TheRPGSite

Gentlemen, as long as you continue to respond to the threads put up by Sethwick or Warthur or JHKim, you're playing their game.  They are here, filling up the place with talk about the Forge, because as soon as your fighting a defensive game arguing about GNS theory or about whether or not DiTV is a roleplaying game or whatever, you are not spending that time creating a different kind of theory.  Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

They know this, they are doing what they are doing on purpose. They want this place to end up being about discussing the Forge's terminology and games as an intermediate step toward it being a site that accepts the methodology and jargon of the Forge.  They think this is a way to do it, by starting up dozens of threads where they try to spread Forge propaganda.

I would like it that if you are not one of these people, you consider starting up a thread talking about non-forge theory, instead of wasting time answering them.

If you are one of these people, and you think I've "terribly misjudged" you and you are not just fucking agent provocateurs here to spread your Forge-brainwashing like a fucking sickness, then PROVE IT, FUCKERS.  Prove it by showing that you're capable of coming onto a theory forum and talking about something that ISN'T Forge Theory, without sneakily trying to push Forge Theory in there, without bringing up Forge Games, without trying to defend or promote the Forge's way of doing so.

But right now, and until you do, to me you're just Swine who are here to try to ruin the usability of this forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you are one of these people, and you think I've "terribly misjudged" you and you are not just fucking agent provocateurs here to spread your Forge-brainwashing like a fucking sickness, then PROVE IT, FUCKERS.  Prove it by showing that you're capable of coming onto a theory forum and talking about something that ISN'T Forge Theory, without sneakily trying to push Forge Theory in there, without bringing up Forge Games, without trying to defend or promote the Forge's way of doing so.

Let's take a look at the two threads that I've started in recent days about Forge games.

The Riddle of Steel thread: "The Riddle of Steel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. Isn't it a bit dumb for the Forge to keep regarding it as Narrativist?"

The Burning Wheel thread: "The Burning Wheel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. In that respect, it's a lot like the Riddle of Steel. I suppose it's unfair to tar all the games the Forge talk about with the same brush, since it's obvious that they are not all swinish products of GNS theory."

The Burning Wheel doesn't refer to GNS theory at all. The Riddle of Steel makes the occasional reference to it, but at its heart is an ass-kicking traditional RPG with some interesting Spiritual Attributes and a fun combat mechanic. In other words, while they're games which are popular on the Forge and whose authors acknowledge the Forge, and so can be described as "Forge games", they're certainly nothing like the Unholy Trinity you mentioned in the other thread. They're on the Forge because of the way they are published, not because of the philosophies they espouse.

In the end, all I've been saying with these threads is this: We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or by the internet forums which give it props. If I'd been promoting happy-clappy Narrativist power-sharing hippy story games with those threads, you could accuse me of pushing GNS theory. As it is, I've been a) pointing out how The Riddle of Steel doesn't even stick to the GNS theory, even though it claims to, and b) how the Burning Wheel seems to exist entirely independently of GNS and is only a Forge game because of the way it's published.

If a game is automatically considered BAD AND WRONG, and discussion of it is considered PROPAGATION OF EVIL FORGE THEORY, then we're lurching into dogma, and surely the major objection to GNS theory is that it's, well, dogmatic?

Pundit: if you ever get around to reading The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel, I'll happily challenge you to a debate thread about whether they should be put in the same category as My Life With Master. If you already have read either or both of them, great! Let's go!

Quote from: WarthurLet's take a look at the two threads that I've started in recent days about Forge games.

Yes, lets..

Quote from: WarthurThe Riddle of Steel thread: "The Riddle of Steel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. Isn't it a bit dumb for the Forge to keep regarding it as Narrativist?"

Wait.  First, who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as?  Second, the whole point of this forum, if I understood Pundits original posts, was that this forum does not regard GNS as Truth Laid Bare. So this thread takes for granted that Narrativist is valid in the first place. Since you have a group of people here who don't necessarily believe that, and you know it, how is it not acting as an agent provocateur to ask the question in this way?

Quote from: WarthurThe Burning Wheel thread: "The Burning Wheel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. In that respect, it's a lot like the Riddle of Steel. I suppose it's unfair to tar all the games the Forge talk about with the same brush, since it's obvious that they are not all swinish products of GNS theory."

Talk about passive aggressive.  Just ask then.  WTF - it's too hard to start a thread that says, "you know, given TROS and BW and DitV, maybe being from the Forge is not automatically a challenge to traditional RPG's."  Instead, these posts assume agreement that Narrativist is an accepted Truth.  It's a neat rhetorical trick.

Quote from: WarthurThe Burning Wheel doesn't refer to GNS theory at all. The Riddle of Steel makes the occasional reference to it, but at its heart is an ass-kicking traditional RPG with some interesting Spiritual Attributes and a fun combat mechanic. In other words, while they're games which are popular on the Forge and whose authors acknowledge the Forge, and so can be described as "Forge games", they're certainly nothing like the Unholy Trinity you mentioned in the other thread. They're on the Forge because of the way they are published, not because of the philosophies they espouse.

