means for a professor to spread such information to other professors.  Not conversation or dialogue.  "Publish or perish" is alive and well.

The question, of course, is who the Prof considers to be his 'peers'.  I strongly suggest his consideration is catastophically narrow, since, in reality, your peers in gaming are "people that game".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPeer review of papers and journals is the accepted means for a professor to spread such information to other professors.  Not conversation or dialogue.  "Publish or perish" is alive and well.

The question, of course, is who the Prof considers to be his 'peers'.  I strongly suggest his consideration is catastophically narrow, since, in reality, your peers in gaming are "people that game".

I agree about the peer review, and the publish or perish is a well known, and proven facet of collegiate life, as pointless as it can be.

However, Ron has communicated his gaming ideas in essay format, just as he would presumably talk about the reproductive apparatus of the common fruit bat, a la his CV.  And it was atrocious, a case study in failing to communicate even basic principles.    Has the educational system gotten so inbred that this is what counts as 'peer review worthy' essaying? Is wordcount more important than content?  Does he respond to questions from his peers about his essays with arch looks and 'Its in the essay, motherfucker. Read it you brain damaged buffoon.'?  

I doubt it, yet this is demonstrably how he treats peer review of his Gaming stuff...  So, then, am I to assume the Forge, and all it's essays and models is nothing more than an elaborate prank, played out over half a decade?  Or is Ron really that bad an example of an academian?

Quote from: SpikeAnd it was atrocious, a case study in failing to communicate even basic principles.    Has the educational system gotten so inbred that this is what counts as 'peer review worthy' essaying? Is wordcount more important than content?

I've seen some pretty shitastic stuff from academics in my time.  But on the whole, it strikes me as the kind of writing that you see from academics that don't actually expect any real review by actual peers.

Quote from: SpikeDoes he respond to questions from his peers about his essays with arch looks and 'Its in the essay, motherfucker. Read it you brain damaged buffoon.'?

Most academic peers wouldn't ask questions about the content of an essay in public without having first read it, very carefully, for fear of being seen as stupid or unable to comprehend.

Academic politics are vicious that way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've seen some pretty shitastic stuff from academics in my time.  But on the whole, it strikes me as the kind of writing that you see from academics that don't actually expect any real review by actual peers.



Most academic peers wouldn't ask questions about the content of an essay in public without having first read it, very carefully, for fear of being seen as stupid or unable to comprehend.

Academic politics are vicious that way.

Levi, you are getting my vote for the scariest person out there, just as Demolition Man is the scariest horror movie ever made.  I am officially heading back to the woods before I am exposed to any more of this so called civilization and become irreprably brain damaged as a result. ;)

Quote from: SpikeLevi, you are getting my vote for the scariest person out there, just as Demolition Man is the scariest horror movie ever made.  I am officially heading back to the woods before I am exposed to any more of this so called civilization and become irreprably brain damaged as a result. ;)

Heh.

I dunno - to me, it speaks to how the Forge operates.  And it's not really uncommon, either.

Really, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHeh.

I dunno - to me, it speaks to how the Forge operates.  And it's not really uncommon, either.

Really, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

Really? the only line I draw in the sand is 'human being type gamers' and 'those unwashed wastes of skin that keep trying to get into my game only to have an excuse to masturbate in public'.

Which is why I tend to get frustrated by games that seek to exclude certain types of players, because really no game can exclude the 'tuwostkttgimgothaetmip' players.... which is an unweildy acronym, but can provide some amusement if you start using the term gimgo thaetmip to describe them...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

I'd say it was a fairly large number of them. Here for instance you have RPGsiters vs Forgies. Elsewhere it may be WoD vs. D&D, "roleplayers" vs. "munchkins", "bathed vs. stinky", or whatever. I think it's a rare gamer that looks out at the huge number of different types of gamers and says "I consider these all to be my peers and/or equals."

Quote from: SpikeReally? the only line I draw in the sand is 'human being type gamers' and 'those unwashed wastes of skin that keep trying to get into my game only to have an excuse to masturbate in public'.

There are lines in the sand, though, in many places:

"Gamers who hate gamers".  Pundit's Swine.  The geek fallacies.

