Again, you do not describe anything which I did not already address previously.  

You also conveniently leave out the whole concept of "in/coherence", which is it's greatest core flaw, and where it most contradicts (and deliberately so) the gameplay that is experienced at the vast majority of gaming tables throughout the hobby.

In other words, it's wrong, and deliberately intended to be so.  And therefore, it's fucking useless bollocks.

"deliberately intended to be wrong." Boy, you are on a tear.

RE: (In)coherence. I also didn't describe Ephemera or the Lumpley Principle,also listed on the Forge as "Key Concepts." I was trying to keep it simple. But since you brought it up, I think Coherence is one of those things I mentioned that could be fairly criticized--I agree that it IS inflammatory language, unnecessarily divisive (whether "on purpose," I'm not deigning to judge), and it's natural that folks who consider the phenomenon described by GNS-Incoherence to be desirable or at least neutral would take issue with a label bearing such negative connotation. And I'm not at all convinced that play which satisfies more than one agenda (GNS or otherwise) is functionally impossible. I do know that I've had plenty of experiences where play which satisfies one agenda quashes or dampens my attempt to enjoy fulfillment of another agenda. So I can understand the (non-universal) concept of "play which is undersirably devided between two agendas." But that's as far as I'll go.

I don't really see how you've "addressed" anything I summarized in my previous post. I don't see where you've addressed anything at all. All I see is you ranting, "It's all insane, because Incoherence," ignoring or omitting any other elements of tBM, and telling folks like Calithena that the baby MUST go out with the bathwater.

Peace,
-Joel

PS By the way,I'm getting allmy info from the Forge as I go here, mostly "The Provisional Glossary." I figured if we were gonna talk about the Theory, we should go straight to the source. I mention this because you seem to be implying that you haven't read the essays and don't care to.

QuoteI don't really see how you've "addressed" anything I summarized in my previous post.

To quote myself:  

"The core categorizatiosn of TBM are horribly defined and largely meaningless, the concept if incoherence is complete bunk, and the rest is generally jsut a lot of fad of the week nonsense that is by and large painfully obvious shite just with fancy jargon attached to it and a lot of horrible misapplication."

To break down into components:

1)  The threefold categories are so poorly defined as to be useless, and in terms of actual usage by it's adherence tends to be even worse, as the actually application regardless of any of the reams of text written about it boils down to "Anything the Forge loves this week = narrativist" and "everything else = gamism/simulationism, selected randomly, or based on which is least popular this week"

2)  The only reason the categories even matter at all, is because of the coherence concept, which we've discussed above.  Essentially, it's nonsense, because most mainstream play combines elements of a lot of different playstyles, and in fact, a level of comprimise in that area goes a long way towards ensuring a successful group among disparate players.

3)  The rest of it is a lot of fad of the week garbage, or statments of the obvious tarted up with meaningless jargon.  Whether it's bangs or relationship maps or advice on personal interactions that is painfully obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of social skills, this stuff comes and goes on a regular basis, and tends to disappear just as fast.  

From these three points, I do, indeed, conclude that the Forge "theory" is nothing more than a lot of pretentious shite that wastes everyone's time, and as it's biggest unique concepts are deliberately contradictory to the actual play of the vast majority of gamers, continuing to stick with it implies either a failure of critical thinking skills, or simply a determination to believe or belong.

It's really not that complicated.  It's wrong.  It's DESIGNED to be wrong, because it's creators were not interested in being actually right, but rather inventing an ideology and movement surrounding it, by playing to the classic desire to feel like some kind of "elite" above the nasty unwashed masses.

It's calculated and executed in such a way as to draw in countless wannabe hipsters and pseudointellectuals, but as the actual intellectual foundation of it is a load of wet sand, it deserves none of the attention it gets, or really, an ounce of respect.

It's a joke, more resembling a cult or your local indie music scene, than anything that even deserves a lofty terminology like "theory".

hehehe...talk about agenda's...








I keed.  But even in that foundational building block, language is used that is divisive from the start.  "Agenda"  Why not "Purpose" or "Goal" or "Style"?

Nope, gotta go with the word that has an insidious other meaning. "You leave at once, sir! You've obviously come to this gaming table with your own Agenda!"