Well, this is the neat little trick Forgies pull where, when in the Forge, they bask in all the glory of GNS.  But once outside of The Forge, it's all "we're only associated with The Forge because of the way we publish - we only mean indie in the non-three-tier sense, not the we're-cooler-and-smarter sense." Getting called on that, here in TheRPGSite, is perfectly fine - not prejudice.

Quote from: WarthurIn the end, all I've been saying with these threads is this: We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or by the internet forums which give it props. If I'd been promoting happy-clappy Narrativist power-sharing hippy story games with those threads, you could accuse me of pushing GNS theory. As it is, I've been a) pointing out how The Riddle of Steel doesn't even stick to the GNS theory, even though it claims to, and b) how the Burning Wheel seems to exist entirely independently of GNS and is only a Forge game because of the way it's published.

You didn't promote it, you assumed it was accepted truth here.  As far as I know, again assuming I've understood Pundit correctly, that assumption is incorrect with respect to TheRPGSite. So you did push GNS, just more subtly than coming in and asking whether Narrativism is even a valid concept.  And that's not what you did, as I previously mentioned.  If you'd done that, perhaps the reaction would be different.

Quote from: WarthurIf a game is automatically considered BAD AND WRONG, and discussion of it is considered PROPAGATION OF EVIL FORGE THEORY, then we're lurching into dogma, and surely the major objection to GNS theory is that it's, well, dogmatic?

I know that I, personally, have never considered any game, Forge or no, automatically BAD AND WRONG. I think the common assumption is that it will not be like "traditional" RPG's in significant ways. I ask so many questions about DitV, when it comes up, for two reasons. First to see if I understand the mechanics well enough to decide if I'd like it.  Second, to illustrate how DitV is different from "traditional" RPG's.  What someone plays/likes is there own business.

Quote from: WarthurPundit: if you ever get around to reading The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel, I'll happily challenge you to a debate thread about whether they should be put in the same category as My Life With Master. If you already have read either or both of them, great! Let's go!

I don't know of anyone who said they are in the same category.  In fact, if I wasn't so lazy, I'd dig up a thread I seem to remember where people specifically separate these games due differences in design - mostly dealing with how tightly the story is constrained. In fact, I' doubt you'd have much of a debate as I doubt many care what categorical differences there are between TROS and MLwM. But hey, go for it! It might give me more insight into the mechanics of those games without having to purchase them.

Quote from: James J SkachWait.  First, who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as?

Because what other way is there to determine whether something is a Forge game?

QuoteSecond, the whole point of this forum, if I understood Pundits original posts, was that this forum does not regard GNS as Truth Laid Bare. So this thread takes for granted that Narrativist is valid in the first place. Since you have a group of people here who don't necessarily believe that, and you know it, how is it not acting as an agent provocateur to ask the question in this way?

Because Ron Edwards, and others on the Forge, have pronounced the Riddle of Steel to be a "Narrativist game with Simulationist elements", despite the fact that this is patently untrue? Given that this forum does not regard GNS theory as gospel, isn't it worth pointing out when the very guy who proposed GNS in the first place, as well as a lot of people on the Forge, are misapplying it?

Let's review the discussion so far, shall we?

Me: "Wow, the Riddle of Steel doesn't even slightly resemble the sort of game GNS proponents claim it is. I guess this is an example of GNS failing!"

You: "SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH EVIL GNS PROPAGANDIST SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH".

QuoteTalk about passive aggressive.  Just ask then.  WTF - it's too hard to start a thread that says, "you know, given TROS and BW and DitV, maybe being from the Forge is not automatically a challenge to traditional RPG's."

It would, but the thought came to me as I was writing the post.

QuoteInstead, these posts assume agreement that Narrativist is an accepted Truth.  It's a neat rhetorical trick.

Don't be dense. The posts assume nothing except that:

- PEOPLE ON THE FORGE tend to adopt GNS theory.
- PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM tend to regard a game as a "Forge game" if THE GAME'S DESIGNERS BUY INTO NARRATIVISM, even though Burning Wheel - a Forge game by both the Forge's definition and the designer of the game's opinion - isn't even slightly "Narrativist", by the standards of the Forge.

That's all my use of the term "Narrativist" entailed.

QuoteWell, this is the neat little trick Forgies pull where, when in the Forge, they bask in all the glory of GNS.  But once outside of The Forge, it's all "we're only associated with The Forge because of the way we publish - we only mean indie in the non-three-tier sense, not the we're-cooler-and-smarter sense." Getting called on that, here in TheRPGSite, is perfectly fine - not prejudice.

