Quote from: droogI think you'd better remember this when talking to me: I'm a politics major specialising in ideology and political theory. I see power struggles everywhere, including right here. Naturally, I can come up with a hundred examples from games I have played.

Heh. I guess I see a power-struggle right here, too, for what it's worth.

But I don't see them in the games I play.

If you define "being in power-struggle" as the human condition the way, say Nietzsche might have if he'd been an RPG theorist, then it's like oxygen... everywhere.

But that's not a very useful definition of the term, and it's not the one GNS uses. In GNS/TBM, some games have power struggle and some don't.

Yeah?

Much more useful than seeing it everywhere, no?

And if it's not everywhere, then there must some factor that puts it in your games, but not in mine.

I think that's actually a profound revelation: A *lot* of people who see value in the theory see traditional RPG's as unending struggles for dominance in which the rules are the battlefield, and the GM is unfairly loaded with power and authority...

What they *don't* see (probably because they're *inside* the situation) is that such a view is simply their way of seeing things. Across the street people are enjoying the traditional dynamic and getting a lot out of it...

Where power-struggle is an issue, it's with the people involved, not the game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think that's actually a profound revelation: A *lot* of people who see value in the theory see traditional RPG's as unending struggles for dominance in which the rules are the battlefield, and the GM is unfairly loaded with power and authority...

What they *don't* see (probably because they're *inside* the situation) is that such a view is simply their way of seeing things. Across the street people are enjoying the traditional dynamic and getting a lot out of it...

See, old bean, you keep on coming with this attitude. Just skating around the edges and making tiny little ad hominems.

Yes, everything's political. And I say that, and apply it to roleplaying games, from the perspective not of a wounded player, but of somebody who's been a GM almost always. I've had a couple of decades to observe things going on and learn my craft.

If you're not on the same page, things go pear-shaped more easily. Simple.

Now, do you want to talk, or be smooth?

Quote from: MelinglorYou know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Actually, that's exactly what it's about.

From the famous brain damage comment

Quote from: Ron Edwards[...] protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively. You can tag Sorcerer with this diagnosis, instantly.

[The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been *harmed.*]

By "tagging Sorcerer with this diagnosis, Edwards does not mean (as youc an see from the wider context of his comments, see last quote below) that Sorcerer inhibits "protagonism", but that people's coments on and understanding of Sorcerer have been coloured by their inability to understand what "story" and "protagonism" are.

So if you say that you understand very well what "story" and "protaginism" are, Edwards will reply that in fact you don't, that your early poor experiences with the things make you unable to understand what they really are.

Later he attempts to explain his "brain damage" comments by saying he meant that it was like child abuse.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsNow for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage).

In his second post, he goes on,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI don't know what to call it, this thing, is a pure inability actually to understand and enjoy stories of any kind.

So, Edwards says that you are not having real stories, or real "protagonism."

"But I am having real stories, and real protagonism," you reply.

"Ah, you only think you are. Really your story-making ability is handicapped, warped by your early bad story-making experiences, just like a child abuse victim doesn't know what proper sex is, you don't know what a proper story is."

So if you agree that the common ideas of "story" are wrong, that proves Edwards' theory. And if you say that the common ideas of story are right, well then you're brain-damaged and that proves Edwards' theory, too.

Whatever the data, his theory is correct.

Also, if you don't like Sorcerer, or even if you like it but for the "wrong" reasons, that proves you're brain-damaged, too!

Quote from: Ron EdwardsJesse's first post in Why complex conflict is so confusing makes a very clear point: the Sorcerer rules work, but the gamer brain (well, the "story-oriented" variety) does not. Confronted with these rules, the mind recoils and re-interprets and retrofits what "must" be meant into a tortuous shape which does not work, but at least the frustrations and confusions are familiar.

Adjust reality to fit the theory!

Quote from: droogThat's exactly what 'coherence' implies. The story-based crap conflicted with the rules. Get rid of it, presto, already more coherent. Then work the system over so that it makes more sense and allows people to gain mastery and show their skill (didn't a WotC designer talk about this?).

Much improved? Looks like it to me. I can appreciate the design goals.

A standard interpretation of Forge theory would mean that a game is either coherent or its not. Being "more coherent" would be like being "a little bit pregnant".

Either a game presents one single method of play, or it doesn't. You can't be sort-of coherent.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzActually, that's exactly what it's about.

No. . .no, it's not.