Every opportunity to open a door to understanding is, instead, opened up into  the face.

Adults who make up and use nonsense words, or trying to use regular words in abnormal ways... That's a symptom of brain damage, mental illness, or Autism.

Which is really quite incredible irony. :raise:

Quote from: MelinglorAnd I'm not at all convinced that play which satisfies more than one agenda (GNS or otherwise) is functionally impossible.

Wow, you're not?! How utterly shocking. You're not 100% totally completely certain that the enjoyment millions of people are getting at their D&D table, playing regular RPGs, is just them "lying to themselves or others"? How fucking magnanimous of you. You, sir, are a crusader for the truth.

That's as radical a statement as saying "I'm not completely convinced that rain isn't wet!"

Retard.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, you're not?! How utterly shocking. You're not 100% totally completely certain that the enjoyment millions of people are getting at their D&D table, playing regular RPGs, is just them "lying to themselves or others"? How fucking magnanimous of you. You, sir, are a crusader for the truth.

That's as radical a statement as saying "I'm not completely convinced that rain isn't wet!"

Retard.

RPGPundit

Don't mince words, man, tell us what you really think.:haw:

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, you're not?! How utterly shocking. You're not 100% totally completely certain that the enjoyment millions of people are getting at their D&D table, playing regular RPGs, is just them "lying to themselves or others"? How fucking magnanimous of you. You, sir, are a crusader for the truth.

That's as radical a statement as saying "I'm not completely convinced that rain isn't wet!"

"'RPGS' are to 'what I like' as 'rain' is to 'wet.' Brilliant! Between you and J's "It's really not that complicated, I think we've got this issue all sewn up.:rolleyes:

And "D&D players lying to themselves?" Never said a word about that. I know,I know, it's all the same to you. You're either for or against us in the War on Terror. But still. Jesus.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: J ArcaneTo quote myself:
[ETC,ETC]

Well, see, now you're addressing it. In any case, I'm not interested in spending the next month and a half arguing, but i'll respond succinctly to your points:

1) I think that's a fair criticism of SIm, but the other two are perfectly well-defined. The reason Ron set them up is to have a basis for for evaluating play or published games rather than rambling vaguely about personal preference. And if you don't feel the categories cover the spectrum, you're perfectly free to formulate your own. It's been stated so from the beginning.

2) The categories "matter at all" again, for the purpose: "to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity." That's their stated purpose. And y'know,I've personally found them usefulin recognizing and articulating what I'm looking for out of play, rather than floundering ineffectively about for it and communicating my desires in frustrated, incoherent bursts. But y'know, that experience must make me crazy, because it doesn't match up to reality.

3) I don't find that to be true. Bangs particularly have been an enduring concept for me and I find them useful. My experience vs. yours. But it's "really not complicated." I should just stop doing things that help me enjoy roleplaying. Uh-huh.

As for the rest,you're assigning a lot of motives there that are A) unprovable,and B) don't match with my experience. So, not much I can say to address them.

peace,
-Joel

What I find obnoxious about Forgespeak is that it's either a neologism for a concept that's obviously untrue (eg. Incoherence) -OR- something that is so common sense and easy to describe that it shouldn't require a special term at all.  (eg. Lumpy Principle, Bangers, etc)

Quote from: Stuart-OR- something that is so common sense and easy to describe that it shouldn't require a special term at all.  (eg. Lumpy Principle, Bangers, etc)

To be fair, i've only just come to the realisation that what i consider to be common sense and what i'd think everyone knows, patently isn't the case for a minority of gamers. I've read some play experiences that really do look like they have only a passing resemblance to the roleplaying i know. Yet, for some people, that's all they've ever known. So coming up with what they perceive as innovative, really isn't at all to lots and lots of people, but is to them.

Quote from: Melinglor1) I think that's a fair criticism of SIm, but the other two are perfectly well-defined. The reason Ron set them up is to have a basis for for evaluating play or published games rather than rambling vaguely about personal preference. And if you don't feel the categories cover the spectrum, you're perfectly free to formulate your own. It's been stated so from the beginning.