JimBob's "bitter non-gamers" is a weird case, because he's talking about people that don't actually play.

My point is this, and I know I'm going to be misinterpreted, but it's about the ugliest insult I can level, so I'm not horribly worried.

The 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.

And if you don't think that's insulting to that community...   Uh, I got nothin'.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd say it was a fairly large number of them. Here for instance you have RPGsiters vs Forgies. Elsewhere it may be WoD vs. D&D, "roleplayers" vs. "munchkins", "bathed vs. stinky", or whatever. I think it's a rare gamer that looks out at the huge number of different types of gamers and says "I consider these all to be my peers and/or equals."

Well, if you want to take it that far out, I could always  say my line in the sand is between 'Pika' and 'food'.  Or mostly GM vs. Mostly Player...

But I don't really consider anyone my equal, much less my peer. ;)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere are lines in the sand, though, in many places:



The 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.

And if you don't think that's insulting to that community...   Uh, I got nothin'.

Not so much insulting, rather a disturbing statement on the nature of western academia. If you must agree to certain, untouchable, principles, you begin tossing out scientific analysis or, frankly, independent thought. That this is remotely acceptable behavior for a professor is what disturbs me. What if this man gains power in his local college? On the national collegiate scale?  Can he then dictate what principles are not up for discussion? Is he learning this from his own superiors in the academic world?  This is acceptable????

Quote from: SpikeNot so much insulting, rather a disturbing statement on the nature of western academia. If you must agree to certain, untouchable, principles, you begin tossing out scientific analysis or, frankly, independent thought. That this is remotely acceptable behavior for a professor is what disturbs me. What if this man gains power in his local college? On the national collegiate scale?  Can he then dictate what principles are not up for discussion? Is he learning this from his own superiors in the academic world?  This is acceptable????

I have no reason to believe that he would treat a community of accredited peers in such a fashion.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have no reason to believe that he would treat a community of accredited peers in such a fashion.

He had to have learned it somewhere.  I'm a firm beliver that how people act in their private life, hobbies and whatever, is a truer statement of their personal belief structures than their work life... and may serve as an indicator of how they actually behave in their work life when they think they can get away with it

Which is why it's disturbing to me.

Quote from: James McMurraysnipped: pointless drivel and insult

Answer the question, Jamesy. Were you being honest in your reasons for your constant feces-flinging, or is there another reason?

RPGPundit

Quote from: SpikeNot so much insulting, rather a disturbing statement on the nature of western academia. If you must agree to certain, untouchable, principles, you begin tossing out scientific analysis or, frankly, independent thought. That this is remotely acceptable behavior for a professor is what disturbs me. What if this man gains power in his local college? On the national collegiate scale?  Can he then dictate what principles are not up for discussion? Is he learning this from his own superiors in the academic world?  This is acceptable????

Nah, this says way more about him then modern academia (which has its problems, but this isn't one of them).  This isn't academia we're seeing at the Forge, its standard by-the-book pseudoacademia.  I mean, its right out of the "Creation Science" playbook, move for move, which is what is really ironic considering Edward's background in Biology.

RPGPundit

*Shrug*

Fully open, totally "break it down" peer review is good.  Having a direction, also good.  

I mean, theRPGsite has it's own take on this, too.

Here, everything is open to review.  Everything.  I could decide to review the Pundit's publicly stated opinions on sodomy, should the mood take me (from behind, most likely, and to my undoubtably enduring shock).

But the 'direction' is relatively weak.  Defensive directions always are; the only easy compensation is volume.

The hard way for Pundit to get what he wants would be to basically get a group of posters onboard with the idea of keeping the forum heavily stocked with constant discussion of how to make your mainstream / traditional games rock, and rock hard.

It'd also require reordering the specific boards to prompt discussion in that direction.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnswer the question, Jamesy. Were you being honest in your reasons for your constant feces-flinging, or is there another reason?

RPGPundit

Move along boy, adults are talking here.

