Quote from: droogBe nice or I'm going to get the knives out again.

I'm already armoured up from the scar tissue from the last four hundred times you jabbed at me, mate. So go for it!

Quote from: John Morrow*stuff about DitV*

Bait and switch, man. You started with "DitV deprotagonises me!" Now it's "Conflict res ain't so narrativist!"

I have explained how DitV's mechanics give you choice all the way through. Would you like to respond to that?

Quote from: John MorrowThe way D&D serves a variety of non-Gamist goals is that it's silent on those goals.  It gets out of the way.  Don't undervalue that.

I don't.

And the point for the thread is: neither does the Big Model. All you need for narr – theoretically – is address of premise. You can do that without any rules at all if you want.

I told you at the beginning: it's a system preference. Some like chess, some like backgammon. Some perverts like both.

Quote from: droogIt couldn't have been a social problem. I socialised with Glenn on a regular basis – he's a great bloke to hang out and drink with. The falling out was over a very complicated matter, but it was not because we disliked each other. In fact, we're friends again now.

I don't think this is going to be very productive.  Suffice to say I'm not convinced.

Quote from: droogYou seem determined to take the most insulting interpretation, but yes, ultimately it was five to one. We tried...for several years, as it happens.

I'm not determined to take the most insulting interpretation.  I'm basing my assessment only on what you are saying.  You have given me no indication that the rest of you even tried to compromise for him.  Am I supposed to pretend that you did?  If you did, just say so.

Quote from: droogI haven't read Robin Laws' book, mainly because it isn't free. To bring this back to the big topic, I've found the Forge has influenced me to see other people's styles as legitimate and fun for them. The base vocab and the model are entirely non-judgemental, in my view.

Robin Laws' book is cheap and you can read a summary of his style categories on John Kim's site, though that doesn't really capture the whole scope of the book.

As for what you've gotten out of the Forge, plenty of people have gotten the same thing out of rec.games.frp.advocacy, RPGnet, ENWorld, and just about any other discussion board where gamers explain their styles to people with different styles.  That's not the problem.  The problem is the base vocabulary (as defined not only by essays and glossaries but the posts on The Forge) are not only not entirely non-judgemental (heck, people can't even agree on what Sim is) but are also confusing and often counter-productive.  

For years, astronomers used models of the cosmos that pictures the stars and planets moving on crystal spheres and they so perfected their model that they could even explain the troubling movement of planets fairly accurately using that model.  That astronomers used that model successfully and that it was useful for years doesn't mean it was right and that other models weren't better.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said before, it sounds to me like it was a social problem.

You're going to have to take my word for it. These are people I've known for twenty years.

Quote from: droogAnd the point for the thread is: neither does the Big Model. All you need for narr – theoretically – is address of premise. You can do that without any rules at all if you want.

Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winnah!  

So then why the claim that system matters and why the obsession on unconventional mechanics?  Why not focus on what really matters -- how to design characters and situations in order to create and address a premise independent of the system?  And why can't I use these same techniques on top of a system or structure that also gives a player with a different agenda  the ability to achieve their objectives, too?

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think this is going to be very productive.  Suffice to say I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced, either. But in the end we have to accept that droog knows his game experiences better than we know his game experiences. I mean, he can say, "so-and-so happened," and we can say, "that sounds like this thing," we can speak of our impressions, and generalise from our experience, and suggest possibilities - but in the end, droog knows droog's experiences better than we do. If we think we know his experiences better than him, we may as well just join Uncle Ronny.

Quote from: John MorrowFor years, astronomers used models of the cosmos that pictures the stars and planets moving on crystal spheres and they so perfected their model that they could even explain the troubling movement of planets fairly accurately using that model.  That astronomers used that model successfully and that it was useful for years doesn't mean it was right and that other models weren't better.

There are two things here.

The first is that the crystal spheres model, like the flat earth model, actually worked just fine for certain applications. If you never go more than a day's walk from your village, the world may as well be flat, so the Flat Earth Model works just fine. So what we're looking at here is, not whether the model is correct or not, but whether it's good for certain applications or not.

The second thing is, the data. The crystal spheres model, they came up with that to explain the fact that when you look at the motion of the planets in the sky, they don't always move just one way. If they were just worlds rolling around Earth, then they'd always go one way, right? But actually, they roll forwards for a bit, then backwards. So they came up with this elaborate crystal spheres model to explain this backwards motion. "Um... we're surrounded by several layers of crystal spheres which roll back and around and stuff."

Now, the fact is that they were never really moving backwards, it was just that as the Earth went around the sun, the Earth overtook these other planets in their orbits, so the planets appeared to be moving backwards. So that's where the crystal spheres idea came from, the spheres moving back, forwards, roundabout - to explain the reality.

Whereas Edwards' GNS is like an astronomy theory that says, "move forwards? Never! Doesn't happen! They always move backwards!" His theory only talks about gamers who aren't having any fun - all 7% or so of them.

So you can have a theory which explains things, but is wrong (like the crystal spheres), or you can have a theory which ignores anything that contradicts it.  Edwards chose to go for the second option. I guess he just like Bitter Non-Gamers.