The author of The Riddle of Steel is certainly guilty of that - trust me, I admire the game for its mechanics, not for its snotty attitude.

If you can find an instance where Luke Crane is guilty of that, well, chances are you'll change my opinion of him.

QuoteYou didn't promote it, you assumed it was accepted truth here.

No I didn't, as I pointed out above.

What DOES seem to be accepted truth here is that "Forge games" automatically involve a lot of effort on the part of the game designer to pursue a Narrativist agenda. And this is true for Sorcerer, and for Dogs In the Vineyard, and for My Life With Master. Burning Wheel? Doesn't look Narrativist to me. Riddle of Steel? The author might claim otherwise, but I say it's not Narrativist at all, by the Forge's standards.

Which just goes to show that a lot of the time "Narrativist" can just mean nothing more than "Something Ron Edwards likes, this week."

QuoteAs far as I know, again assuming I've understood Pundit correctly, that assumption is incorrect with respect to TheRPGSite. So you did push GNS, just more subtly than coming in and asking whether Narrativism is even a valid concept.  And that's not what you did, as I previously mentioned.  If you'd done that, perhaps the reaction would be different.

All I've been saying is that "Narrativism is a concept. Some people believe in it, and there's a game design methodology which is based on it - The Mountain Witch and My Life With Master are two good examples. But look! These two games that are often put forward as being examples of Forge games don't seem to follow a Narrativist design plan at all!"

That isn't saying "Narrativism is a valid concept," that's saying "A bunch of the most popular games associated with the Forge don't even follow the Narrativist agenda, so we shouldn't assume any game coming out of the Forge treats Narrativism as valid, or even relevant."

QuoteI don't know of anyone who said they are in the same category.

The games are widely discussed on the Forge, and tend to be regarded as "Forge games". Both of these things could lead folk to assume they belong in the same category.

Of all Forge games, the Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel both came into the Forge from outside, and neither was designed using pure Forge principles. As a result, they are the most traditional of Forge games. Both can be played as pure trad games if you prefer, or apparently you can play them as Forge type games if you like. I think Pundit's point is that neither can be considered typical 'Swine' games any more than HQ can be considered a typical Trad game.

I 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

I'm not much of a guy for theory - like the Ents, there's nobody who's precisely on my side. I don't mind the lack of one, though. I seem to be doing OK with purely empirical methods. Maybe we don't need one?

-clash

RANT:

Here is the rule I've discovered about the Forge:

Games Ron Edwards likes=Narrativist supporting. It doesn't matter if it predates his theory (Tunnels and Trolls). Has no support suggested by anyone's  READING of the the actual articles he wrote*, or is the most absolutly metal N game ever. The valuation of "N" being "whatever Ron Edwards likes." This creates confusion among those who are not Ron Edwards or his brain trust.

*Frankly Ron Edwards is a bad writer**, Sorcerer shows this, his articles show this, he really can't write his way out of a paper bag. He keeps talking about "mainstream" and "games so completely different he can't talk about online" means basically he doesn't want literate, better writers, actually seeing it.


**I'm not saying I'm necessarily better, mind you.

End Rant

The fact that many Forge supporters seem to have very different agendas, interests and even confusion about what they want. Couple of my friends, who I respect greatly, can sit down with 'traditional rpgs' and have fun.Yet are Forge supporters of a sort. This implies that NOTHING is really wrong with them, but something is muddying the waters and limiting their vision IMHO.
    It seems more likely to be confusion created by the articles, than actual brain damage on their part. That is presuming the point of playing games is "fun" (rather than some wierd attempt to be an idiot-savant modern alienist using games as your tools.)


I'd like to actually see them post here, and find some clarity free of the Forge "shut down discussions we don't like" method. My solution to combat over emphasis of Forgie threads is for those not into that--to write MORE non-Forgie threads.

Quote from: flyingmiceOf all Forge games, the Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel both came into the Forge from outside, and neither was designed using pure Forge principles. As a result, they are the most traditional of Forge games. Both can be played as pure trad games if you prefer, or apparently you can play them as Forge type games if you like. I think Pundit's point is that neither can be considered typical 'Swine' games any more than HQ can be considered a typical Trad game.

I know all this. I just thought that people who enjoy poking holes in GNS theory would be amused that two of the biggest success stories associated with the Forge don't fit the theory at all. (The fact that they succeeded independently before they were adopted by the Forge should only add irony.)

I'm kind of appalled that some people's knee-jerk paranoia is so pronounced that mentioning games that the Forge has (enthusiastically) adopted qualifies as promoting GNS - and the fact that pointing out that said games don't even fit the GNS model and suggesting that just because a game is talked up on the Forge, doesn't mean they necessarily are GNS Swinefodder qualifies as promoting GNS beggars belief.