Quote from: SpikeNot so much insulting, rather a disturbing statement on the nature of western academia. If you must agree to certain, untouchable, principles, you begin tossing out scientific analysis or, frankly, independent thought. That this is remotely acceptable behavior for a professor is what disturbs me. What if this man gains power in his local college? On the national collegiate scale?  Can he then dictate what principles are not up for discussion? Is he learning this from his own superiors in the academic world?  This is acceptable????

I don't think we hae much to worry about in regards to him getting any academic power, at least not until he removes RPGs from his CV.

Quote from: James McMurrayMove along boy, adults are talking here.

Again, Jamesy, answer the question. Its very simple, yes or no: Are you being honest in your stated reasons for your constant feces-flinging?

RPGPundit

That's it.

The Pundit and the James need to get themselves to a challenge thread. This shit is weak, and I know we can get better out of them both. Take it to a sticky and really cut lose.

Entertain me, motherfucker!

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, Jamesy, answer the question. Its very simple, yes or no: Are you being honest in your stated reasons for your constant feces-flinging?

RPGPundit

I'll answer your questions when you can ask them like the good little boy I know you can be if you try. Until then, we're trying to have a discussion here.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'll answer your questions when you can ask them like the good little boy I know you can be if you try. Until then, we're trying to have a discussion here.

James, I was talking to you too. Take it to a Pistols at Dawn sort of thread. Savage each other verbally there all you like in a forum equivilent of the Gladatorial Arena.

Entertain me, Motherfucker!


Just quit your sniping across the dozen or so active threads that are going on.  Neither one of you are scoring points worth a damn, and quite frankly, it's sort of dull.

Quote from: SpikeThat's it.

The Pundit and the James need to get themselves to a challenge thread. This shit is weak, and I know we can get better out of them both. Take it to a sticky and really cut lose.

Entertain me, motherfucker!

I am in accord with the little yellow rat.

I quit doing anything but replying to his posts directed at me a while back, and would have stopped sooner had I not gotten a few PMs from people laughing along with me. But if it's that grating on you then I'll stop.

I can't promise I'll never do it again though. :)

If Pundit wants a thread where we insult each other back and forth I'm fine with that, but I doubt it'll happen.

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? :p

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, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21952.0) 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.. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20679.0)

And here's the continuation of that conversation. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21546.0)

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, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19311.0) about an AD&D 3.0 game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19690.0) he ran for some kids in his neighborhood. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19889.0) 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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=6272) detaling a rough and tumble game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=6355) of Tunnels & Trolls (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=7104) Ron wrote up. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=7863.0)

(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.

You aren´t telling us any new things, Christopher. Don´t mix up Punditious extremism with all readers here. Brain damage is about Vampire, I have said that time and time again. Swine => Brain Damage

And at least for me, Ron explained all the stuff of his theory in the Rifts thread so I could understand without referring to other articles.

But it is a given, that there are articles, which aren´t a machete in the jungle of unclearness, but a clumsy net that you have to shlep through the woods further to a small crystal clear lake in the rainforesty mountains. Then you have to wiggle all twigs out of it, repair it, and throw it into the pond.
When the odd delicacy special fish is actually caught, you will see that this is in no way a sensible way to feed a city.

"But the fish is delicous, it´s unlike those canned sardines!", you might say.
But practical, it is not.

Hi Set,

This is one of my frustrations with the group internet discussion... I say one thing, about something one person said, and then people who didn't say it feel slighted or wronged, as if I was accusing them of having said it. But I didn't. I was saying the people who said the thing I'm talking about said it.

Again, as stated in the last post, my main concern is the folks who really have no direct contact with the Forge or games designed by the folks who post at the Forge and who might take the Pundit's high-flyin' verbal fantasies of at face value.

You, obviously, are not such a person.

As for the articles, I have my own confusion about them: I read the GNS essay and got it right out of the gate. I mean, really. I was referred to The Forge by someone. Poked around. Started reading the essay. Thought, "this makes sense." Printed it out. Carried it around that weekend at a local game convention, reading the pages inbetween sessions. Looked around observing what Ron had written about all around me (which, by the way, was a clarification of stuff I had observed years ago on my own). I finished reading the essay on Saturday afternoon. Kept it in the back of my head through Sunday night. At the end of the weekend at the con I thought, "Yup."