Quote from: droogYou're going to have to take my word for it. These are people I've known for twenty years.

I think the problem is that you are interpreting that phrase differently than we are.  Or maybe you are just too close to the problem to see it.  Like I said, I'm not observing it directly.  But your own words lead me to believe that Glenn being the odd man out in that game had little to do with the game or system and a great deal to do with the players consciously choosing not the change anything to help Glenn have more fun.  

Let me put it this way, when my larger group of friends get together, there are quite a few computer people and quite a few non-computer people.  When the computer people start geeking out and talking about computers, the non-computer people lose interest and, if there are only a few or even one, feel alienated.  At that point, the computer people have a choice.  They can be indifferent to the fact that the non-computer people or person feels alienated and keep talking about computers because they are enjoying the discussion or they can change the subject to something that can include everyone and is still enjoyable for the computer people to talk about.

In the cases where the computer people keep talking about computers and the non-computer people felt alienated, the problem was a social problem.  It was people choosing to have an exclusive conversation rather than an inclusive conversation.

The problem in your game looks exactly the same to me.  Rather than running an inclusive game that he could enjoy when he entered the group, the people chose to keep running an exclusive game that he couldn't enjoy.

And the "solution" of just excluding Glenn in the first place is like saying that the solution to my non-computer friends feeling alienated by computer talk is to exclude them from parties dominated by computer people rather than changing the subject of conversation to something everyone can enjoy.  And the only cases where I can't imagine finding a conversation that everyone can enjoy is where two or more people enjoy such a narrow range of conversations that it's impossible to find overlap.  All around, the problem isn't flexibility but a lack of it.

Quote from: droogBait and switch, man. You started with "DitV deprotagonises me!" Now it's "Conflict res ain't so narrativist!"

Well, I added "(OK. More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism. Better?)".  Frankly I still don't understand why people are rolling dice if the decisions are ultimately made by the players.  So I'm left with one of two conclusions: (A) the dice mechanics determine how the character reacts or (B) the dice mechanics are meaningless because the player really decides how the character reacts.  I went into this assuming (A) but you seem to be suggesting (B).  If there is a (C) where both happen at the same time, I'd love to have you explain it to  me.

Quote from: droogI have explained how DitV's mechanics give you choice all the way through. Would you like to respond to that?

My response is to ask you what purpose the mechanics serve, then?  It seems like the way that the player excercises a real choice could be done without the mechanics.  If the player always has a choice that comes down to changing the conflict, accepting consequences, or giving in, then why are they rolling the dice and comparing them?  Are the dice and mechanics simply there to give the player ideas if they don't know how to have their character react but to ignore if they do?  Do they put any limits on how the player can respond and, if so, why?

Quote from: droogSo at what point does a game shift styles or become incoherent?

So at what point does a game shift styles or become incoherent?

Edit:  I'd still like an answer to this, by the way.  I'll make it easier.  How can you tell when a game is coherent or incoherent?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy not focus on what really matters -- how to design characters and situations in order to create and address a premise independent of the system?  And why can't I use these same techniques on top of a system or structure that also gives a player with a different agenda  the ability to achieve their objectives, too?

Of course you can, but that's another matter. Please take it to the Forge if you want to debate design issues. I just play the things.

Now, as for your point about exclusivity and inclusivity, an RPG is not a casual gathering where one adjusts conversation to the company. It's a shared endeavour that people have worked towards and planned for.

You're suggesting that one person should have disrupted – by right – a game that had gone seven years without him. Why is that? It wasn't like there was a shortage of roleplaying around at the time. Some of the guys were playing three or four nights a week.

Glenn joined the game for social reasons (he wanted to hang out with us). It worked out all right for a while, it became increasingly harder, and we were saved from actually making a decision by a big out-of-game event that affected many people. We tacitly left him out from then.

Don't you practise some form of selectivity in social gatherings and/or gaming? Or is it like open slather?

Quote from: John MorrowWell, I added "(OK. More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism. Better?)".  Frankly I still don't understand why people are rolling dice if the decisions are ultimately made by the players.  So I'm left with one of two conclusions: (A) the dice mechanics determine how the character reacts or (B) the dice mechanics are meaningless because the player really decides how the character reacts.  I went into this assuming (A) but you seem to be suggesting (B).  If there is a (C) where both happen at the same time, I'd love to have you explain it to  me.

The fuck? You decide what you want to achieve, the dice determine if you achieve it. It's not rocket science.

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't doubt that Ron Edwards has had lots of gamers tell him they weren't having any fun. I do doubt that this is a representative sample of all gamers, and I do doubt that his anecdotal evidence - his experiences - are any more believable than, say, mine.

The thing is, man, I never said anything about a "representative sample." I don't thik Ron did either. Just that there ARE unhappy gamers out there is validation enough for trying to figure out ways for them to improve their experience, right?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat I think likely is that The Forge attracts people who are unhappy with gaming.

