TheRPGSite

Second installment of Q&A thread. This time with TonyLB. The general idea is still the same - you ask questions, Tony answers them.

Please respect the nature of the thread and try not to derail it from its Questions & Answers nature. If you want to comment, do it elsewhere (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6976).

So Tony here is the first volley:

1) Why do you deserve your own Q&A thread? Tell us something about you, who you are (in relation to RPGs) and so on.

2) Traditional question... Do you think, there is a war between say Forgies and say the rest of the RPG gaming world, or traditional players or whatever is the proper name?

3) How does it come, that I haven't heard about your game till today? And yet you claim, you are in same league with Dogs in the Vineyard?

4) What was your motivation for publishing it? There are plenty of games out there, why to make a new one? Why bother?

That will do for now.

Quote from: Alnag1) Why do you deserve your own Q&A thread? Tell us something about you, who you are (in relation to RPGs) and so on.

Well, I made Capes, which takes on the question of how necessary a GM is in pretty definite terms.  Plus, I talk about theory a lot, and I tend (if I may toot my own horn) to be one of the folks who talks about it in ways that let me understand folks who disagree with me, and sometimes let folks who disagree with me understand me in turn.  Sometimes.  On my good days.

Quote from: Alnag2) Traditional question... Do you think, there is a war between say Forgies and say the rest of the RPG gaming world, or traditional players or whatever is the proper name?

No.  I think there is the persistent belief in a war, and I even have some ideas about how that belief arises without anyone seeking to create it.  But I don't think there's really any war.

Quote from: Alnag3) How does it come, that I haven't heard about your game till today? And yet you claim, you are in same league with Dogs in the Vineyard?

Shit, I dunno ... I guess I need to be more pushy about mentioning my game, or something.  Apparently the little line at the bottom of my messages was not enough to catch your eye.  It's all probably a sign that I've gotten lazy in my marketing :(

Quote from: Alnag4) What was your motivation for publishing it? There are plenty of games out there, why to make a new one? Why bother?

I wrote it because I wanted to play it.  Having written it (and tested it, and all that jazz) I thought some other folks might want to play it too.  After all, I think it's pretty damn cool, and my tastes aren't so eccentric.

Plus, I love the process of taking something from an idea to a physical artifact.  It was such a "zing!" to actually hold the finished book in my hands.  So much wonderful stuff has sprouted up in the past decade to let people make their ideas reality for, really, practically no money at all ... it's like a great big wonderful toy-shop for me.  I know a guy who has managed to figure out how to print the rules of his cave-man game on the skin side of furry animal hide ... or maybe fake animal hide ... I dunno.  Don't want to get blood thrown in his face by some protester, I'm just sayin', as a physical artifact, how cool is that?

Alnag, if you haven't heard about Capes, you're just not paying attention. I don't claim it's got D&D level name-recognition, but it was discussed quite a bit on RPG.net, Malcolm Sheppard's mentioned it briefly on his blog, and it comes up in any discussion of superhero games. It's not that obscure.

Tony> Why do you think so many independent RPGs are rules-light? There's a heavy slant towards them, even amongst people who aren't Forgers.

Quote from: TonyLBNo.  I think there is the persistent belief in a war, and I even have some ideas about how that belief arises without anyone seeking to create it.

5) Well... how that belief arises than?

6) Do you think, you are "swine" in that local "Pundit-sense"? Why or why not? How do you understand that term?

7) What is your relation to "traditional games" such as D&D? Do you play them? Why or why not?

8) Do you think that "forge games" or better say "theme-focused" games are superior to traditional games in any way?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTony> Why do you think so many independent RPGs are rules-light?

Oooh, nice question.  I think there are a lot of factors that go into that.  I really don't have any sense how much weight to give which ones, either in the general "What's up with this community?" sense or the particular "What motivated this particular game?" sense.  But here's some things off the top of my head:

• Deep and detailed rulesets are hard to convey across the internet.  In a community where a lot of the feedback designers crave (both criticism and the ever-essential "Keep at it!  It'll be great!" motivationals) comes by way of fora, light rulesets get more feedback.
• Small rulesets are easy to quickly write, quickly prototype, and quickly playtest.  Lots of designers I know discard many, many complete (but light) rulesets before getting the one they want.  That's a bear to do with a substantially deeper ruleset.
  
