TheRPGSite

Just what the title says.  Really, I'm surprised no one ever thought to try this tack way back on RPGnet in the first place when the disapora.

The way I see it is this.  The fundamental philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the entire Forge movement and it's principles, are deliberately and intentionalyl designed to be insulting to the way I and everyone I've ever played with enjoy and play games.  

The moment you start babbling about "creative agendas" and "gamism" and all that other dross, you are essentially throwing around slurs against the way a large number of people play and enjoy games.  

This is effectively no different than tromping into a thread declaring that Palladium games are only for emotionally abused 13-year olds with ego issues, or that all D&D players are simpletons and uncreative thugs, or even that all Exalted players are weak-willed losers with serious self-esteem issues.  

Further, the actual material of a number of the Forge favorite games, is deliberately and disgustingly offensive.  There is of course, the pirate assrape game, but there's also insulting drek like kill puppies for satan, Elfs, and Trollbabe, which only further supports the case that the Forge and it's ideologues have an attitude hostile and insulting and prejudicial to mainstream players.

As such, the presence of such rhetoric, and even the mere use of it, is hostile to the enjoyment of said players, and creates an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment for discussion for such players.  

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, when it comes down to it, the casual acceptance and allowance of Forge and Forge-spawned ideas like "always say yes", TBM, or the rampant GM-hate and really, the entire pseudo-intellectual "theory" wonk attitude, have created the polar opposite of the supposed "emotionally safe", welcoming environment that the moderators claim to be intent on creating, with respect to (or in this case lack thereof on the part of the administration) the vast majority of RPG players and GMs.

Dude.

REPORTED

I think you're absolutely right, there's no question to me that anything spoken in Forgespeak is a direct attack on regular gamers, and as clearly insulting as if someone came and said "only homos play GURPS" or "if you like D&D you are a potential serial killer".

However, this site is NOT an "emotionally safe environment". Thus, it depends on the members of the site to speak out and condemn behaviour that is at attempt to attack this site.

However, since Forgespeak is a kind of advertising as well, an attempt to promote the weird little Cult of Ron, and to intentionally disrupt the functionings of the website, I have said that any talk of Forge Theory or excessive use of Forge jargon is Off Topic.  If you feel that any particular thread is laden with these features, just let me know.

RPGPundit

Wait, only homos do play GURPS.

Quote from: droogWait, only homos do play GURPS.

Sorry, droog  I'm not your type.

Quote from: KoltarSorry, droog  I'm not your type.

You got that right.

Droog gives great hugs though.

Quote from: walkerpDroog gives great hugs though.

Your mom's a simulationist!

Quote from: J ArcaneJust what the title says.  Really, I'm surprised no one ever thought to try this tack way back on RPGnet in the first place when the disapora.

The way I see it is this.  The fundamental philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the entire Forge movement and it's principles, are deliberately and intentionalyl designed to be insulting to the way I and everyone I've ever played with enjoy and play games.

I sent links to the Forge essays to a friend of mine who is both a gamer and a PhD candidate in sociology.

I gave him the links with no other comment than "I'd be interested in what you think."

The VERY FIRST sentence in his reply was, "The language seems deliberately chosen to be inflammatory."

This from someone who is NOT plugged into the INTarweb gaming community and has never heard of the Forge, RPGsite, RPGnet, Ron Edwards, or any of the other of it.  That's why I chose him; in the words of Doctor Phil, "He has no dog in this fight."

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that that was his first reaction.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think you're absolutely right, there's no question to me that anything spoken in Forgespeak is a direct attack on regular gamers, and as clearly insulting as if someone came and said "only homos play GURPS" or "if you like D&D you are a potential serial killer".

However, this site is NOT an "emotionally safe environment". Thus, it depends on the members of the site to speak out and condemn behaviour that is at attempt to attack this site.

However, since Forgespeak is a kind of advertising as well, an attempt to promote the weird little Cult of Ron, and to intentionally disrupt the functionings of the website, I have said that any talk of Forge Theory or excessive use of Forge jargon is Off Topic.  If you feel that any particular thread is laden with these features, just let me know.

RPGPundit

Oh certainly, in terms of this site, it's sort of a moot point, because, while Forge crap is not welcomed here, the nature of the moderation and how this place works and it's goals are different, so the point is sort of moot.