What I was saying it's not about is your "Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!" The Brain Damage thing is about ability to appreciate and understand story. Whole different claim. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's offensive. But that wasn't what I was asking about. You (and others, I think) have been tossing around Brain Damage references as a substitute for "whatever I find offensive about Ron Edwards." Go ahead. Hate "Brain Damage." But hate it for what it actually says. For other things about Ron that you hate, please find other references. Which was what I was asking for. Thanks.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know if this counts, but it's a quote from one of the links provided earlier in the thread:

But I could sure see someone taking it as such.

Thanks for the reply, James. But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I read the link, or the first couple pages anyway, and what Ron's talking about there is the idea (again, love it or hate it, let's just be clear) that Simulationists play based on fear. So he's talking about people not having fun. He never says, "if you think you're having fun, you're really not." And for what it's worth, a couple of posts down Ron admits that he may be off base. I personally think that Ron is identifying a real phenomenon here; that there really are gamers who are fearful and insular and shy away from vulnerability in their gaming, and Ron incorrectly identifies it with Sim as a whole. He doesn't appear to believe this now.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: RPGPunditA standard interpretation of Forge theory would mean that a game is either coherent or its not. Being "more coherent" would be like being "a little bit pregnant".

Either a game presents one single method of play, or it doesn't. You can't be sort-of coherent.

I don't see that. How closely does the game help you realise your agenda? Does it work with you, is it no help, or is it actively a burden?

Quote from: MelinglorThanks for the reply, James. But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I read the link, or the first couple pages anyway, and what Ron's talking about there is the idea (again, love it or hate it, let's just be clear) that Simulationists play based on fear. So he's talking about people not having fun. He never says, "if you think you're having fun, you're really not." And for what it's worth, a couple of posts down Ron admits that he may be off base. I personally think that Ron is identifying a real phenomenon here; that there really are gamers who are fearful and insular and shy away from vulnerability in their gaming, and Ron incorrectly identifies it with Sim as a whole. He doesn't appear to believe this now.

Well, the problem is, when he says they are playing based on fear, and they say they are playing for fun, isn't that it?  I mean, you can dance around teh words, but that's it in a nutshell.

Now Ron does go on an try to salvage the conversation by making appeals to the discussion being about whether or not it's a valid generalization.  But I have to tell you, it read like a lot of bait and switch.  I mean, he comes out all hellfire with all kinds of pseudo pschoanalysis about playing from fear - and you're telling me that that won't be perceived as an insult? - and ends by saying well that's not really what the question was.  Well, can't have it both ways.

Interesting that he is confronted with someone saying it's bad for threefold to say things like this - even if they are true! - as it's bad PR.  I have to give him credit - he responds that he's not going to avoid the question just because it might hurt someone's feeling.  But somewhere along the way, after he has some private e-mails, he changes his tune and bait-and-switches the question.

And finally - people who shy away in fear of vulne...WTF? I mean, is it the object of RPG theory now to psycho-analyze players to this depth?  I mean, talk about playing into the hands of critics who claim Forgery is all a reaction to a bad DM touching bad places...

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I was saying it's not about is your "Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!" The Brain Damage thing is about ability to appreciate and understand story. Whole different claim. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's offensive.

I am more or less indifferent to its offensiveness. Hell, it must be offensive, even John Wick posts in that thread to say it's offensive, and he should know about being offensive. But I'm not that worried about that. The main problem is that it's wrong.

If you read Uncle Ronny thoroughly, you'll find that "fun" = "Narrativism". If you come along and tell him about some game session where you had fun, he'll categorise it. If he liked it, he'll say it was Narrativist. If he didn't like it, it was Gamist, Simulationist, or had two or three of them at once, and was therefore "Incoherent."

Ask him if someone with "brain-damaged" is able to tell what is "really" fun. Go on. See what he says. He'll explain that like a molested kid, they have a warped idea of "fun."

"Fun" and "story" are synonymous to Ron Edwards. Consider for example some of the others posting in the thread,

Quote from: Brand RobbinsI, Brand Robins, am brain damaged. I have had to work long and hard in order to learn how to tell stories and enjoy them[...]

By all but the most pedantic of understandings, "enjoy" is the same as "having fun." If "fun" and "story" needed to be distinguished, then Edwards would do so in that thread, in response to people; he doesn't. Further, in his responses he makes it pretty clear that "story" = "fun", and "impaired story" = "not fun." Some examples,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI also think that the story-features which can be easily elicited from people [who have not been damaged by bad roleplaying] are exactly the same things which excite and interest them about the story in the first place, before the dialogue.

So, non-gamers can come up with exciting and interesting things; gamers can't.