Quote from: SilverlionRANT:

Here is the rule I've discovered about the Forge:

Games Ron Edwards likes=Narrativist supporting. It doesn't matter if it predates his theory (Tunnels and Trolls). Has no support suggested by anyone's  READING of the the actual articles he wrote*, or is the most absolutly metal N game ever. The valuation of "N" being "whatever Ron Edwards likes." This creates confusion among those who are not Ron Edwards or his brain trust.

Witness, 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.

QuoteThe fact that many Forge supporters seem to have very different agendas, interests and even confusion about what they want. Couple of my friends, who I respect greatly, can sit down with 'traditional rpgs' and have fun.

Agreed.

Who the fuck cares if it "qualifies as narrativist" or not, when we, here at theRPGsite, reject the notion that "Narrativism" or any of GNS exists in reality.

"Narrativism" is a lie. GNS is a lie.

This site rejects any thread or post that begins with the presupposition that either of these concepts are real.  

Its all very well and good that you're saying "Ron Edwards just defines 'narrativism' as whatever he likes"; I'm sure that's pretty well true. But then why discuss narrativism at all?

If you're goal here is to say "GNS is wrong"; then you picked a very roundabout way of doing it, PLUS you're preaching the choir.

And if you really want to convince me that you've got something worth saying, arguing with me in this thread isn't what's going to pull that off; I already gave you my challenge: start a thread about theory that doesn't deal with GNS/forgespeak.

Hell, that goes for ALL of you, not just the accused "agent provocateurs".. this subforum can be much more than what it is right now, if people get beyond speaking about the Forge (for good or ill), and start discussing theory in a way that actually saves theory from the semantic trap the Forge Swine have created for it.

RPGPundit

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

Wait (again). I'll ask the question again.  Who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as? Who cares if something is a Forge game or not? It might influence your preconceptions, but it's just a moniker for any game that espouses some connection to the Forge (and, I suppose, is accepted by Mr. Edwards).

Quote from: WarthurBecause Ron Edwards, and others on the Forge, have pronounced the Riddle of Steel to be a "Narrativist game with Simulationist elements", despite the fact that this is patently untrue?

And again, who the fuck cares? Do I care what the fuck Mr. Edwards claims a game is or is not, particularly with his track record, and particularly given I don't believe in his Theory (as a whole)?

Quote from: WarthurGiven that this forum does not regard GNS theory as gospel, isn't it worth pointing out when the very guy who proposed GNS in the first place, as well as a lot of people on the Forge, are misapplying it?

Again, I'll ask why you didn't frame it that way, then?  Instead, as I pointed out, we get what appears to assume the acceptance of Narrativist as a concept.  If that was not your intention (as you pointed out later), you can't blame it on the rest of us when many of us took it that way, can you?

Quote from: WarthurLet's review the discussion so far, shall we?

Yes, lets...

Quote from: WarthurMe: "Wow, the Riddle of Steel doesn't even slightly resemble the sort of game GNS proponents claim it is. I guess this is an example of GNS failing!"

Actually, here was your first post about Dogs in the Vineyards:

Quote from: WarthurReally, in all the rants against "indie" games I somewhat understood when games like Capes and Universalis were called "not-RPGs." There was no GM, roles exchange hands freely scene by scene, there is no such thing as "my guy." I even understood it somewhat with games like My Life with Master, where there is a set end condition and even a way to "win" and "lose" (kind of).

But Dogs in the Vineyard... How in the heck is it not an RPG? You have a party of characters, one per player, a GM who sets up a scenario, and the PCs try to solve the problems of the scenario. Hell, replace "town" with "dungeon" and "remove sin" with "kill the monsters" and you have D&D.

For that matter, how is Sorcerer not an RPG? The only really radical element there is writing the kicker...

Ya know, that seems to be a little bit more hostile than you make it out to be. It certainly came across, to me, as a "you guys who don't like GNS have to admit that DitV is an RPG!"  Not one mention of GNS, or Narrativism, or how DitV blows holes in GNS Theory.  Would you care to restate your position?

Quote from: WarthurYou: "SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH EVIL GNS PROPAGANDIST SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH".

Wow, that's quite a memory you have.  You do realize I did not respond to your post until 44 other people had. You started the thread on 12/13, I didn't respond until 12/15 – two full days later.  And then, here's the kicker, I make the same exact point you claim that you were trying to make.  And I quote:

Quote from: MeAmusingly, a game that is incoherent (you could play it as a gamist or a narratavist) and follows most of the traditional RPG memes (dungeon/town, player/gm, adventurer/Dog) is the most successful production linked to a forum that pushes a theory that claims this is the incorrect way to design a game!

Go to my posts on TROS thread – I'm asking questions about what it means to even be Narrativist. Hardly screeching.

Would you care to restate your position – or at least remove the "you" from your accusation of screeching?