For a moderated site though, especially one that claims to pride itself on creating a welcoming environment for the widest possible userbase, allowing it is sort of like an NAACP forum letting a KKK Grand Wizard run about spouting racist garbage.  

Quote from: Old GeezerThe VERY FIRST sentence in his reply was, "The language seems deliberately chosen to be inflammatory."

That's fucking awesome, old man.  Positively awesome.

Quote from: droogYour mom's a simulationist!

Yeah, she pretended her orgasm with you was real...

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneJust what the title says.  Really, I'm surprised no one ever thought to try this tack way back on RPGnet in the first place when the disapora.

The way I see it is this.  The fundamental philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the entire Forge movement and it's principles, are deliberately and intentionalyl designed to be insulting to the way I and everyone I've ever played with enjoy and play games.  

The moment you start babbling about "creative agendas" and "gamism" and all that other dross, you are essentially throwing around slurs against the way a large number of people play and enjoy games.  

This is effectively no different than tromping into a thread declaring that Palladium games are only for emotionally abused 13-year olds with ego issues, or that all D&D players are simpletons and uncreative thugs, or even that all Exalted players are weak-willed losers with serious self-esteem issues.  

Further, the actual material of a number of the Forge favorite games, is deliberately and disgustingly offensive.  There is of course, the pirate assrape game, but there's also insulting drek like kill puppies for satan, Elfs, and Trollbabe, which only further supports the case that the Forge and it's ideologues have an attitude hostile and insulting and prejudicial to mainstream players.

As such, the presence of such rhetoric, and even the mere use of it, is hostile to the enjoyment of said players, and creates an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment for discussion for such players.  

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, when it comes down to it, the casual acceptance and allowance of Forge and Forge-spawned ideas like "always say yes", TBM, or the rampant GM-hate and really, the entire pseudo-intellectual "theory" wonk attitude, have created the polar opposite of the supposed "emotionally safe", welcoming environment that the moderators claim to be intent on creating, with respect to (or in this case lack thereof on the part of the administration) the vast majority of RPG players and GMs.

100% accurate

...I just think it's kinda wankery.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe VERY FIRST sentence in his reply was, "The language seems deliberately chosen to be inflammatory."

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!...I just think it's kinda wankery.

No need for all the verbose soap-boxing -- these two simple statements say it all.

End of thread?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEnd of thread?

Yep. Where's the Master Control Program when you need him?

Quote from: ImperatorDude.

You realize this is a bit of a vague response.

Get a pair.

Geezer - was it Victor you sent it to?

Quote from: J ArcaneYou realize this is a bit of a vague response.

Of course, man. :D When I posted that I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to say, so I only could say that :) Right answer would have been:
 
'Dude. What the fuck is this?' :D
 
Now I understand. :)

Quote from: Old GeezerI sent links to the Forge essays to a friend of mine who is both a gamer and a PhD candidate in sociology.

I gave him the links with no other comment than "I'd be interested in what you think."

A couple of professional editors I've talked to about the stuff, one who has edited papers for peer-reviewed science journals, said it seemed to have been written in a deliberately obtuse and exclusionary style. IOW, it is intended that only those who pay the 'buy in' cost in time and effort will be able to understand it.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo need for all the verbose soap-boxing -- these two simple statements say it all.

End of thread?

No, unfortunately not. It's against the rules to end on the high point.

Curses.

!i!

My Canadian girlfriend said those essays sucked, too!

What did that periodic Bill O'Reilly guest who reads body language have to say about what Ron Edwards really meant?

Quote from: RPGPunditI think you're absolutely right, there's no question to me that anything spoken in Forgespeak is a direct attack on regular gamers, and as clearly insulting as if someone came and said "only homos play GURPS" or "if you like D&D you are a potential serial killer".

I'm kinda new to the Forge Wars here, so can somebody point me to a list of terms I can't use? I mean, is the word 'game' allowed? How about 'plot'? Or 'immersion'?

or "network externalities"

Quote from: CalithenaGeezer - was it Victor you sent it to?

Um.... yes?  (how do you know?)
:eek:

Victor's something of a friend, he games in Barker's group in the Minnesota area and is involved with Minneapolis gaming, and he's a graduate candidate in sociology. We've gamed together a few times. Not so hard a guess given that I know him and know where you live and know that you've both gamed with Phil...

