Crater Lake is over there, Rogue River is that way, and the California border is over there.

Oh, wait, you mean some made up shit, right?

Never mind then, I'll go hang out with the naked women and the whiskey.

Sheesh. Nobody has to agree with Landmarks, or get bent out of shape if somebody else does. Arguing about them is a trap, in a way.

The site's Constitution is what's really important.

Quote from: Christmas ApeNote: I'm not gunning for any points here; I'm curious whether the Landmarks are Pundit Truth (and subject to scrutiny, questioning, and outright disagreement) or if they're simply considered Truth and must be adhered to whether you believe them or not, as well as how far the "Forge Theory burned my house down" approach stretches into techniques -popular- on the Forge.

The landmarks are "Pundit Truth"; if you want to call them that. They are statements I take to be self-evident.  I will not shut down the Landmarks thread and declare that the theory is now perfect and therefore no longer debateable, that's not how good theory works.

While I believe them to be obvious truths, you have to be able to argue and show evidence against them for them to be something other than dogma.
I wouldn't mind, also, if other people were to take up my challenge to create their own list of landmarks (not just commentary on mine, but make their own seperate list of what they feel should be the essential truths that form the basis of all theory discussion).

QuoteA lot of Forge games aren't RPGs as I think of them, sure. But they are games, they're often about roleplaying - and whether you want to roleplay a gay pudding-eating cowboy or not, some people do - and we're currently stuck with "roleplaying games" as an umbrella term for both of them. I think "Story Games" and "Adventure Games" would work as the two categories, except that both sound like games for 11 year-olds and lack the "cool" of the RPG acronym, and since the pettier the stakes the nastier the fight everybody's got their back so far up that nobody would even think about letting go of their death grip on the right to use "roleplaying game" to describe their products.

Yes, I think that's what it amounts to. But of the two camps, we were here first. You don't get to come in and subvert an existing term to fit your new definition, just like you don't get to start up a soft drink company, make an orange-ginseng soda, and call it Pepsi.

That's also what its about, of course. If they call it "Roleplaying games"; then they can poach some people from our hobby. If they call it "adventure games" or "story games", they have to stand or fall on their own merits.  Some of them seem finally willing to dare to do that; but others, like Ron Edwards, apparently aren't brave enough.

QuoteAlright, a statement that doesn't involve metaphorical spittle being sprayed. We're progressing. I'm curious as to what you feel the original ideas are, and from that list which innovations I think of that we disagree on.

That would be the subject of a whole other thread.

QuoteThe only way that sentence is true, given the sheer number of experiences out there, is if "we" means "the guys & girls I game with".

If by "the guys & girls I game with" you mean "the vast bulk of D&D/D20 gamers who form the majority of the hobby" (aka the Swine's dreaded "Unwashed masses" as one of them described them), then yes.

QuoteAs the spirits have woefully not yet bestowed upon me the terrible gift of Prophecy, I'll bow to your visions, Oh Seer Of Time To Come.

Prophecy is just the trick of being able to see the present well enough to extrapolate into the future.

QuoteWhere you see conspiracy, I see an evolutionary tangent. It's a different sort of game involving roleplaying, it doesn't look much like its better established cousin, and maybe it's totally useless to people who like what they've got. But for others it's just jim dandy, and the harder you try to push them away the more they're gonna fight to stay in where they are. If they've got a niche, they'll eventually settle into it and remain there. If they're a dead end, they'll try to mingle with the regular games, starve, and die. Either way, it's really no skin off your ass, is it?

It is if its proponents start coming into the RPG forums I frequent and make it impossible to talk about any theory other than their own, by insisting that we use their terminology and take their assumptions as the foundations.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenSheesh. Nobody has to agree with Landmarks, or get bent out of shape if somebody else does. Arguing about them is a trap, in a way.

The site's Constitution is what's really important.

The constitution is definitely more important than the Landmarks. The Landmarks are just a guideline for this forum, the Constitution is the mission statement for the site as a whole.

RPGPundit

QuoteIt is if its proponents start coming into the RPG forums I frequent and make it impossible to talk about any theory other than their own, by insisting that we use their terminology and take their assumptions as the foundations.

Here's an unfortunate example of that sort of thing at Story Games.

Some great people on that site... but I don't feel like it's a good place to discuss any RPG theory except ones based on existing Forge RPG theory.  Which is too bad.

Quote from: StuartHere's an unfortunate example of that sort of thing at Story Games.

Your link isn't working.  What was going on in the thread?

A number of people in stark denial that jargon is often used to hide agendas and fuzzy thought.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe landmarks are "Pundit Truth"; if you want to call them that. They are statements I take to be self-evident.  I will not shut down the Landmarks thread and declare that the theory is now perfect and therefore no longer debateable, that's not how good theory works.