Categories are set up to, well, categorize. It's one of the major flaws of this particular theory, particularly when it plays into the 'incoherence' aspects. Now Mr. Edwards can claim he categorized things to have a basis for evaluating play/games, but the categories themselves are based on personal preference.  In the end, this makes them meaningless except to categorize the world for Mr. Edwards and people who see the world as he does. This is all exacerbated by the problems with the categories that people are constantly pointing out - for example, how they don't accurately reflect the way most people play, or they seem to be one category of Ron's preferences and then some buckets for everything else, etc.

None of which should be taken as "Mr. Edwards is not allowed to categorize things in a way that seems best to him."  Instead, the point is that in doing so he's simply created a set of categories and associated jargon that are nothing more than an extension of his preferences and then passed them off as a Theory of Role-Playing Games.

I think the entire thing would have been served better by saying something like "There are lots of different ways people play these things we call RPG's.  I like this way, and have found it difficult to find satisfaction using the existing approaches and methods.  If you like to play this way too, let's talk about it." But that would not have differentiated the market enough for the inevitable follow-on sales.

Quote from: Melinglor2) The categories "matter at all" again, for the purpose: "to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity." That's their stated purpose. And y'know,I've personally found them usefulin recognizing and articulating what I'm looking for out of play, rather than floundering ineffectively about for it and communicating my desires in frustrated, incoherent bursts. But y'know, that experience must make me crazy, because it doesn't match up to reality.

See above - specifically that no matter how many pretty words you put around it, the purpose of categories is to categorize. In this case, a subjective categorization. And I don't think you're crazy for wanting to find a way to enhance your play, or even (much to Stuarts and, to some extent, my chagrin) a vocabulary to discuss it. Why it requires a Grand Theory of Everything, and why so many pieces of that Grand Theory of Everything seem to be tailored/chosen to differentiate through exclusion and derision, I have no idea.  I speculate it's marketing, but that's just speculation.

Quote from: Melinglor3) I don't find that to be true. Bangs particularly have been an enduring concept for me and I find them useful. My experience vs. yours. But it's "really not complicated." I should just stop doing things that help me enjoy roleplaying. Uh-huh.

I don't think anyone has suggested you stop playing the way you do. Perhaps people desire an end to the pretension that underlies the language and theory - particularly when it's the way many people played for a long time before the term "Bang" (or whatever) was used to describe it.

The problem is that once you toss out "Bang" or "Kicker" or "Gamist" or another of the hundreds of terms, you imply and acceptance of the underlying theory for the conversation. Since many other parts of that theory are down right offensive to people, it often begins a chain of events from which little but heat can be the result.

Quote from: StuartAdults who make up and use nonsense words, or trying to use regular words in abnormal ways... That's a symptom of brain damage, mental illness, or Autism.

Baldersplash. Your argumentism is nonsensitude of the highest falafel.

:pundit:

Quote from: MelinglorAnd I'm not at all convinced that play which satisfies more than one agenda (GNS or otherwise) is functionally impossible.  

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, you're not?! How utterly shocking. You're not 100% totally completely certain that the enjoyment millions of people are getting at their D&D table, playing regular RPGs, is just them "lying to themselves or others"? How fucking magnanimous of you. You, sir, are a crusader for the truth.

Play not game.  D&D, the game, can satisfy multiple agendas.  The people playing D&D decide how they are going to play to satisfy their agendas, hence people play D&D differently.  It's usually best to play with folks that have a pretty similar agendas to yours however you choose to describe it.  D&D does NOT satisfy everyones agendas.  

Quote from: James J SkachThe problem is that once you toss out "Bang" or "Kicker" or "Gamist" or another of the hundreds of terms, you imply and acceptance of the underlying theory for the conversation. Since many other parts of that theory are down right offensive to people, it often begins a chain of events from which little but heat can be the result.

More to the point the ones acceptance of the theory is implied by people who were down right offended by it.  I've seen many a thread go to flames because someone inadvertently used a Forge word or said they thought a Forge game was better.  There are some people out there who were introduced to the Forge through the games who have little to no experience with the theory behind them or even care for that matter.  If your offended by how people perceive your games or how you play them, I'd probably think you're an insecure little meat muppet.   I got over that problem in high school.

Quote from: GunslingerIf your offended by how people perceive your games or how you play them, I'd probably think you're an insecure little meat muppet.   I got over that problem in high school.

Word.