Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[-E.]

-E: I have reposted you questions there, but you can simply do that yourself. Just ask the question. It's pretty simple.

When he answers the brain damage question, I'll post.

See, here's the thing about the Damage: it's honest. It says directly what most theory-dialog says only obliquely (c.f. read the very first GNS essay where the author talks about Incoherent games and notes that most gamers get on-going power struggle, but Narrativist gamers get something "worse." -- that "worse" is the Damage).

And because it's honest and offensive and, frankly, bizarre, most theorists are very uncomfortable talking about it. It puts them in the position of either

1) Denying something they believe (and disagreeing with Ron which, as we've seen, has repercussions)

or

2) Admitting what they believe and having to deal with the very real fact that traditional gamers being offended by indie theorists is not, as they claim, an "over-reaction" to a neutral statement; its just a plain old natural "reaction" to someone coming in and making strangely hostile and unsubstantiated claims about a model they find fun.

If they faced this, they'd have to admit that they aren't hated-because-they-are-feared, or whatever (many indie folks are astonished that they're not embraced by traditional gamers and console themselves by saying the reaction they get has nothing to do with their behavior); they'd be in the position of admitting that the reception they get is the predictable and completely controllable result of their own boorish behavior,

The Brain Damage pulls back the curtain on the whole exercise.

It also exposes something else: indie theory blames bad games and bad game designers for social trauma some gamers experienced with their friends during their adolescence and young adulthood.

It tells gamers who had stayed in games they hated or got into on-going power-struggle, "You're not responsible for your behavior or your outcome. You're a victim -- you're blameless, the victim of a badly made game!"

That's, apparently, a popular message.

Cheers,
-E.

[TonyLB]

And our semi annual post from a story gamer chastising us for how we post!

Yeah ... I'm just jealous because nobody wants a Q&A post with me

[One Horse Town]

I love it that it's our fault for calling someone on something they've said which is offensive to about 90% of gamers. Not once, but repeatably. (Not singling Luke out here either).

However, there's so much navel-gazing going on here at the moment that we ain't far behind the other boards which some poeple have the hate on for. It's a shame that these threads create more interest than actual gaming threads. Oh well.

[James J Skach]

And at the urging of others whom I respect, I would suggest that the issue be directed away from Ron Edwards.  It's why I have barely mentioned him, if at all, in the Q&A thread.

This is not about a person or set of people, per se.  Yes, to some extent it's intertwined and the ideas are held by people.  But I think that the only way progress in the dialog will be made (which, IMHO, could at least clear the decks for a while) is to not make this about rejecting people, but ideas.

Which is why the Q&A thread is so interesting to me.  It's not about Luke Crane; it's about Luke Crane discussing/defending ideas.

None of which is to say that -E. did that. I just thought it an opportune time, since he mentioned rejecting Brain Damage meant rejecting Ron, to point out that the two do not necessarily have to be equated.

[-E.]

A "Kudos" thread goes from everybody saying "Hey, this thread is interesting and everyone's doing a great job," to "Man, Luke sucks!  We're so cool, because our enemies are so lame!"

What a shame.

Enemies?

Um... I... (looks around)... I don't think we have enemies, Tony -- we're just sitting around playing the games we love and laughing that these guys have the time to come up with *essays* about how our games cause on-going power struggle and brain damage and how GM's are tyrannical and awful and so on...

And it's cool, man -- live and let jive, uh-yuh (when you're a cool cat, doing cool things, with cool people, a marginal group of haters doesn't get you, you know, *down*)...

But sometimes people get their feelings hurt (I've seen the posts) -- and that's a shame.

I think some of the folks on the periphery of Theory Space haven't parsed the whole dialog enough to understand that a large part of it is designed to be offensive and insulting to mainstream gamers.

I think we'd all be happier and more positive (and I like positive) if this was just cleared up. I'm not suggesting anyone *give up* their beliefs about brain damage, power-struggle, incoherence, or anything else -- as Tom says,

Listen, it don't really matter to me baby
You believe what you want to believe, you see

But I'm all for *clarity* and I think that's what the Q/A thread is about... which is why the dodge on the Brain Damage is such a shame... wouldn't you agree

Cheers,
-E.

[Alnag]

Yeah ... I'm just jealous because nobody wants a Q&A post with me

If you want to have you Q&A thread, you might have one...

[Drew]

However, there's so much navel-gazing going on here at the moment that we ain't far behind the other boards which some poeple have the hate on for. It's a shame that these threads create more interest than actual gaming threads. Oh well.

Couldn't agree more.

[-E.]

And at the urging of others whom I respect, I would suggest that the issue be directed away from Ron Edwards.  It's why I have barely mentioned him, if at all, in the Q&A thread.

This is not about a person or set of people, per se.  Yes, to some extent it's intertwined and the ideas are held by people.  But I think that the only way progress in the dialog will be made (which, IMHO, could at least clear the decks for a while) is to not make this about rejecting people, but ideas.

