Quote from: WarthurBecause what other way is there to determine whether something is a Forge game?

Outside perception and analysis. It's almost never what you think about yourself, but what others think about you.

RPGpundit, you need to decide whether this is a free discussion form or a directed one. The Forge is very directed, I considered this place more free. If you want to make an "I hate the Forge" forum you shouldd probably say something like "NO FORGE THEORY!" or ban it or something...

Edit:

Quote from: WarthurWitness, in fact, the Riddle of Steel, which as far as I can tell qualifies as Narrativist because of the Spiritual Attributes (who's to say those don't reflect real, in-game spiritual qualities the characters possess? Then they aren't Narrativist by Ron's definition! Shock!) and because Ron has a deep fondness for Conanesque fantasy.

This doesn't mean the game isn't narrativist. Narrativist, when applied to a game (that is, a system, like Riddle of Steel, not a session of play or a campaign), means "Supportive of narrativist play." It doesn't have to FORCE narrativist play, which I think Ron regards as impossible (I'm not so sure), or only work when played in a narrativist manner. The spiritual attributes support narrativist play by focusing things on a thematic question ("What would you fight for?") thus making the game supportive of narrativist play thus making it narrativist. QED. Also a reason Ron should have stuck to his early statements that games should not be called narrativist, simulationist, or gamist...

Quote from: WarthurThat's Sethwick you're quoting there, not me. In fact, my Riddle of Steel post and Burning Wheel posts were meant to counter his - "Yeah, it doesn't make sense to say that DiTV isn't an RPG... but it doesn't make sense to say TRoS and BW are story games!"

I apologize.  You'll forgive me for mixing you and Sethwick up, though, won't you? I mean, you claimed I screeched at you like some raving lunatic. Since I didn't even participate in the Burning Wheel thread, that left only two threads - DitV and TROS. Since my only response in TROS was an honest question, I assumed that could not be screeching. Besides which, I wasn't responding to you, but to Paka. So that left DitV.

But wait, doesn't this make my point?  I mean, You accused me of going off half cocked (screeching about the evil GNS) in response to your honest inquiry.  Let's turn this around -would you like to point out to me where I did this? If not, please base your attacks in reality why don't you?

Quote from: WarthurI don't know why you've decided that I am a terrible person who needs attacking, but please, base your attacks in reality why don't you?

I don't know you from Adam, so how can I tell if you're a terrible person.  I do think that you happen to, unfortunately, fall in to a pattern of threads that seem to want to promote GNS and Forge.  After rereading your posts, I think this stems from the fact that you, at the very least, seem to want to point out some reflex reaction you think exists here where everyone thinks all Forge games are Narrativist. I don't see that, so perhaps that's where the confusion lies.

I'm done arguing with you over what you meant. If you say you are not trying to promote GNS and The Forge, I'll take you at your word.  I would suggest, in the future, not assuming that people here are prejudiced against all Forge games or see them all as the same. We may not like them, but we don't do so from some prejudice that if they are from the Forge, they are evil.

Quote from: SethwickRPGpundit, you need to decide whether this is a free discussion form or a directed one. The Forge is very directed, I considered this place more free. If you want to make an "I hate the Forge" forum you shouldd probably say something like "NO FORGE THEORY!" or ban it or something...

Everyone's free to post anything here. That's why Pundit asks for non-Forge threads, instead of banning or closing what he doesn't like.

Unlike, you know, some other places. :rimshot:

Quote from: SethwickThis doesn't mean the game isn't narrativist. Narrativist, when applied to a game (that is, a system, like Riddle of Steel, not a session of play or a campaign), means "Supportive of narrativist play." It doesn't have to FORCE narrativist play, which I think Ron regards as impossible (I'm not so sure), or only work when played in a narrativist manner. The spiritual attributes support narrativist play by focusing things on a thematic question ("What would you fight for?") thus making the game supportive of narrativist play thus making it narrativist. QED. Also a reason Ron should have stuck to his early statements that games should not be called narrativist, simulationist, or gamist...

Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor!

At one point, when I first took over this site, I had considered putting much stricter controls on this forum than any of the others ones.  However, ultimately I decided against that. My feeling was that eventually we'd be able to get enough people here interested in discussing theory in a place, possibly the ONLY place on the internet, where GNS and its fanboys won't start with an unfair advantage, and where you can talk about something in theory, and when someone jumps in speaking Forgese, you can point them to the Landmarks and say, "sorry, dude, around these parts we don't accept those ideas".

RPGPundit

The pundits right - you don't argue with Swine, you call them shit heads until they go away.

Say it with me -

'SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU CUNT'

Its all you gotta say.