Keep in mind, I had read a couple of threads on the Forge (this was back three years ago...) But no one explained the concepts to me. I read the essay. It made sense. I wasn't confused. I frankly find the confusion confusing. But that's just me.

So, while I appreciate that getting through the essays is as arduous a matter as you describe for many people -- that simply wasn't my experience.

Nonetheless, your post only confirms what I was saying, which is that Ron doesn't hate explaining things... In fact, he's passionate about explaining things... (which was a point I was making to people who were buying the whole "Ron doesn't like explaining things" folks... Not the folks who already know this, like you and Levi....)

Christopher

:forge:

Quote from: Christopher KubasikRon doesn't hate explaining things... In fact, he's passionate about explaining things...

Perhaps, but he is not demonstrating much skill in explaining RPG Theory.  Look at the Forge Provisional Glossary... it's a train-wreck.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnyway, 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.

There's absolutely no basis for this claim.  It's ridiculous in the extreme.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikA 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.

People believe all sorts of strange things.   (eg. Pseudosciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience))

Vampire may not be the best game, but this claim that it "damages" people is foolish.

Hi Stuart,

Cool. You think Ron's terrible at explaining things and you think what he has to say is foolish.

At least you're addressing the actual style and content of his writing, which is all I was concerned about.

Christopher

:forge:

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAt least you're addressing the actual style and content of his writing, which is all I was concerned about.

I've seen nothing to suggest Ron doesn't like explaining things... quite the opposite.  I think he likes explaining things, naming things, and building models to explain things.

He's just not very good at it.*

This wouldn't be a problem except so many people want to evangelize his essays, and use his poorly conceived jargon whenever possible.

It's ironic that Ron claim's a text can actually damage people's minds.

Look at the Forge Provisional Glossary and consider how it asks people to use bizarre terms instead of simple ones, and use common language in an altogether uncommon way. Does that honestly seem like a good thing?  Wouldn't simple, straightforward language be superior to obtuse, convoluted language?

Which text is more damaging?  Rein*Hagen's or Ron Edward's?

Edit: * In relation to RPG Theory.  I haven't read his other academic essays, and they may be very well done.

He is indeed the greatest bat-penis guy who ever was.

RPGPundit

Bizzare as this may be, my girlfriend (a teaching assistant at the U of A) is running a lab tommorrow on the reproductive systems of rats.

This has no bearing on anything, really, but I fell over laughing when she told me this.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOur 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.

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I think I can see where you're coming from.

Quote from: wikipediaPeer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.

Someone setting up their own website / forum / blog and posting their theories, but saying they are not open for debate...

That's not very similar to the academic peer review process.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAs for the articles, I have my own confusion about them: I read the GNS essay and got it right out of the gate. I mean, really. I was referred to The Forge by someone. Poked around. Started reading the essay. Thought, "this makes sense." Printed it out. Carried it around that weekend at a local game convention, reading the pages inbetween sessions. Looked around observing what Ron had written about all around me (which, by the way, was a clarification of stuff I had observed years ago on my own). I finished reading the essay on Saturday afternoon. Kept it in the back of my head through Sunday night. At the end of the weekend at the con I thought, "Yup."

Hi Chris,

I think the thing about the GNS essay, and the rest of Ron's theory work, is that it makes a lot of sense to people whose gaming experiences parallel Ron's to an extent, a certain amount of sense to people whose gaming experiences don't especially match up with Ron's, and no sense to people who have had entirely the opposite experience of the gaming hobby.

This is probably why the subject of GNS is so divisive - it either synchs beautifully with people's experiences, or clashes with them horribly, or makes people say "maybe there's something to this, but this theory sure ain't airtight".

To put my cards on the table: I tend to occupy the middle ground here - I can see what Ron is trying to do with the creative agendas, but I tend to believe that there are as many unique creative agendas as there are gamers, and that the rec.games.frp.advocacy GDS theory that GNS borrows heavily from was more useful as a tool for examining particular in-game decisions. I feel that the categories of "gamism", "simulationism" and "narrativism" are sufficiently broad that if you look at any game for long enough you can force its various elements into those categories. Which doesn't mean they are useless as archetype, but does mean that their utility is, to me, highly limited.