Which is why the Q&A thread is so interesting to me.  It's not about Luke Crane; it's about Luke Crane discussing/defending ideas.

None of which is to say that -E. did that. I just thought it an opportune time, since he mentioned rejecting Brain Damage meant rejecting Ron, to point out that the two do not necessarily have to be equated.

I agree, but I think that, given the impact of GNS in theory dialog it's fair to ask if an individual designer subscribes to GNS (which outlines all the basics we've touched on including flaws with the traditional model which lead to real-life dysfunction).

And clearly luke believes at least some of it (he thinks games can be incoherent... he seems to think the traditional model has some inherent badness).

And there's one other thing to bear in mind: Ron has explicitly chastised people for understanding-and-disagreeing with the theory on other boards. Luke is a moderator on The Forge. I think it's fair to see a pattern of dialog being shut down (even when it doesn't occur at the forge) and wonder if someone with so much to lose (does the Gen Con booth, co-moderates, etc.) would be willing to stand up and say, "I don't agree with this."

Still, I think staying away from Ron, *specifically* is a Edited: good (I meant good) idea. I think the theory, including the Damage, is revelatory and completely fair game.

Cheers,
-E.

[James J Skach]

Yeah ... I'm just jealous because nobody wants a Q&A post with me

Oh come on Tony.

There's been so much hand wringing about how people are treated here, it's ridiculous. And now, one of the most volatile people I've seen from the Story Game/Narrativist/GM-Power-Is-Bad side of the debate has come here and participated in what is, for the most part, a very interested and level-headed discussion.

Kudos is not a bad assessment; Kudos to Analg for getting the thread going; Kudos to people posting questions in a rational manner; Kudos to Luke for answering them (mostly). Kudos for the interchange that allows people to draw their own conclusions about, in this case it seems, GM Power.

So why come in here and rain on it? Is it just because Sett decided to draw the conclusion that he did? Why, really?

[luke]

Ok. I understand that you don't trust me, you don't believe me and you don't like me. None of this bothers me.

But the continued accusations of evasiveness in this context are false. That accusation that I'm not answering questions seems to hint at two things:

1) You're not listening.

The skill of listening entails the receiver to be able to hear and understand what the speaker said, even if he disagrees with it.

2) You have an agenda that you simply want me to cop to.

I wear my stripes proudly. I'm not going change what I believe or preach to satisfy the answers to your questions.

Check this out: I'm not lying or being evasive. I'm also extremely well-informed on the subject at hand. No one has all of the answers, and I certainly don't, but I've been steeped in the gaming culture and industry for 5 years. It's possible that I know what I'm talking about.

Also, let's toss some terms out the window: Fun and story. They're useless. E's little logic train about DnD and fun is meaningless. Fun is utterly subjective and it's not a measure of anything objective. And objectivity seems to be something you all crave.

And "story." Christ, where do I start? You guys aren't big on story, but let's not get started. Define story. Yeah, it's not too useful. So if you mean something with rising action, climax and conclusion, try using the word "narrative." It's a bit more specific.

Lastly, I LOVE how you all twist my words. It's artful and it makes me smile.

[Claudius]

Thanks guys, the recent lines of questions have proven very nicely, that luke does neither know what tactics are, nor does he actually understand RPGs.

Combat in Burning Wheel is pretty tactical, and last time I read Burning Wheel and Burning Empires they looked like RPGs, so I guess Luke understands RPGs pretty well.

I can't see how it has been proven very nicely that Luke doesn't know what tactics are, or that he doesn't understand RPGs. Could you explain how you reached such conclusions, or is it just a matter that you don't like Luke?

[luke]

Also, in regards to PR. I have refrained from posting any links to anything in my .sig just so such accusations fall flat. No links, no identifying features in my user name. There's no publicity event going on here, you paranoid freaks. I'm doing this because I want to.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Actually, I believe what I thought was evasiveness is due to the fact that your games deviate in important ways from the run of the Forge mill.

That said, "narrative"? Ew.

[Thanatos02]

Lastly, I LOVE how you all twist my words. It's artful and it makes me smile.

I hope you're not talking about everyone who asked questions, dude. I like Burning Wheel and don't have anything against you, either.

One big problem with this dialogue is that, essentially, some people really have it in their heads that there's a real Us. vs. Them fight going on. You're either with them or against them. And you, being associated with Them (the Forge), no matter what capacity, are the enemy. Nothing you say can be right. You either have to confess and repent, or you're the enemy. It's almost fucking religious with them.

[Thanatos02]

Thanks guys, the recent lines of questions have proven very nicely, that luke does neither know what tactics are, nor does he actually understand RPGs.

Interesting, keep it up.

I'm tired of this fucking stupid rhetoric. This is retarded, right here.