Unfortunately, he's right about the rhetoric of the essays, as these constant blowups (and this whole thread) suggest.

Quote from: CalithenaVictor's something of a friend, he games in Barker's group in the Minnesota area and is involved with Minneapolis gaming, and he's a graduate candidate in sociology. We've gamed together a few times. Not so hard a guess given that I know him and know where you live and know that you've both gamed with Phil...

Unfortunately, he's right about the rhetoric of the essays, as these constant blowups (and this whole thread) suggest.

Dude, have I met you?  (Short term memory is the first something or other, I forget)

No, but I have a photogenic memory. People I have met you might know include Bob Alberti, Giovanna Fregosi, Brett Slocum, and Joe Zottola, though.

Is this Victor Raymond you're both talking about?  I don't know him at all, but I'm a casual Tekumel fan and simply curious.

why yes...

Quote from: CalithenaVictor's something of a friend, he games in Barker's group in the Minnesota area and is involved with Minneapolis gaming, and he's a graduate candidate in sociology. We've gamed together a few times. Not so hard a guess given that I know him and know where you live and know that you've both gamed with Phil...

Unfortunately, he's right about the rhetoric of the essays, as these constant blowups (and this whole thread) suggest.

"Blowup"?  You describe me with a state of mind that is not accurate sir.

I'm simply making a logical point as it follows from the evidence.  It is a largely academic one, as I no longer wish to return to the site to which it applies most accurately, but as I feel it is a rather natural one, I thus expressed surprise that it was not utilized previously on those shores.

I'm sorry you're so attached to the desperate need for pseudo-intellectual ego stroking that you don't care to recognize it's implication, but that's your own problem, and mischaracterizing me simply because you have a thin ego that needs far too much stroking is simply not kosher.

I did not mean to imply that you have blown up in this thread, J, and apologize if I gave that impression. The assertion was that 'Forgespeak' leads to blowups on this board more generally, and that this particular thread (I suspect) wouldn't have legs if there weren't many gamers who feel as you do, which is a big part of what leads to said blowups. It does not follow from that that your argument in this thread constitutes such a blowup.

As to pseudo-intellectual ego stroking, I guess I need some more specific examples and discussion if you want to make me understand why you accuse me of that particular vice.

Quote from: ImperatorOf course, man. :D When I posted that I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to say, so I only could say that :) Right answer would have been:
 
'Dude. What the fuck is this?' :D
 
Now I understand. :)

 No need to elaborate, Dude is always the right answer.  Then order a white russian and you're set.

Quote from: CalithenaI did not mean to imply that you have blown up in this thread, J, and apologize if I gave that impression. The assertion was that 'Forgespeak' leads to blowups on this board more generally, and that this particular thread (I suspect) wouldn't have legs if there weren't many gamers who feel as you do, which is a big part of what leads to said blowups. It does not follow from that that your argument in this thread constitutes such a blowup.

As to pseudo-intellectual ego stroking, I guess I need some more specific examples and discussion if you want to make me understand why you accuse me of that particular vice.

You seem to be rather relentlessly attached to the theory for no logical reason that I can find, so I can only then ascribe motivations that relate more to it's usage as pseudo-intellectual self-validation.

The theory is wrong.  Period.  It's fundamental principles were, in fact, founded intentionally in direct contradiction to basic logic and the facts of reality as it pertains to the real gaming world outside of Ron Edwards' head.  

It's looney batshit, the gaming equivalent to a Stormfront conspiracy rant, and deserves as much respect and toleration.  

So therefore, I can either conclude that you're an idiot, or I can conclude there are other psychological motives for your continued usage and fascination with such terminology and "theory".  The common secondary use for such rhetoric tends to be simply about stroking one's own ego by attempting to put on airs of intelligence by way of spouting fallacious jargon, so I charitably assumed that this was the case.

Assuming that your charity is genuine, I'd prefer you assumed I was an idiot, and took the time to correct me of my idiocy, or else simply ignored me if you felt that wasn't worth your time.