Did anyone else notice it.  I mean, the point where someone from the Forge comes in to defend the Theory and the Great Creator?

This is what pisses quite a few people off.  Why come here to do this? I mean, if Pundit is crazy, and the people who have posted here aren't smart enought to just pick up GNS and get it, and people who post here tend not to play "Story Games," and Ron really didn't mean "brain damage," and a thousand other if's, Why?

OK, so you saw that people were harshing on Mr. Edwards. You saw the need to set the record straight. Your corrections, where applicable are duly noted.

But please, please, please don't start parading around your "I went to a Con and GNS is Truth Laid Bare," opinion.  As pundit has noted, Forge/GNS Theory is not an accepted fact in this forum.

Wurther,

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.


James,

Whatever. I didn't say anything about anyone being not "smart" enough. The conversation was about the clarity (or the lack of it) about Ron's writing. I said I was confused by the fact I didn't have problems with the GNS essay. That's all, and that was my only point.

I know you will see it however you want... Some folks are touchy and seek out offenses. I'm guessing you're one of them. But really, no offense was meant or even stated.


On another thread, John Kim provided clarification for some mistatements Pundit had made about Edward's writing. I don't think I did anything different. Certainly I'm not pushing anything but a few facts. I even said, "Attack him if you want, but do it for what he said."

I get it. I'm not welcome.  

The site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

But if someone comes here -- not contradicting the logic of the place, but simply setting a few misstatement straight -- he's an outsider who must be insulted ("Great Creator," my ass...) and admonished with over-elaborate emticons.

Riiiiiight... the Forge is a closed community where they only listen to themselves and can't take dissenting views... Unlike... uh... this place.... Ah, sweet irony...

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI'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...

The world is full of people who comment about unsubstantiated things. Do you go to all those forums too? I'm just curious why TheRPGSite gets this special visit.

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

Actually, I think it's entering a sub-discussion on whether teacher actually teach all off the point that shocked to find that Mr. Edwards is a teacher when he explains things so poorly and with so little patience.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikFirst, 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?"

To which I would reply – then why the fuck did you go and start a forum to discuss your theory?  If you didn't want to explain it, sometimes over and over and over, why the big fucking deal? You could have published a paper or talked it over with you friends.  Why the forum?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnd 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.

For a man who has endeavored to tell people to fuck off, as has Mr. Edwards, you think it's improbable that on the Internet people would extend an (in your view) unfounded criticism? Which Internet have you been on?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikNow, 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, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21952.0) 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.. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20679.0)

And here's the continuation of that conversation. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21546.0)

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.

If I can muster up the intestinal fortitude to go back to the Forge, I'm sure I could find links where Mr. Edwards chooses not to elucidate. Your examples, interestingly, include Ron talking about himself, and discussions with Levi, someone I would consider at least friendly to the concepts. Once things get – I'd say confrontational, but it's not quite right. Let's say when people start to question the foundation, the level of receptiveness decreases – and that includes explanations. I haven't been to the Forge in a while, so no links pop into my mind. But then, I didn't go rushing off into that forum to defend anyone.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikSo 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....

Why did you waste your time and bandwidth to defend a man I've never met and really has no impact on my life? Too much free time?

Now you could have left it at this, and I probably would have nodded my head and said, ya know, he's right, why are these guys obsessing over Ron Edwards academic leanings.  But no, it's like a compulsion...must...evangelize...GNS...must...spread...word...

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAlso, somewhere around here, the Pundit claimed that Edwards said that if you played traditional games, you'd become brain-damaged.

Do we really need to dredge this up again?  Cause I have to tell you, it's one of the first things I read, and I took away what most people I've read since did. WTF? It's hard not to harsh on Mr. Edwards explanation capabilities if you bring up that entire drama.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikNow, 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.