Quote from: WarthurDon't be dense. The posts assume nothing except that:

- PEOPLE ON THE FORGE tend to adopt GNS theory.
- PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM tend to regard a game as a "Forge game" if THE GAME'S DESIGNERS BUY INTO NARRATIVISM, even though Burning Wheel - a Forge game by both the Forge's definition and the designer of the game's opinion - isn't even slightly "Narrativist", by the standards of the Forge.

That's all my use of the term "Narrativist" entailed.

Go look at your TROS post that starts that thread.  You are no clearer in that post about your intentions than you are in the DitV thread starter.  It's interesting you claim the reader is dense when your writing so badly represents the idea you claim you were trying to make.

Quote from: WarthurWhat DOES seem to be accepted truth here is that "Forge games" automatically involve a lot of effort on the part of the game designer to pursue a Narrativist agenda.

I don't know about anyone else, but I make no assumption about Narrativist agenda.  About the only assumption I have made is that Forge games are intended to focus on a single Creative Agenda. That's about it. YMMV.

Quote from: WarthurAnd this is true for Sorcerer, and for Dogs In the Vineyard, and for My Life With Master. Burning Wheel? Doesn't look Narrativist to me. Riddle of Steel? The author might claim otherwise, but I say it's not Narrativist at all, by the Forge's standards.

Which just goes to show that a lot of the time "Narrativist" can just mean nothing more than "Something Ron Edwards likes, this week."

See, we can agree on something, apparently.

Quote from: WarthurAll I've been saying is that "Narrativism is a concept. Some people believe in it, and there's a game design methodology which is based on it - The Mountain Witch and My Life With Master are two good examples. But look! These two games that are often put forward as being examples of Forge games don't seem to follow a Narrativist design plan at all!"

This is a complete disconnect.  You seem to be implying that Narrativist = Forge, or that it does to people here.  Again, I don't know about anyone else, but that's not the sole indicator of a Forge game, whether or not it pursues some specific "Creative Agenda" as defined by Forge Theory.

Quote from: WarthurThat isn't saying "Narrativism is a valid concept," that's saying "A bunch of the most popular games associated with the Forge don't even follow the Narrativist agenda, so we shouldn't assume any game coming out of the Forge treats Narrativism as valid, or even relevant."

OK.  Thanks for telling me not to do something I already wasn't doing.

Quote from: James J SkachActually, here was your first post about Dogs in the Vineyards:

That'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 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?

Well, I can proudly say that I do my best to pay the Forgers no mind, at least in that I don't respond to their threads. I'm also trying to promote the name "Forgers" for them, rather than "Forgeites" or similar, because... it's all fake. Whatever people's reported experiences, their theory remains unaltered and "true". If you say, "that makes sense", that proves their theory is true. If you say, "that makes no sense", well then you just didn't understand it, here's another essay to read. If you show you did understand it, but still say, "it makes no sense", then you're just brain-damaged, your perceptions are warped by your bad experiences, like a molested child, you thought you were having fun but don't really understand properly what fun is.

It's old Freud's trick. He first became famous for his description of "the unconscious." He had a patient, whom he called "Dora" in his case study. Dora came to him upset because her father was molesting her. At first he believed her, and was trying to treat her, make her feel better. Then he realised that her father was a member of Vienna's high society - an important, and well-respected man. So his reasoning went like this.

"Dear Dora, obviously a man I respect cannot possibly do such heinous things. However, you obviously believe he did. So I suggest that actually you have a sexual desire for your father, and only fantasised the sexual acts."
"No, Dr. Freud, I really was molested. And I don't want to have sex with him - he's my father, for God's sake!"
"Ah, well that is where the unconscious comes in, dear Dora. Because you cannot face your desire for your father, because you're ashamed of it, you sublimated your desires into fantasies of his desiring you. In your fantasies, he takes you by force and so you're not responsible for the sexual acts."
"I told you, I am conscious of no desire for him."
"Yes, your desire was conscious, but you made it unconscious."
"So if I agree that I had desire for him, then that proves your theory?"
"Yes."
"And if I say that I had no desire for him, that also proves your theory?"
"Definitely."
"So whatever the data, your theory is proved?"
"Yes."
"Brilliant theory."

They're "Forgers" because whatever the data given them, it proves their theories. Like Freud, they claim to know us better than we know ourselves.

All this makes me think it's time to bring some of my Why Game Groups Fuck Up ideas forward... They're being tidied up at a wiki right now. I don't think I could usefully talk about some grand trinity of gaming like GNS, GDS, AGE, etc. I'm more interested in the stuff that comes before that - the people sitting at the game table, rolling dice and eating cheetos. They way groups get together and fall apart. I mean, the last guy we kicked out of the game group, it wasn't because he wasn't "Narrativist" enough or some shit like that, it was because he left the group every twenty minutes for a smoke - kinda broke up the flow of the action - brought beers and wouldn't share them, while hoeing into our munchies, didn't own dice because he said he could always borrow some, and his roleplaying skills didn't extend beyond staring blankly at the GM and yelling, "I SHOOT HIM!"