Also, there are at least two points at which I have serious disagreements with the theory, so 'relentlessly attached' is an odd way to characterize it. I suppose you might mean 'relentlessly attached to invoking it'; in which case you'll perhaps be pleased to discover that I actually have renounced doing that, effective this morning.

I look forward to being corrected by you when I express my theoretical views in my own idiom in the future.

Quote from: CalithenaAssuming that your charity is genuine, I'd prefer you assumed I was an idiot, and took the time to correct me of my idiocy, or else simply ignored me if you felt that wasn't worth your time.

Also, there are at least two points at which I have serious disagreements with the theory, so 'relentlessly attached' is an odd way to characterize it. I suppose you might mean 'relentlessly attached to invoking it'; in which case you'll perhaps be pleased to discover that I actually have renounced doing that, effective this morning.

I look forward to being corrected by you when I express my theoretical views in my own idiom in the future.

There's only so many times you can point out to someone that their "theories" are in direct contradiction to the real world, before you're left with no choice but to simply write them off as a nutter.  

I mean, how many more threads need to be written and posted on a subject that is so obviously wrong on it's face to anyone who doesn't simply have a desperate need for it to be true anyway.  It's not even comparable to religion, in that sense, at least there it's a matter of believin ins something you can't prove, this is more like believing that up is down and that the only minor quibble is that that whole gravity thing doesn't seem quite right.  

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.

Bringing it up at all is about as useful as wandering into a thread about choosing a new bank and rambling on about how the evil Jews in Switzerland control them all and what you should really do is bury your cash in a metal box in a cow pasture outside of Toledo.

So I remain completely baffled as to what the fucking point of it all is, especially in your case, because your actual taste in games from what I have seen tends to lean more towards old school stuff that the Forge and TBM are so utterly hostile and dismissive towards it is even amusing anymore.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm kinda new to the Forge Wars here, so can somebody point me to a list of terms I can't use? I mean, is the word 'game' allowed? How about 'plot'? Or 'immersion'?

All three of those words should be banned as they are implicitly attacking other non-"plot" or non-"immersion" gaming styles.  

Also, the words "cabin boy" and "espophagus" should never be used in the same post.

From now on.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe theory is wrong.  

Well the gods are glad you've finally made that pronouncement.  I had been wavering there for a while, but since you have now stated once and for all that it's "wrong" I can now move on with my life.  What would the internet do without your clarity?  What would gaming do!?

Quote from: HaffrungI'm kinda new to the Forge Wars here, so can somebody point me to a list of terms I can't use? I mean, is the word 'game' allowed? How about 'plot'? Or 'immersion'?

Words are words.  Use the ones you want to use.

It's how you use them that makes the difference, see?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Words are words.  Use the ones you want to use.

It's how you use them that makes the difference, see?

But it's also a matter of where you use them.  For instance, we're prohibited from using some of them on the open forum here.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBut it's also a matter of where you use them.  For instance, we're prohibited from using some of them on the open forum here.

Not true.  You can use them so long as you are using them in a way that critiques them or their use. :p

(I do find it somewhat ironic, though, that RPGPundit used the Ron-coined term "heartbreaker" in his review of the Epic system.)

Quote from: John MorrowNot true.  You can use them so long as you are using them in a way that critiques them or their use. :p

(I do find it somewhat ironic, though, that RPGPundit used the Ron-coined term "heartbreaker" in his review of the Epic system.)

Yeah? Ron stole it from Pat Benatar.

 Her version of "Heartbreaker" is better, also she's better looking than either Ronnie or Pundit.


- Ed C.

I think that "Heartbreaker", when divorced from the rest of Forgism, is actually one of the only actually useful terms that Ron Edwards ever invented; that's because its one of the only ones that's actually based on a real phenomenon.

RPGPundit

Did you guys know that Ron Edwards played a big part in the bombing of the World Trade Center?

No, me neither.

Technically speaking, so far as Big Purple's rules go, it would be a group attack (gamers), not a personal attack (you).

Good :stirthepot:, though.

Quote from: SpikeNo need to elaborate, Dude is always the right answer. Then order a white russian and you're set.

I will do so next time. Thanks for the advice, sir.

Quote from: SpikeNo need to elaborate, Dude is always the right answer.  Then order a white russian and you're set.

My wife (She Who Must Be Obeyed) got me drinking White Russians this summer, and I've learned how to make a damn good one.