• Large rulesets are often the result of long-term revising and tweaking of a smaller core mechanic, often due to extensive playtesting.  Maybe people aren't playtesting as much as they should.
• Maybe it's just herd instinct ... people do it because it's what everyone's doing.
• Certain styles of small rulesets are very easy for the end-user to tweak into something powerful and different.  There's a lot of desire to give fans outlets for their excitement about the system, and these types of rulesets can facilitate that.  Wushu, for instance, has lots of people modding it to do all manner of fun stuff.  I know that some designers are very deliberate about wanting to build that potential into their games.

Hope that helps!  The short answer, as I said above, is "I'm really not quite sure."  But this is what I've been thinking on the topic.

Tony: Addressing the 'GM-less play' of Capes...

Melingor right here on the RPGsite some months back posted about his roping some players into playing Capes with him. All well and good, but one thing that struck me most about his depiction of the AP was just how very like a typical GM he was acting like. He put together the game, the group, he lead the conflicts and explained and mediated the rules.

While Capes certainly put a lot of GM like power into the hands of all the players, it certainly didn't sound like it eliminated the basic social functions of a GM in any meaningful way.  How does this pan out with your expirences and intentions?  Is there a value to removing official support for a 'job' that is going to get filled at the table by basic human social dynamics?


Follow on question: Do you think that GM-less is superior to GM lead play?  Or was this done to 'broaden your horizons'?

Tony,

If you could do one thing to put the idea of a war to rest, what would it be?
Do you believe that GM Fiat is inherently corrosive or objectively weak design?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: Alnag5) Well... how that belief arises than?

Okay ... I heard this interesting story from a friend last night.  Apparently someone sent a letter to be published that was purely saying positive things about men.  "Men are strong," "Men are rational," "Men can control their emotions."

This prompted a vitriolic response from enraged feminists.  "How dare you say that women are weak, irrational and emotional?  HOW DARE YOU?"

When someone says something positive about X, especially if there is an implied contrast with Y, then it's very, very easy for folks to believe that they are saying that Y does not have that positive trait.

I say "Man, I played a whole bunch of indie games this weekend!  It was so fun I just about wet myself!", and I've just made a statement that is very easy to interpret as saying "non-independent games are not fun."  Wasn't my intent, but that's how the human animal reads that.

You get a little of that, and people start feeling like they need to defend their loves.  So they say really positive things about Y.  "Women are nurturing," "Women are patient," "Women are diplomatic."

You see where this is going, right?  "How dare you say that men are cold, impatient and tactless?  HOW DARE YOU?"

It's a train-wreck waiting to happen ... over and over again.  I think that the only thing that puts the brakes on it is trust, and our communications with each other have well and truly stepped beyond the limits of the people we trust, so ... there's a problem.  Not quite sure what to do about it, but I'm thinkin'.

Quote from: Alnag6) Do you think, you are "swine" in that local "Pundit-sense"? Why or why not? How do you understand that term?

Well, I play games in order to enjoy myself.  I don't play games in order to convince people that I'm artistic or special.  So I'm pretty sure I don't meet Pundit's definition (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=108583&postcount=4) of Swine.

Quote from: Alnag7) What is your relation to "traditional games" such as D&D? Do you play them? Why or why not?

My gaming group won't play D&D.  I asked them and they said "Too many rules" :(   I've heard good things about Castles and Crusades though, and I'm trying to sell them on that for an upcoming slot.  I want some old-fashioned fun bashing skellies and crawling into a lost crypt.  It's been too long.

Quote from: Alnag8) Do you think that "forge games" or better say "theme-focused" games are superior to traditional games in any way?

Saying "X is better than Y" without any further context is usually pretty silly.  I try not to do that.  Saying "X is better than Y for the following specific purpose" is much sounder.

Now if you ask me "Is game X superior to game Y in any way" then my answer is usually gonna be "Yes."  I can find some thing that X does better than Y.  Toon presents humor more naturally than Sorceror does, for instance.  Spirit of the Century does over-the-top pulp heroism more naturally than Cyberpunk 2020.  

I'm hoping this idea isn't controversial.