That's the sort of stuff gamers want to know about. How to get a game group, and once got, how to keep it, without it breaking up because someone's a dickhead, or the game sessions are boring. It's all about the players. This rpg theory, even if it were all correct, is like telling a guy about the chemistry and physics of piston chambers, when he's having his first driving lessons and doesn't even know how to start the thing, recover from skids and so on.

Quote from: RPGPunditGentlemen, as long as you continue to respond to the threads put up by Sethwick or Warthur or JHKim, you're playing their game.  They are here, filling up the place with talk about the Forge, because as soon as your fighting a defensive game arguing about GNS theory or about whether or not DiTV is a roleplaying game or whatever, you are not spending that time creating a different kind of theory.  Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Y'know what I'd recommend (for what it's worth)?  I'd recommend that you, RPGPundit, step forward to set a positive, constructive example.

Rather than complaining about Forge posters, or even warning people not to complain about Forge posters ... how about you set forth to create the start of that "different kind of theory" that you want to see emerge?

I'd certainly be interested to see what sort of theoretical structure you, personally, think would help to design, run and enjoy games.

:shrug: I don't see why they should be discouraged. Folks seem to enjoy following those kinds of threads even if they don't subscribe to all that theory stuff.

Mostly it's more or less the usual suspects who are responding...probably because they are the only ones familiar with the jargon used and god knows this stuff has been flamed before on countless other forums.

Most gamers don't really know of or understand what the forge, GNS, what have you is all about. It's just a show for most people. And for others they may get to know of games they have not heard of and maybe to experiment with a different kind of playstyle.

I do agree that folks should start more threads about what gamers actualy do. Maybe this means more craft stuff. Stuff that is relevent to what goes on around the gaming table. I'm firmly in the in the 'How do you do things in your games?" school of thought.

Besides theory has lost any claim to the word "theory"...it's all dogma now anyway. I'd rather hear gamers talk about their experience using these so-called Forge influenced games, than hear about the theory itself.

Regards,
David R

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 (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html).

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.

Quote from: mythusmageSticking 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.

But doesn't that definition lead into the old "a story isn't a story while being told" problem? That is, what else than a narrative would you call an improvised story that hasn't yet come to an end?

Quote from: James J SkachI 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.

Clue: the screeching is coming from inside this thread.

I'd not interacted with you before. Then you jumped up my ass. See the problem there?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd if you really want to convince me that you've got something worth saying, arguing with me in this thread isn't what's going to pull that off; I already gave you my challenge: start a thread about theory that doesn't deal with GNS/forgespeak.

OK, if you prefer to see no Forge discussion at all here (even stuff which disses the Forge), I can go along with that. I've actually wanted to start a discussion about genre in games for a while. (You aren't allowed to discuss genre under GNS theory. It's not a consideration. Never mind that the essay about the history of fantasy at the start of Sorcerer and Sword shows a keen appreciation of genre on Ron's part...)

It seems to me that the "advantage" that people who talk Forge-derived theory have is simple:  They have a theory.  When people ask general questions, they can make positive, constructive statements of the "Maybe the following ideas can help someone" variety.  They do that a lot.  Enough, obviously, to annoy those who don't find those ideas helpful.

Right now, this forum seems to be languishing from the rarity of any similar willingness among non-Forgey types.  Y'all don't seem ready to make general statements and provoke serious thinking about roleplaying games.

Until you've got something positive to say, you're only going to be able to say negative things.  RPGPundit:  If you want to encourage a kind of theorizing that isn't beholden to Forge ideas, why do you spend all your posts criticizing Forge stuff, rather than jumping in constructively on the threads of folks like David R., and Stuart, who are trying to do exactly what you're hoping for?  Quit cursing the darkness, sure ... but also, light a candle.

And now I'm off to start a theory thread that doesn't have anything to do with GNS.

QuoteY'all don't seem ready to make general statements and provoke serious thinking about roleplaying games.

Fuck you, Tony.
Go read my (and lots of other people´s) posts.
Come back and apologize.

Quote from: SettembriniFuck you, Tony.
Go read my (and lots of other people´s) posts.
Come back and apologize.

Well, Sett, I've gone and looked and looked for the threads you've started about theory, and ... no.  There will be no apology forthcoming for you :)

Now Stuart ... David R. ... these guys rock.  But, like I said ... rarity.

You've got me pegged wrong, Tony.  I don't actually BELIEVE in theory at all. I think "theory" for RPGs is imbecilic, we're talking about a FUCKING GAME here. I have yet to see any theory whatsoever that is something more than mental wankery, that produces something that I could not have come up with by just being a good gm.

I'm all about the practice.  The closest thing you will ever get to theory from me is the Landmarks.