No, actually what he said was:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIf someone wants to take issue with my use of the term "brain" when I'm talking about the "mind," I just shrug. As I see it, the mind is the physiological outcome of a working brain. Mess around with the input as the brain/mind forms, and you short-circuit it, messing up steps which themselves would have been the foundation of further steps. You could be talking about an experience such as I mention above, or you could be talking about sticking a needle into someone's head and wiggling it around. Brain, mind, damage. I don't distinguish.

All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title.

Now if you want to defend that, that's your business.  But I can't find one reference to Vampire in that.  And I checked the entire original post: a quote from a different thread that mentions Vampire, along with a reference to Champions. The best you can hope for is that some correctly interprets that games "represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years," does not include their game.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikDisagree 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.

I do. I do. I did.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnd 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.)

I'm trying to type, but your condescension is dripping on my keyboard. Who is the lazy one, the person who reads what is written as it is written, or the one who doesn't make himself clear enough to avoid the interpretation so many took from his comments?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikBy 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)

Because if you disagree with GNS or Mr. Edwards, the only rational explanation can be that you did not read GNS but are relying on glosses on the Internet. Or you didn't understand it, you moron.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikFinally, for the record, Ron thinks many traditional RPGs are great.

I have many friends who are gay/black/jewish/etc.

Quote from: Christopher Kubasik(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!")

You know – that's the same reaction I have to GNS/Forge Theory.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

Nope, not one of it's goals.

But it's sure as hell a common ideal people try to set up.  I've heard the words "rigorous debate" bandied about more times than I care to count, and they make me giggle.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikJames,

Whatever.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Did you make the 'W' with your hand after you typed that?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI didn't say anything about anyone being not "smart" enough. The conversation was about the clarity (or the lack of it) about Ron's writing. I said I was confused by the fact I didn't have problems with the GNS essay. That's all, and that was my only point.

I know you will see it however you want... Some folks are touchy and seek out offenses. I'm guessing you're one of them. But really, no offense was meant or even stated.

And this is one of the reasons I could no longer stand even lurking in the Forge.  Do you even read what you wrote and consider how it might be taken? You're guessing I'm one of them?  Did I go rushing off to another forum to defend anyone? My god, youwant to talk about irony?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikOn another thread, John Kim provided clarification for some mistatements Pundit had made about Edward's writing. I don't think I did anything different. Certainly I'm not pushing anything but a few facts. I even said, "Attack him if you want, but do it for what he said."

Go back and look at what you posted.  Not what was in your head or your heart, but what you actually posted.  And then tell me how that jibes with "I'm not pushing anything but a few facts."

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI get it. I'm not welcome.

You're more than welcome.  I'd love to have you here.  We can talk about all kinds of gaming-related things. But you can't come in here all full of indignation defending something many here disagree with and not expect to get blowback. Stay, by all means. I'm certainly nobody important enough here for you to consider leaving over.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

But if someone comes here -- not contradicting the logic of the place, but simply setting a few misstatement straight -- he's an outsider who must be insulted ("Great Creator," my ass...) and admonished with over-elaborate emticons.

I did not use one emoticon. And insults are a dime a dozen around here.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikRiiiiiight... the Forge is a closed community where they only listen to themselves and can't take dissenting views... Unlike... uh... this place.... Ah, sweet irony...

As I said in my longer insulting rant.  I had no problem with your defense of Mr. Edwards - other than some disagreement over your information. It's that you can't help but then go on to bring up brain damage and GNS and all the rest as if that's relevant ro the defense. You want to talk theory? Great, start a thread.

BTW - what would happen in the Forge if I went in and did what you just did here?  Think I wouldn't be jumped on and banned? There's you're real test of openess.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

I'll explain... no, too long. I sum up.

The Forge sets itself up as 'academia' in that it puts out a theory, opens up for discussion, all in the name of advancing game design out of the 'rub two sticks together, see if fire starts' methodology.  If only not in so many words.

Further, Ron is regularly held up as an academian, due to his collegiate credentials.

Peer Review exists in academia to prevent dead end schools of thought, or the adoption of an Aristolian Method. It works, though not perfectly.  Not discussing stuff, as the Forge no longer does, does not.