They sure do go down easy, too.

Quote from: Old GeezerThey sure do go down easy, too.

Wives?









:rimshot:

Quote from: J ArcaneThe theory is wrong.  Period.  It's fundamental principles were, in fact, founded intentionally in direct contradiction to basic logic and the facts of reality as it pertains to the real gaming world outside of Ron Edwards' head.  

It's looney batshit, the gaming equivalent to a Stormfront conspiracy rant, and deserves as much respect and toleration.  

So therefore, I can either conclude that you're an idiot, or I can conclude there are other psychological motives for your continued usage and fascination with such terminology and "theory".  The common secondary use for such rhetoric tends to be simply about stroking one's own ego by attempting to put on airs of intelligence by way of spouting fallacious jargon, so I charitably assumed that this was the case.

"The theory is insane, therefore any adherents [or partial adherents, apparently] must either be insane or possess ulterior motives beyond finding it usefulor true."

Boy, that leaves a whole lotta wiggle room, doesn't it? Glad your enlightened wisdom could save us all from the pesky nuanced kaleidoscope of human thought.

Too bad you couldn't save us from irony.:rolleyes:

Peace,
-Joel

I would love to see someone try the logic of the OP over on the Big Purple - just to see what happens.


They sure have had a lot of suspensions and bannings in the past week or 2 over there. Must be something going on in that section that I can no longer view.


- Ed C.

heh, odd that online pundits (as opposed to The Pundit) in general are inflamatory and exclusionary, not to mention in love with the sound of their own text (I should know).  Could it possibly be that inflamatory language draws more attention in a saturated medium?

Quote from: KoltarI would love to see someone try the logic of the OP over on the Big Purple - just to see what happens.


They sure have had a lot of suspensions and bannings in the past week or 2 over there. Must be something going on in that section that I can no longer view.


- Ed C.

just let it go, man

Quote from: Melinglor"The theory is insane, therefore any adherents [or partial adherents, apparently] must either be insane or possess ulterior motives beyond finding it usefulor true."

Boy, that leaves a whole lotta wiggle room, doesn't it? Glad your enlightened wisdom could save us all from the pesky nuanced kaleidoscope of human thought.

Too bad you couldn't save us from irony.:rolleyes:

Peace,
-Joel

Do you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?  

A theory that directly contradicts reality is no theory at all, just fantasy.

Quote from: J ArcaneDo you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?  

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quote from: J ArcaneDo you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?

Yeah, I deny it. That's not a founding principle of the Theory. Besides being meaningless (there's no single "form of gaming enjoyed by millions" in the first place), it's a gross distortion of the stated purpose in formulating the theory ("to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity"), but even that's not a "founding principle." Newton's Laws of Motion are founding principles. "I'd like people to understand the way physical objects in the universe behave so they can manipulate their environment with greater precision and effectiveness" is not.

Besides which, the same essay you're undoubtedly referring to goes right on to say, "Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge." But y'know, whatever. I'm not exactly expecting to change anyone's mind at this point. I'll just be sitting in the corner, sipping on my nice steaming cup of irony.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote"Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge."

Uh huh, so this is why I've had to listen to how many miserable pretentious yobs yammer on about "incoherence", then?

I don't know what the fuck "Essay" you're talking about, but I'm talking about the core concept of TBM itself.

Huh. I didn't know you had to do anything.

I am of course referring to this essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), which is the first of Ron's infamous set of writings. It's what everyone points to as the "foundational document" or whatever.

The core concept of the Big Model is that roleplaying's fundamental act is Exploration (the establishment of fictionalevents through intra-group communication). It's embedded in the Social aspect of the activity (as mediated by stated or unstated Social Contract), and all the nuts and bolts like participant duties, game mechanics, dice rolling, etc. are further embedded in it. Creative Agenda is the purpose of play (along the creative axis, as opposed to say, the social or technical) which runs throughout the process and binds it together like the Force.

That's the Big Model. Agree or disagree, there it is. That's what Ron wrote. There's certainly a ton of fair criticisms that could be leveled against it. But what you're producing is just noise. And you apparently fail to appreciate that your statements here are a personal attack. Hence the irony.

Peace,
-Joel

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.  :p 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.  :p I got over that problem in high school.