Quote from: Ron Edwards[...] I think White Wolf games of the early-mid 1990s were the high-water mark of the damaging trend, not the originator. And that I'd say "enjoy and/or tell," [stories] not just "tell." And to repeat (again) that I'm talking about playing these games with dedicated Narrativist goals, however unarticulated, not just "playing" them in any-old way. After all, in 1992, if your goal was to get into that goth chick's pants, playing Vampire was probably a pretty good way to do it.

As I said, you may wish to quibble, saying that "enjoy" does not necessarily mean, "fun." But then you're trying just too hard.

But of course you can see this for yourself if you read the thread.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if you agree that the common ideas of "story" are wrong, that proves Edwards' theory. And if you say that the common ideas of story are right, well then you're brain-damaged and that proves Edwards' theory, too.

Nitpick:

Instead of "story", you should have said "collaborative storymaking".

Your point still holds overall.  But that specific - that some RPG books have dressed something up as collaborative storymaking that, in plain fact, is not - that's the bit where Ron was right.

The the extent to which this actually affects the play of a regular group, and the effects of same, those are the (much longer and more central) parts where he was wrong.

Well, "story", "collaborative storymaking", whatever, comes to the same thing in this context. If we're talking about everyone at a game session "creating a story", then we're saying it's "collaborative."

As for what rpg books have and haven't called "collaborative storymaking" and whether they labelled it correctly, that's a whole other question, which we can discuss and argue about in some other thread, if you care to start it.

The point is that Forger theory - that is, Ron Edwards' GNS (GNS being the core of Big Model) - is based on the idea that most gamers are miserable, and even if they say they're not miserable, really they are, because their bad roleplaying has warped their fragile little minds. Obviously this is a load of old bollocks.

So it's a theory based on wrong data, and thus can only accidentally be right.

We can argue over the various details of the theory, but what it comes down to is that if any theory is based on wrong data, it's hard to be hopeful about it, and you can't expect many people to take it seriously. When your very first sentence is wrong - "many gamers are not having any fun," - then most people won't pay attention to the rest. And fair enough, too.

Quote from: droogWhat you say has an effect on the traits, relationships etc you bring into the conflict, or whether you escalate or not. That in turn affects your chance of winning the conflict.

But it could really be anything, right?  A player could choose whether to escalate, give, etc. based on any agenda they want to follow, right?  Are these mechanics Narrativist or is the key innovation here in the set-up, defining characters and a milieu with conflicts that almost can't help but be addressed and resolved?  And would the game be any less Narrativist in the most important senses if I resolved that conflict by just role-playing it out, using the Hero system, or even using d20?  That's why I read the Actual Play threads and go, "Huh?"  I don't see how the mechanics are actually facilitating Narrativism.  All they seem to be doing is abstracting the conflict out and, frankly I'm at a loss to understand how abstraction helps.

Quote from: droogWhat you say is also part of the fiction of the game now. If you pistol-whipped an old woman, it happened and now we know where your character will go. That's part of the point of playing DitV.

(Of course, when you say "I pistol-whip the old woman!", it's always possible another PC Dog will challenge you on it – "Damn if you're goin' to do that, Brother Jedediah, in my presence!")

Again, how is this different from any other system?  In d20 or Hero, the same exact scene could happen with held actions and die rolls with similarly dramatic resolution and, as an added bonus, all those die rolls are representative of specific actions rather than abstractions, so they can support a Simulationist mode of play and possibly even a Gamist mode.  

In other words, with a more traditional system in which the die rolls resolve specific declared actions, you could have Brother Jedediah threaten the old woman and it doesn't really matter if the player approaches that situation from a Narrativist (internal struggle), Gamist (tactical challenge), or Simulationist (being there) perspective because it will all look the same at the SIS.  That, in fact, is part of how to make "incoherent" games work.

Quote from: droogGiving isn't abandoning the mechanic, it's one possible resolution of the mechanic. To start a conflict and then back down has a different narrative significance from not starting a conflict in the first place.

Well, Giving is simply a decision that doesn't use the dice.  Yes, it is a "part" of the mechanic but it's essentially the same thing as deciding to give in with no mechanics behind that decision, is it not?  To that extent, it doesn't need any dice or rule to make it work.

Quote from: droogIf you don't enjoy that process of seeing and raising, of bouncing your roleplaying off the dice, you won't enjoy the game. But it's not because the game takes choice from you.

That may be the case, but then I'm still left wondering what the mechanics are supposed to do to facilitate Narrativist play.  It's more than simply disliking the processess of seeing, raising, and giving.  It's trying to understand how that process is supposed to help promote Narrativism.