That said, could someone who isn't banned please point out to this genius that he is arguing that vanity publishing is a nasty label to tar someone with, but indie is a valueless and unloaded term, and that having a freelance artist work on your stuff doesn't count because we said so.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=300817&page=38

Cause

GOD WHAT A FUCKING WANKER. HOW DOES THAT STUPID RETARD GET ALLOWED OUT. FUCKING IDIOTIC PRAT. PRICK. DICKHEAD. DIE I HATE YOU I'LL STRANGLE YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T POLLUTE THE POOL DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE YOU SCUMSUCKING HORSE FUCKING ASSSSSSSSSSHHHHHOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Quote from: flyingmiceI don't know about The Shadow of Yesterday, as I've neither read nor played it. I do have a lot of respect for Clinton Nixon as a person, though.

-clash

It's a really fun game.  The rules are free free.

I really don't give a toss about where a game comes from or what the philosophy is.  If it's cool, I'll play it and like it.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy feeling was that eventually we'd be able to get enough people here interested in discussing theory in a place, possibly the ONLY place on the internet, where GNS and its fanboys won't start with an unfair advantage, and where you can talk about something in theory, and when someone jumps in speaking Forgese, you can point them to the Landmarks and say, "sorry, dude, around these parts we don't accept those ideas".

RPGPundit

What's this unfair advantage you keep talking about ? Most times, folks who disagree with GNS and stuff just rip it to shreds. Hence the flame wars. I mean either you value the theory or you don't. Most fall into the latter camp. Although admittedly the former is extremely vocal, but hey, so are you...and so is this site.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat's this unfair advantage you keep talking about ?

Broadly speaking, because the non-swines arguments tend to be of the form 'I hate you and want you to shut the fuck up you knob', which is accurate, entirely fair but doesn't play well with moderators.

I don't care about what you have to say. Please shut up is just a really, really hard thing to get across on a message board.

(this obviously applies to situations involving stopping colonisation of your own board with Vanity Publisher Scum. Going to the forge and telling them to shut the fuck up would be rude)

Quote from: Erik BoielleBroadly speaking, because the non-swines arguments tend to be of the form 'I hate you and want you to shut the fuck up you knob', which is accurate, entirely fair but doesn't play well with moderators.

Which is the great thing about this board. It's up close and personal and can be very bloody.

I guess I was reading something entirely different in the part I highlighted in the Pundit's post. I took it to mean, that the forgerites had an unfair advantage because their theory was established and was dominating/infecting most of the discussions and that the landmarks could be used as a good weapon against such nonsense.  

Which is silly. Nobody (except those interested in theory) cares about the forge, GNS or even the Landmarks. I'd rather this site be about people who talk about the games(any games) they play then flame about GNS, the landmarks...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat's this unfair advantage you keep talking about ? Most times, folks who disagree with GNS and stuff just rip it to shreds. Hence the flame wars. I mean either you value the theory or you don't. Most fall into the latter camp. Although admittedly the former is extremely vocal, but hey, so are you...and so is this site.

Regards,
David R

In the sense that on other sites, the administration enforces the assumption that GNS is accurate true and beyond question, by shutting down debate on the matter, and threatening with banning anyone who questions the assumptions of GNS.  You are also not allowed to exclude GNS from being discussed on a non-Forgetheory thread, but you are strictly forbidden from questioning GNS on a Forgetheory thread.

I mean, it got to the point that you couldn't even discuss actual real statements made by Ron Edwards (ie. "brain damage"); you had to pretend as though he'd never said it, because it was too embarrasing for the Forgers, and so they'd rather just have truth censored in order to hold onto their control.

RPGPundit

Which is why this site could be very relevent to folks who like to discuss theory. And which is why, you should not discourage the Forgers from this place. In a site where anything goes, anything can happen...even the demise of GNS :pundit:

(Some folks may think this a great thing. Others may not. Then there are folks like me...who await the ascendancy of Jorune ....)

Regards,
David R

William Stoddard (GURPS Steampunk (3e) and GURPS Fantasy (4e)) once noted of Narrativism that it has nothing really to do with narrative as used in literary studies, or in the new study of narrative, narratology.

Now I'm an old fashioned guy in many respects. Sticking to the basics, narrative is an accounting of events, whether imaginary or real. By this description an RPG by the nature of the beast cannot be a narrative. It can produce narrative, but only as a result of the events that have occured in the course of play.

Narrativism in Forge-Speak is an example of a fundamental misunderstanding of RPGs. Of what they are, and what they can be. It's an attempt to force RPGs into a model they cannot fit, for RPGs never have been, and never shall be that sort of thing.

In short, the course of events in any RPG session are not predictable. Nor are they determinable in any but the broadest of senses. No scenario plot ever survives contact with the players. Thus it has always been. Certain schools of philosophy to the contrary, role-gamers have long been ardent practitioners of free will, and all a GM can do is adjust, adapt, and improvise.

Narrative in any sense simply doesn't enter the picture, until after play is done, and any so inspired tell the tale of what happened during the game. That is when the stories are told.

I feel very encouraged by this dialogue! Encouraged to correct some misperceptions! I will, however, restrain myself.