Word.

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.  :p I got over that problem in high school.

Wow.  You guys are sooooooo mature.

See, in mature discussion between acquaintances those involved endeavor not to insult or offend. It's a two way street. When both attempt to neither imply nor infer offensive or insulting things, polite, even reasoned, discussion is possible. However, when listener tells speaker "I'm sorry, did you just say X? That might be seen as offensive," and the speaker's response is "Hey, if you don't like it, it's your problem you insecure little meat puppet," dialog is rarely facilitated.

And just to be clear, I'm not offended by how people perceive my games or how I play them. I tend to be concerned about the implications that come along for the ride.

And by the way, I think you meant to say infer.  When the listener adds meaning not explicitly stated, as I think you're asserting, the listener infers.

Quote from: James J SkachHowever, when listener tells speaker "I'm sorry, did you just say X? That might be seen as offensive," and the speaker's response is "Hey, if you don't like it, it's your problem you insecure little meat puppet," dialog is rarely facilitated

It sure would be nice if you followed your own model of polite discourse.  I can't remember hearing you say "I'm sorry" or "might".  Good start, though, at least that you recognize polite discourse when telling others how to act.

Quote from: walkerpIt sure would be nice if you followed your own model of polite discourse.  I can't remember hearing you say "I'm sorry" or "might".  Good start, though, at least that you recognize polite discourse when telling others how to act.

I've had plenty of posts here where I said that. In the recent Truth About Players thread (IIRC) I went out of my way to try to give the person to whom I was speaking the chance to clarify. I think I might have used this very formulation. I often use the "Can you see how someone might get offended by that?" approach.

I might have even said something similar to you, even after your less than grand entrance.

And I know for a fact I've apologized - even using "I'm sorry," when I was wrong.

But you go ahead and think otherwise...and hold your little grudge....

Quote from: James J SkachSee, in mature discussion between acquaintances those involved endeavor not to insult or offend. It's a two way street. When both attempt to neither imply nor infer offensive or insulting things, polite, even reasoned, discussion is possible. However, when listener tells speaker "I'm sorry, did you just say X? That might be seen as offensive," and the speaker's response is "Hey, if you don't like it, it's your problem you insecure little meat puppet," dialog is rarely facilitated.

And just to be clear, I'm not offended by how people perceive my games or how I play them. I tend to be concerned about the implications that come along for the ride.

No, it's not saying something offensive to the person.  It's being offensive about something the person feels strongly associated with that they take personal.  It's really no different than the association that some sports fans have with their favorite teams or someone and their favorite model of car.  People are usually talking from the limited perspective of their personal experience.  Let it go, they're not talking about you just because you happen to be a Jeep owner, or a Raiders fan, or a D&D player, etc...  unless of course you happen to be the particular type of person they're talking about.  Then by all means go all sorts of internet fury on them.  

QuoteAnd by the way, I think you meant to say infer.  When the listener adds meaning not explicitly stated, as I think you're asserting, the listener infers.

I think you're correct.

Hi, James!

Quote from: James J SkachI 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.

That's a question of ulterior motive I'm not inclined to speculate on. Granted, Idon't have the distaste for the theory that many here do, so I'm naturally drawn less toward finding uncharitable motives. But it also doesn't match with my impression from internet interaction with a lot of Forge personages. So there ya go.

Quote from: James J SkachSee 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.

I'm not personally concerned with whether it's a Grand Theory of Everything, or whether it works as such (there was a flush of excitement when I first encountered it some three years ago,but that's long since worn off). I'm concerned with its utility for me personally, and since that utility is more than zero, I'm not inclined to renounce the whole thing as J suggests.

Quote from: James J SkachI 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.

"Doing things that help me enjoy roleplaying" includes not just play, but the assimilation of new techniques and playing styles, from (including but not limited to) places like the Forge. And yeah, J Arcane is pretty much saying, "stop doing that." Or at least, "stop doing that around me."

And when "doing it around me" includes "mention it on an internet forum I frequent," that's just asinine. And elitest. And dare I say it, a personal attack.

I know J isn't everyone, but that's what I was responding to.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: walkerpIt sure would be nice if you followed your own model of polite discourse.  I can't remember hearing you say "I'm sorry" or "might".  Good start, though, at least that you recognize polite discourse when telling others how to act.