I won't deny that. It certainly attracted me on those grounds. And it did a lot toward helping me understand my play and improve it. I havew no idea how widespread my problem is. I just know it exists, and the Forge helps. Not saying the theory is perfect, or that Ron is God of all roleplaying. Just that ther Forge helped me. (It was Vincent more than Ron, really, though Ron did help.)

Quote from: JimBobOzSo I think that Edwards has created a forum which welcomes people who are having bad gaming; he naturally comes to believe that everyone has bad gaming. He then builds his rpg theory not on the views of gamers in general, but on the views of unhappy gamers. So he talks to 7% of all gamers, and then reckons that they're 100%. Which is like basing your views of the human body only on physically ill people. A physician knows that you can learn as much from healthy people as from ill people, or even more from them; a good rpg theorist would realise you can learn as much from happy gamers as from miserable ones - or more.

See, I don't think Ron thinks that. I'm not sure if he cares about the percentage any more than I do, just that they're out there. And as i've tried to point out above, he is very encouraging of positive play, as in the threads I linked. It's not all doom and gloom. But yeah, there is a pretty big emphasis on folks that are having dysfunction or boredome or whatever, and how to fix that. Nothing wrong with that, you know?

Quote from: JimBobOzUncle Ronny doesn't speak directly, he speaks in a roundabout way, with new meanings for old words. You have to look hard just to figure out what he wants to say, let alone what he's somewhat trying to hide.

Well, can you understand how that's not really helpful? "He doesn't really say it, it's really what he doesn't say. True or not, it doesn't get me any closer to understanding the source of this dissent.

Does Ron really say "most are tired, bitter and frustrated"? 'Cause that would be a datapoint.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not really a great mental leap, from "deny gamers' experiences" to "GNS". Uncle Ronny makes it every day to avoid tossing his rpg theory in the toilet where it belongs. Why can't you?

What, are you gonna sic the deprogrammers on my ass? I'm not a Ron disciple or anything; I've just found the general framework of the Forge's thought helpful, even if I'm still confused or undecided on some issues. And as far as the mental leap, I still don't see strong evidence for "deny camers' experiences." Still looking for that "I'm having fun!" "No, you're not."

Quote from: JimBobOzThe other thing you have to ask yourself is, why is it that so many gamers read what Uncle Ronny says, and get this idea that he's saying we're too stupid or crazy to know what our own experiences are? Why do we read it that way, if he doesn't intend that way? Are we stupid and crazy for reading him that way? Or is that what his dreadful writing is really saying?

Well, I honestly don't know. It's not that I just kinda heard about this Ron guy and everyone was alll up in arms about him and I asked "what's the big deal?" I've read Ron Edwards' stuff extensively, and I don't get that reading at all. So now another vector enters the equation: Am I stupid or crazy for not seeing what you do?



Fuck, this thing has become way too much an identity politics issue, which is why I wanted to avoid the brain damage thing. I'm not trying to place myself in the Ron Edwards "camp" by a loing shot (unlike apparently the Pundit I believe there can be more than two "camps."). Just trying to make sense of this whole thing.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorI'm not trying to place myself in the Ron Edwards "camp" by a loing shot (unlike apparently the Pundit I believe there can be more than two "camps."). Just trying to make sense of this whole thing.

You can be on my team.  We've got...

Uh...

A straight white male market researcher, and a chinese lesbian geneticist.

We fight crime!

Quote from: MelinglorJust that there ARE unhappy gamers out there is validation enough for trying to figure out ways for them to improve their experience, right?

No. Physicians do not study only sick people, but healthy people, too. Mechanics do not only study cars that won't go, they study cars which work well, too. And a useful rpg theory will study gamers who are happy as well as those who are miserable.

Quote from: MelinglorDoes Ron really say "most are tired, bitter and frustrated"? 'Cause that would be a datapoint.

Mate... you're in favour of GNS? Try READING ABOUT IT.

Let's have a look at the foundational essay, GNS and other matters of roleplaying theory <-- that's a link, by the way. Go look at the thing.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

The rest of the essay, if you can be bothered reading it, and his comments on The Forge, make it plain that he assumes, "gamers I encounter" = "all gamers." For example, on the seventh page of that thing, he says,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is. I have met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely defensive and turtle-like play tactics.

Either he really thinks that the miserable gamers are a minority, in which case his theory is based only on miserable gamers, and not happy gamers, and is thus incomplete, or

he really thinks most gamers are miserable.

And yet we're not. So his theory is either deliberately based on incomplete data, or accidentally based on incomplete data. Either way, it's based on incomplete data, and thus has problems.

This would be plain if you actually read his theories. Don't feel bad, lots of Marxists never read Marx, either. It's a lot easier to believe in a theory if you never read it thoroughly.

Quote from: MelinglorI've read Ron Edwards' stuff extensively, and I don't get that reading at all.

It's plain you haven't, when you're asking me if he's said what he's said. I don't want to respond to you anymore until you've read the theories you're defending. I wouldn't debate Christianity with a self-avowed Christian who'd never read the New Testament, it'd be pointless.