However, if there are people who like to talk about theory, and their claim is that theory can really be useful for RPGs, ok, let's see. Put your money where your mouth is.  

We already know that GNS and the Forge's theories are wrong. That's a given. So what's next? Show me something that you think will be better.

Otherwise the alternative of sticking with the Forgers is very definitely NOT "better than nothing", since they are a dangerous cult out to destroy the idea of "fun gaming".

RPGPundit

OK, here we have proof:

Tony admits being a forger, and comes here to say we all are stupid and unreflecting kind of guys.

Utmost wankery and swinedom. Tony, you are proof of truth for many accusations made against your kind of guys. And you are indeed claiming to speak for them.

Here we go, the ugly swine has dropped the mask.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou've got me pegged wrong, Tony.  I don't actually BELIEVE in theory at all.

Gotcha.  That makes a lot of sense.

Does this mean that you've set this forum up specifically for people to do something that you think is foredoomed to failure?  I say that without snark!  That'd actually be very cool ... "I'm pretty damn sure you won't create anything useful, but you disagree, so I'm going to give you every resource possible to prove me wrong, and I hope you can do it."  That's damn openminded! :highfive: (we seem to be lacking an emoticon for straightforward "You rock!" encouragement ... I did the best I could).

Quote from: RPGPunditI think "theory" for RPGs is imbecilic, we're talking about a FUCKING GAME here. I have yet to see any theory whatsoever that is something more than mental wankery, that produces something that I could not have come up with by just being a good gm.

Hmm.  I think part of the problem might be that "theory" is perhaps a bad term for what we're doing (or should be doing) here.  Game design is a better term.  I'm not sure who started calling it "theory"... but outside of RPGs people talk about "CCG Design" or "Board Game Design"... not "theory".

Anyway, how do you instruct someone on "just being a good gm".  However you answer that is your theory approach to game design.

Personally, I believe a game design is superior if it still produces a fun and engaging game for novice players -- including a novice GM who hasn't figured out how to be "good" yet.

Stuart:  Or "coaching."  Like, a golf pro can suggest things that you might pay attention to, but your swing is still going to come down to what you've personally practiced and worked on.

Quote from: TonyLBStuart: Or "coaching." Like, a golf pro can suggest things that you might pay attention to, but your swing is still going to come down to what you've personally practiced and worked on.

Yes, that's a good comparison. :)

I still think it best to approach game design so that you don't need one or more pro-level players (eg. the GM) in order for the game to run smoothly and everyone to have fun.

Pundit:  I think you should consider changing the title of this forum to Game Design and Game Master Coaching. :)

I support that move.

Quote from: StuartHmm.  I think part of the problem might be that "theory" is perhaps a bad term for what we're doing (or should be doing) here.  Game design is a better term.  I'm not sure who started calling it "theory"... but outside of RPGs people talk about "CCG Design" or "Board Game Design"... not "theory".

Anyway, how do you instruct someone on "just being a good gm".  However you answer that is your theory approach to game design.

Personally, I believe a game design is superior if it still produces a fun and engaging game for novice players -- including a novice GM who hasn't figured out how to be "good" yet.

Thanks for reading my mind Stuart.

Quote from: TonyLBGotcha.  That makes a lot of sense.

Does this mean that you've set this forum up specifically for people to do something that you think is foredoomed to failure?  I say that without snark!  That'd actually be very cool ... "I'm pretty damn sure you won't create anything useful, but you disagree, so I'm going to give you every resource possible to prove me wrong, and I hope you can do it."  That's damn openminded! :highfive: (we seem to be lacking an emoticon for straightforward "You rock!" encouragement ... I did the best I could).

That's precisely what I did, and I'll add that I did so partly in the vague hope that someone out there will be able to prove me wrong, by somehow coming up with a theory that teaches me something new and useful, without being subverted by the Forgers.

Its a vain hope, but I lose nothing by offering this place and trying to keep it GNS-free, to see if something doesn't serendipitously spring forth like penicillin.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartHmm.  I think part of the problem might be that "theory" is perhaps a bad term for what we're doing (or should be doing) here.  Game design is a better term.  I'm not sure who started calling it "theory"... but outside of RPGs people talk about "CCG Design" or "Board Game Design"... not "theory".

Anyway, how do you instruct someone on "just being a good gm".  However you answer that is your theory approach to game design.

Personally, I believe a game design is superior if it still produces a fun and engaging game for novice players -- including a novice GM who hasn't figured out how to be "good" yet.

See, "game design" would, to me, imply that people are actually designing games.

On the Forge they design games; sadly, not RPGs.

But here, we have yet to see anyone design a game (RPG or not). What we've seen is a few people try to form theories, and a few Forgers try to subvert them.

I'll note that Silverlion has posted a game he's working on, and Levi has talked about the game he's currently working on too. So I guess its not fair to say that no one has done it.