Added:

I think it looks to me like abstract conflict mechanics are designed more to distance the mechanics from representing specific actions in the SIS, thus making it difficult to use the system for Simulationist or Gamist play than actually promosting Narrativism.  All of the Narrativism in Dogs in the Vineyard seems to me to be loaded into the setting and character generation process, not the conflict resolution mechanics.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, the problem is, when he says they are playing based on fear, and they say they are playing for fun, isn't that it?  I mean, you can dance around teh words, but that's it in a nutshell.

Well, I don't think it is. I mean, he's talking about actual reactions of fear, or at least what he percieves to be such. Whether or not the folks he says he's observed the reactions in were having fun, or claim to be, well. . .that's hypothetical. Certainly their goal is fun, but you can strive for fun without achieving it, no? I've always played "for fun," but have endured a lot of unfun play over the years, which is why I was attracted to the Forge as a possible diagnostic and corrective. So he's pegged a group of people as having this fear reaction. We can't assume until we see it in living HTML that he's asked each person (or even just some of them) if they're having fun or not., then told them "no you're not." That's the smoking gun I'm looking for. Ron says in his interview with Settembrini that when he talks about people not having fun in their games, he's referring to people coming to him and complaining that they're having a bad time. And I dunno, maybe he's a scummy liar or whatever, but I'm looking for the counter-evidence.

Quote from: James J SkachNow Ron does go on an try to salvage the conversation by making appeals to the discussion being about whether or not it's a valid generalization.  But I have to tell you, it read like a lot of bait and switch.  I mean, he comes out all hellfire with all kinds of pseudo pschoanalysis about playing from fear - and you're telling me that that won't be perceived as an insult? - and ends by saying well that's not really what the question was.  Well, can't have it both ways.

I dunno, it didn't feel like a bait and switch to me, rather a self-check in mid-discourse to say "hmm, maybe I've got it wrong or am overstating my case. That's not disingenuous, just human and honest.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to give him credit - he responds that he's not going to avoid the question just because it might hurt someone's feeling.

I thought that was pretty admirable too. Though I have a sad suspicion that a lot of folks are reading that as more generic "Ron's an asshole" evidence.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd finally - people who shy away in fear of vulne...WTF? I mean, is it the object of RPG theory now to psycho-analyze players to this depth?  I mean, talk about playing into the hands of critics who claim Forgery is all a reaction to a bad DM touching bad places...

First, I can't help what hands this plays into; I'm just trying to express my thoughts clearly and give an honest read of the topic. Even if it's bad PR. And, well, I wasn't really trying to attain any depth of psychoanalysis, but we are talking about human behavior. it's gonna get personal and psychological from time to time. Given what Gam and Nar are purported to require of their players, yeah, it's gonna scare people off if they want a "safer" way of roleplaying. Not that all folks who eschew these CAs are fearful, just, as I said, SOME are. Didn't think it'd be that big a point, man, sorry.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogMy presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

Without actually observing the game or the people involved, it's impossible to tell.  But one guess could be that you were running a coherent game that didn't have anything to offer him rather than an incoherent game that might have had something to offer him.  The solution, in that case, could either be to kick him out or to start running an incoherent game that gave Glenn more of what he was looking for (See Robin Laws' advice in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, as an example).  One solution to style conflict is to make the game more exclusive and drive the heretics out.  The other solution is to make the players more aware of style differences and the game more inclusive.  And I don't think that has to run anyone's fun.

Quote from: droogI don't see that. How closely does the game help you realise your agenda? Does it work with you, is it no help, or is it actively a burden?

But what "coherency" is all about in Forgespeak is whether a game has mixed agendas or not. It can't have "sort of mixed" agendas. It either has mixed agendas, or it doesn't.

RPGpundit

Quote from: -E.Actually, GNS predicts on-going powerstruggle as the *most likely* result of incoherent play.

One would think that cooperation and accommodation could also be the outcome, especially if everyone at the table had a good set of tools to understand their differences and help them work together.

Quote from: -E."Incoherence" is really "flexibility"

Exactly.  

Quote from: -E.In actual play traditional games are highly adaptable to player desires and preferences making it more likely that a diverse group (or a group with diverse tastes) will enjoy them than highly-focused / limited games.

I'll go a step further.  For every style, there are elements that play well with others and elements that don't.  One way to solve the problems with "incoherent" games is to teach players to make choices within their own preference that play well with the preferences of others.  My chief interest in a functional system for classifying gaming preferences or styles is to use it as a diagnostic tool to help people with different preferences or styles play well together, rather than to isolate them into pure games that play well for one style but have nothing to offer to other styles.