Yeah, James is actually being a stand-up guy in these conversations. Piling on him isn't helping anything.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: GunslingerPlay 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.

Couldn't've said it better myself.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorYeah, James is actually being a stand-up guy in these conversations. Piling on him isn't helping anything.

Well he's either been taken over by some other entity or started a new pharmaceutical regime, because the Skach I know and hate was much more like J Arcane in his debating style.  I do agree that his behaviour here has been civilized and polite.  I hope it remains like that.

Wow....hate....

Revenge!

Quote"Doing things that help me enjoy roleplaying" includes not just play, but the assimilation of new techniques and playing styles, from (including but not limited to) places like the Forge. And yeah, J Arcane is pretty much saying, "stop doing that." Or at least, "stop doing that around me."

So how many boards is enough for you guys?  Huh?  Not happy with the ones you've already got to yourselves, or the ones you've managed to pollute, you've got to come here and do your level best to make another home for such idiocy?  

If you're really just happy to do your own thing, and leave everyone alone, then whyt are so many of you so determined to ensure you've got your messengers implanted in every fucking RPG board on the planet, even one as openly hostile to such malarkey as this one?

You've got the Forge, you've got Story Games and Lumpley's and Baker's forums.  You managed to turn RPGnet into a place where daring criticize the Forge is treated as trolling, and even bringing up some of Edwards' more odious opinions is actually topic non grata and can net a ban.  

So how much is enough for you people?  Am I going to be stuck ditching one site after another because it gets inundated with garbage ideas that are nothing more than veiled hostility towards me and mine?  I'd like to think such a thing isn't an inevitability, but you guys sure have been trying your level best to prove me wrong, and the last big wave ended in this site's traffic being cut by half and my rrecent visits a lot shorter than they used to be.  

Why can't you just fuck off back to your already copious possible corners to the web, where you can all continue to nurse your egos anf feel as self-important as you want, without anyone caring at all, and even cheering you on?

Quote from: J ArcaneSo how many boards is enough for you guys?  Huh?  Not happy with the ones you've already got to yourselves, or the ones you've managed to pollute, you've got to come here and do your level best to make another home for such idiocy?

So it all comes down to "get the fuck out." Typical.

There is no "you guys." I'm an internet poster with my own mind, and I call this forum home, among others. Granted, it's becoming more that kind of "home"that you come back to every few weeks to do your laundry or check your messages, but don't stay too long because you get hassled about your choice of friends or hobbies, but hey! You go right on whining about how you're being "driven out" of your internet haunts because I happen tothink "Bang" is a useful term. :melodramatic:

I post here because I find it vaulable. I post in rough proportion to the value I find. I particularly post when I feel (or hope) this board's unique mishmash of perspectives will be more useful than not. Like my D&D play reports. If you got a problem with that, well. . .I repeat: :melodramatic:

Peace,
-Joel

QuoteSo it all comes down to "get the fuck out." Typical.

If you find such responses "typical" of places you frequent, perhaps you should consider whether it is in fact you that's the problem, or your ideology.

Quote from: walkerpIt sure would be nice if you followed your own model of polite discourse.

And the same could be said of your sorry ass.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you find such responses "typical" of places you frequent, perhaps you should consider whether it is in fact you that's the problem, or your ideology.

No, I meant typical of you, and a couple of other folks around here.

Quote from: MelinglorNo, I meant typical of you, and a couple of other folks around here.

Any derision and desire for your vacancy was earned by your own actions and the actions of your ideological compatriots.  

My posting record speaks to that.

Quote from: J Arcane...and even bringing up some of Edwards' more odious opinions is actually topic non grata and can net a ban.

Wait, isn't that what you're advocating here?

Quote from: walkerpWait, isn't that what you're advocating here?

Actually, I think he's saying "Go away or I will taunt you a second time!"

Quote from: Old GeezerActually, I think he's saying "Go away or I will taunt you a second time!"

I don't recall ever being given the authority to do anything else, and even if I had it, I'm far too lazy to bother with more effort.

Freedom of speech baby.  Sometimes that means I get the freedom to say "You're a cunt, fuck off".  