As a scientist, Ron should know beyond ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT that no scientific theory is ever truly complete. Ever. All of what man knows and has accomplished is dwarfed only by the infinite vastness of what he DOES NOT know.  Etc.

So, we can use Peer Review as a shorthand for laughing at the high hobby horseness of closing down theory discussion because it is now 'complete', and a stern dressing down of the supposed rigorousness of their theory.  It is not, however a strawman, because the target isn't the Forge's use of the term (they did not), but their actual behavior.

Attacking the term IS a strawman, as it ignored the thrust of the debate.

End sum up.

I would just like to personally apologize to everyone for my outburst, and specifically to Mr. Kubasik for taking him to task so inconsiderately.

Quote from: James J SkachDid anyone else notice it.  I mean, the point where someone from the Forge comes in to defend the Theory and the Great Creator?

This is what pisses quite a few people off.  Why come here to do this? I mean, if Pundit is crazy, and the people who have posted here aren't smart enought to just pick up GNS and get it, and people who post here tend not to play "Story Games," and Ron really didn't mean "brain damage," and a thousand other if's, Why?

OK, so you saw that people were harshing on Mr. Edwards. You saw the need to set the record straight. Your corrections, where applicable are duly noted.

But please, please, please don't start parading around your "I went to a Con and GNS is Truth Laid Bare," opinion.  As pundit has noted, Forge/GNS Theory is not an accepted fact in this forum.

Well put, James.  The thing is, this is standard modus operandi for the Forge.  They're not just the Creationists of the RPG world, they're the fucking Jehovah's Witnesses of the RPG world. They'll be knocking at your door to try to sell you the good news whether you're interested or not.

Here at theRPGsite, we're the guys who open that door naked from the waist down and wearing a Viking hat.

RPGPundit

I watched a fascinating movie a little while back:  Street Fight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457496/), a documentary about the 2002 ayoral campaign in Newark, NJ where newcomer Cory Booker tried to unseat long-time incumbent Sharpe James.  Now what was fascinating wasn't the inherent interest of a mayoral election (yawn!) but the fact that, to all appearances, the James campaign seems to have flouted every conceivable election law, on a regular basis.  I mean, he was having city officials tear down Booker advertising, he was getting up on television and outright lying about matters of public record not once or twice but many times daily, his employees were convicted of all manner of illegalities including repeated assaults on Booker campaign supporters.  It was simply astonishing to watch the sheer extent of the incumbent campaign's law-breaking.

And in the middle of all this, they had a fascinating little snippet of mayor James speaking to the press.  Somebody asked him about the Booker campaign's claims that he was deliberately misinforming people in districts that didn't favor him about their voting process ... making it, essentially, impossible for them to find the polls.  And he said something roughly akin to "Well, sure, Cory Booker's complaining.  I mean, really, aren't you used to that by now?  Has there been a day in this campaign where Cory Booker hasn't been complaining about something or other?"

I was just impressed as all get-out.  That's such a convincing tack to take.  If one group of people is constantly calling foul against another group it must be because calling foul is a rhetorical tactic of theirs.  I mean ... that's just as obvious as the nose on your face, right?

Yeah man - its why you gotta call swine out on their crap when the do it, else you'll always be playing catchup.

When they say game design is stuck tell them to stop reading the crap bits. When they say there has never been a good roleplaying setting laugh in their faces. When they say your games don't work call them cunts and wave the sign.

:forge:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNope, not one of it's goals.

But it's sure as hell a common ideal people try to set up.  I've heard the words "rigorous debate" bandied about more times than I care to count, and they make me giggle.

The don't call it theory and drop the pseudoacademic tone (n.b. I find your posts to be refreshingly down to earth, so this is not necessarily a dig at you, Levi).  A theory is:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about those phenomena."

If your ideas can't stand up to debate, then they do not constitute a theory.  It might be an interesting intellectual exercise (less charitable people would call it "mental masturbation") to play with those ideas, but that is not theorizing.  Theory is only made stronger by rigorous debate; if it can't stand up to such debate, then it lacks explanatory power.  In which case, why push it as if it does?