While I believe them to be obvious truths, you have to be able to argue and show evidence against them for them to be something other than dogma.
I wouldn't mind, also, if other people were to take up my challenge to create their own list of landmarks (not just commentary on mine, but make their own seperate list of what they feel should be the essential truths that form the basis of all theory discussion).

Alright, I see where this comes from. I may in fact mull over some landmarks of my own at work. Regarding the burden of proof re: making them not dogma, I agree with the Landmarks I see that stand on their own merit rather than simply being negatives of other theory. Many of them I don't see any need to disprove, particularly if approached from the basis of "to hell with what the Forge has said", but I'll keep it in mind.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, I think that's what it amounts to. But of the two camps, we were here first. You don't get to come in and subvert an existing term to fit your new definition, just like you don't get to start up a soft drink company, make an orange-ginseng soda, and call it Pepsi.

Well, no. Pepsi's a registered trademark and all; if you go with "you can't call an orange-ginseng soda a cola". Let me shut off my inner pedant and just consider the thought.

Hmmmm. Protectivist bumahongey, in other words; "You can't call your club the Mavericks, we called it first! Nyaaah!" I don't back this idea, and I'm willing to put forth that about fifty people in the world actually give two shits if they're called roleplaying games or something else entirely. Nevertheless, it's not really worth arguing over whether roleplaying game is reserved for "d20 only" or "stuff the Pundit likes" or "games with at least two kinds of dice" or whatever other bullshit definition gets assigned to a term that's barely understood at the best of times anyway.

But hey, you go your way, I'll go mine. But the next cola I make - and rest assured, I like cola way more than orange soda - is gonna have ginseng in it, because lots of people like ginseng, my players among them. Am I stretching this analogy too damn far?

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's also what its about, of course. If they call it "Roleplaying games"; then they can poach some people from our hobby. If they call it "adventure games" or "story games", they have to stand or fall on their own merits.  Some of them seem finally willing to dare to do that; but others, like Ron Edwards, apparently aren't brave enough.

Huh say wha? Poach people from our hobby? Have you even parsed this sentence in your own head?

"If certain Forge Creators whose games are vastly different from traditional RPGs, so different in fact they're a whole other creature, call their games 'roleplaying games', they'll steal away people who enjoy traditional RPGs." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over. As near as I can tell, you're pushing one of these points:

a) Gamers don't know what they want in a game and will play anything that says roleplaying game.
b) Some people who enjoy traditional RPGs would also enjoy these kinds of games to the point of utterly stopping playing traditional RPGs.
c) Forge-created games will damage your brain and prevent you from playing traditional RPGs.
d) New players will mistake these games for traditional roleplaying games and play them instead.

a), and d) are in utter violation of your own Landmarks (the idea that gamers know what they want and seek it out), b) suggests that for some reason you can't play both which is simply asinine, and c) is pretty clearly Edwardsian bullshit. And correct me if I'm wrong - I might have seen it said by someone else in regards to the idea of a "Pride and Prejudice" RPG - but didn't you want the people who enjoy these games out of the hobby anyway? If there's something else I missed let me know, but that's about as "the sky is falling!" as anything I've ever seen.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat would be the subject of a whole other thread.

Well, call me interested in seeing it. Maybe I'll kick up a thread about "the real innovations".

Quote from: RPGPunditIf by "the guys & girls I game with" you mean "the vast bulk of D&D/D20 gamers who form the majority of the hobby" (aka the Swine's dreaded "Unwashed masses" as one of them described them), then yes.

Man you've had a lot of people at your table. Do they put tickets to Montevideo and your campaign pitch in the back of the Player's Handbook now?

My argument here being that unless you've been at the table with them, or have at least conducted a very thorough survey, you don't actually have an idea HOW people are roleplaying. You can have theories, you can make assertions, you can pull things out of your ass, but they're all on no further evidence than "this sounds like it backs me up". Based on a lack of evidence that anything's changed - or even that some people might be roleplaying differently than you do from the very beginning (or does this mean they're not Really Roleplaying?), I'm gonna set this portion of the discussion aside as unprovable to either side.

Quote from: RPGPunditProphecy is just the trick of being able to see the present well enough to extrapolate into the future.

And biased interpretations of trends almost never pan out into truth. But this is a fruitless tack of discussion since it'll only be revealed in time. Let's set it aside.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt is if its proponents start coming into the RPG forums I frequent and make it impossible to talk about any theory other than their own, by insisting that we use their terminology and take their assumptions as the foundations.

Then by Beardy McSmite, someone needs to give us some base to work from that DOESN'T rely on Forge theory, even in the negative. And for the record, I'm firmly in the camp that looks at GNS and thinks "man, this some ol' bullshit!".

Quote from: gleichman;24805The Landmarks are one of the reasons I won't be hanging around this site in the long term. As a framework for the exchanging thoughts on theory and design they are about as friendly to me as the fluff found at the Forge. Which is to say of course not friendly at all.

It took you 2385 Posts to say you weren't going to be hanging around?
And I thought Spike was long-winded.