And I'd also point out that the OP is by and large an intellectual exercise, as I have explained further upthread, and taking it as more than such is largely hyperbolic.

Quote from: J ArcaneAny derision and desire for your vacancy was earned by your own actions and the actions of your ideological compatriots.  

My posting record speaks to that.

Your posting record of throwing hissy-fits about people you disagree with sullying your "turf" with their presence? That speaks to what, exactly?

I think I've managed to distill the reasonable response to these ravings down to its most succinct essence, so I'll just stick to that:

:melodramatic:

Peace,
-Joel

QuoteYour posting record of throwing hissy-fits about people you disagree with sullying your "turf" with their presence?

Go back further.

Oh, so "read a bunch of essays and previous threads to be able to understand my position and earn the right to discuss it?"

Quote from: MelinglorOh, so "read a bunch of essays and previous threads to be able to understand my position and earn the right to discuss it?"

No, it's "I'm bored with this discussion and find it a waste of time to put further effort into discussing anything with someone who's only purpose is progressively more hamhanded attemtps to paint me as a 'hypocrite', while utterly failing reading comprehension in the process."

I stuck up for you fuckers.  For a long time.  Went round after round with Pundit for a very long time.  

You people made an enemy out of me, just as you did on RPGnet all those years ago when Ron declared the Holy Writ of TBM and close the theory forum.

Quote from: J ArcaneI stuck up for you fuckers.  For a long time.  Went round after round with Pundit for a very long time.  

You people made an enemy out of me, just as you did on RPGnet all those years ago when Ron declared the Holy Writ of TBM and close the theory forum.

Wait, so you used to be Swine?

Quote from: J ArcaneI stuck up for you fuckers.  For a long time.  Went round after round with Pundit for a very long time.

Yeah, I know you did. Which is why I'm more than a little surprised to see you on this tear, tarring everything and everyone with the same hateful brush. I mean, it's your prerogative to hate my or anyone's guts, reasoningly or no, but you should probably expect some kind of reaction when you express it this bluntly, y'know?

Your dogged use of the collective, e.g. "you fuckers," "you people," is ridiculously broad, unnecessarily divisive, and yes, hypocritical--it's the exact tactic of the Pundit that you've decried in the past. Maybe you're just throwing up your hands and saying 'fine, Pundit, you win," whatever. But when my self-identifying as someone who's found some utility in Forge theory automatically lumps me in with "those fuckers who pissed off JArcane on RPGnet" (a site I've never posted at, and rarely read)? That's a seriously broken standard, man.

Also, that "it's just an intellectual exercise" tack just reads to me like "I'll rant and rave but i'm not actually willing to stand by my words and engage people regarding them."

Peace,
-Joel

Everytime I fool myself into thinking the Forge and it's lot are largely innocuous, and go so far as to stick up for you, it's inevitably only a matter of time before that level of trust, or at least grudging respect or indifference, turns out all wrong in the end.  

I stuck up for you assholes on RPGnet, and even supported the theory forum, and in return, I watched as slowly but surely, thread after thread got crapped even in non-RPG forums with jargonated garbage posts, and basically the entirety of RPG Open get permanently derailed by a lot of hostile idiocy.

But I forgot.  That was foolish of me.  So when I came here, again, I stuck up for the lot of youm time after time.  Railed against the "War", denied it existed, begged desperately for Pundit to just shut the fuck up about it already and leave it alone.

And what it I get?  A flood of glorified press conferences, increasingly slimy, shilltastic behavoir, a massive wave of people who only bothered to show their faces at all to point and mock the userbase and shill whatever pet darling was on this week, until a final culmination that has thus far seemingly permanently hacked off a large portion of this site's traffic as users and readers alike left in disgust.

Never again.  Fuck the lot of you.  I may not have the power to do fuck all about it, but that by no means indicates a lack of desire to make it abundantly clear just how unwelcome the lot of you and your fellow cronies are in my eyes.

J Arcane, I'm glad you opened your eyes.  Of course I'm not the one who makes the best argument against the Forge; close proximity to the Forge's followers does that all by itself.

That said, the traffic of this site has not been significantly reduced; it did experience a brief slump, and you might be able to argue that the Forgie presence here has retarded faster growth. But we're still mostly ok.

Still, let me take this moment to say "I told you so".

RPGPundit