I'd like to see more of it!  That would, at least, be something productive.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut here, we have yet to see anyone design a game (RPG or not). What we've seen is a few people try to form theories, and a few Forgers try to subvert them.

I'll note that Silverlion has posted a game he's working on, and Levi has talked about the game he's currently working on too. So I guess its not fair to say that no one has done it.

I'd like to see more of it! That would, at least, be something productive.

I'm going to be finished at work on Friday and will be taking a 4 month leave, during which time I'm going to finish this game and publish it. I probably won't be posting here as often, but when I do I hope to share more concrete info on what I've been working on. :emot-rock:

Quote from: RPGPunditSee, "game design" would, to me, imply that people are actually designing games.

On the Forge they design games; sadly, not RPGs.

But here, we have yet to see anyone design a game (RPG or not). What we've seen is a few people try to form theories, and a few Forgers try to subvert them.

I'll note that Silverlion has posted a game he's working on, and Levi has talked about the game he's currently working on too. So I guess its not fair to say that no one has done it.

I'd like to see more of it!  That would, at least, be something productive.

RPGPundit

I beg to differ. If you scroll back to the start of this forum, I spent a great deal of time working out rules systems and asking for feedback. I got fuck all attention for my efforts and let them drop. It's not for a lack of trying, pundit, but of support.  For all the feedback I got I might as well have been talking out loud in the bathroom.

I'm still working on my project around work, but why the fuck would I bother posting it if it only bores people to tears?  More to the point, typing it up out here gives me some weird mental obligation to 'stick to my guns' on an idea, even if I later think I should reject it... a la my combat system.   All I'll bother doing here is asking for playtesters when I get enough written up to acutally send out.

Quote from: GrimGentBut doesn't that definition lead into the old "a story isn't a story while being told" problem? That is, what else than a narrative would you call an improvised story that hasn't yet come to an end?

There's the catch; a story is about events that have occurred, whether those events are real or imaginary. Though imaginary - that is, fictional - the events in an RPG as it is being played are not part of a story. They are part of a story in the making. What will become story as they are told and re-told again after the adventure is done.

In this way the RPG is unique, it is truly new. Not in the elements that constitute an RPG, but in how those elements come together. What you get with an RPG are imaginary events that are happening. Something that could not happen until the invention of the RPG. And because it is new, it is hard for many people to wrap their minds around it. Because RPGs are about fictional events, it has to fit the story paradigm. It has to be story in some way and if it isn't, why then we'll repurpose story so it fits.

Thus we find RPGs being constrained and limited so they fit a scheme they are not suited for. All in a forlorn attempt to make RPGs into something that does not suit them at all.

Quote from: mythusmageIn this way the RPG is unique, it is truly new. Not in the elements that constitute an RPG, but in how those elements come together. What you get with an RPG are imaginary events that are happening. Something that could not happen until the invention of the RPG. And because it is new, it is hard for many people to wrap their minds around it. Because RPGs are about fictional events, it has to fit the story paradigm. It has to be story in some way and if it isn't, why then we'll repurpose story so it fits.

One of my favourite stories from a game was a James Bond scenario where my spy had to sneak onto an oribiting space-station, blow it up, and escape back to earth. Failure would mean the enemy nation would launch a nuclear first-strike without fear of reprisal -- the space-station was equipped with a powerful anti-ballistic missile laser.  As I was making the final rolls to have my spy escape and return to earth, everyone was standing around the table and watching.  We were all saying how much like James Bond it was, and making tons of Moon Raker references.  When the dice came up lucky and he finally made it, everyone cheered.  That was from a game of Supremacy (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/27) over 15 years ago -- and I still remember it. :)

I've found Wargames, Boardgames, and some CCGs (eg. Rage) often create stories that are comparable to those created by RPGs.

Spike: I remember that. Try again now, and the result might be different.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SpikeI'm still working on my project around work, but why the fuck would I bother posting it if it only bores people to tears?  More to the point, typing it up out here gives me some weird mental obligation to 'stick to my guns' on an idea, even if I later think I should reject it... a la my combat system.   All I'll bother doing here is asking for playtesters when I get enough written up to acutally send out.

Well for the most part "It rocks keep at it" gets boring to say.
I like what you've been doing A LOT. And I critiqued the one aspect that bothered me (that kobolds seemed to be too based on D&Disms from my reading--appearently that's not how you felt just "seemed" it to me)

So beyond that KEEP at it. I'd like to see what you are doing with this world, its hard for me to comment more on setting stuff (Where the vast majority of ideas are preference) over mechanical stuff--where I can compare intent to actual function.

Again--I like your studies, they rock. PLEASE I'll post more even if its just "That's good, keep going, maybe try X"  Part of it may also be the voice your using--if you post facts (this is true for the world) its easier to examine than "it might be true, or people believe' as game material.


Anyway I'll save more comments for the actual writings.