Now, if you're asking me "Is there some purpose for which any forge-influenced game is better than any traditional game?" then all I can say is "No single purpose that I can figure out."  Neither forge games nor traditional games are so uniform that they line up in that way.  They're both all over the map, doing different things for different reasons.

I get the feeling I'm not ... I dunno ... addressing the emotional subtext of your question.  Sorry about that.  FWIW, I don't think that Forge games are "better" than traditional games.  I just think they do different things ... not better, or more important, or more valuable or more artistic things ... just ... different.

Quote from: SpikeHow does this pan out with your expirences and intentions?

I've seen the same thing happen with some groups, notably at conventions.  It lines up with my experiences just fine.  My intentions too, actually ... I never intended to rip out any alpha-whatever role.

Quote from: SpikeIs there a value to removing official support for a 'job' that is going to get filled at the table by basic human social dynamics?

Well, the value to me is that when I'm playing that way, and everyone lines up to be pushed around by me, I can push as hard as possible without fear of overpowering them.  I don't have so much power that cutting loose is unfair.  I don't have to restrain myself.

Quote from: SpikeFollow on question: Do you think that GM-less is superior to GM lead play?

What ... for everything?  Oh hell no.  I'm not even sure what purposes it is better for.  Well, the aforementioned "Everybody gets to cut loose at full power" thing, I suppose.  It does a good job of that, very naturally.

Quote from: SpikeOr was this done to 'broaden your horizons'?

It was done because I wanted to kick people's asses as hard as I was allowed, but instead everyone kept saying "You're such a good GM Tony, we need you to GM this!" and then I'd have to restrain myself.  AGGGH! :mad:

Quote from: James J SkachIf you could do one thing to put the idea of a war to rest, what would it be?

Man, if I knew one thing that would do that I'd have done that one thing already.

I dunno ... maybe the one thing could be figuring out what would help? :confused:

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe that GM Fiat is inherently corrosive or objectively weak design?

Oh hell no!  Thanks for the softball, though ... I actually feel a little bit embarrassed swinging on it :D

Quote from: TonyLBMy gaming group won't play D&D.  I asked them and they said "Too many rules" :(   I've heard good things about Castles and Crusades though, and I'm trying to sell them on that for an upcoming slot.  I want some old-fashioned fun bashing skellies and crawling into a lost crypt.  It's been too long.

X) What is the traditional fare of your group?

X+1) Is Capes in any way a response to something you feel is missing from that traditional fare? Or does your traditional fare somehow inform or inspire it? Or was Capes and its contained ideas more born from internet discussion

X+2) Any intimations of any other publications in your future? Or any non-published adventures?

Quote from: TonyLBOkay ... I heard this interesting story from a friend last night.
.
[snip]
.
It's a train-wreck waiting to happen ... over and over again.  I think that the only thing that puts the brakes on it is trust, and our communications with each other have well and truly stepped beyond the limits of the people we trust, so ... there's a problem.  Not quite sure what to do about it, but I'm thinkin'.

Tony,

While your description of what can happen is accurate, do you think there have also been statements that do not just provide positive comments on on style of gaming, but, instead, call into question the validity of other styles?  If so, could you provide an example of what you believe goes beyond mere positive statements and crosses into explicit denigration of gaming styles - from both sides of the "war"?

Quote from: TonyLBMy gaming group won't play D&D.  I asked them and they said "Too many rules" :(   I've heard good things about Castles and Crusades though, and I'm trying to sell them on that for an upcoming slot.  I want some old-fashioned fun bashing skellies and crawling into a lost crypt.  It's been too long.

I would have loved you to stop at "an upcoming slot." This is one of those instances you describe (accurately) above wherein someone who has used D&D or C&C for a more immersive or story-focused style could interpet what you're saying as "D&D and C&C are realyl only good for old fashioned fun playing hack and slash."  Just to let you know...

Quote from: TonyLBOh hell no!  Thanks for the softball, though ... I actually feel a little bit embarrassed swinging on it :D

I'm here to serve.  I wanted people to be able to quickly delineate your position from others.

It's these kind of emphatic statements, IMHO, that will help end the distraction. And look! I didn't have to mention any people! ;)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadX) What is the traditional fare of your group?

Pretty much anything that anyone picks up and wants to play.  That means a lot of novelty-value stuff:  lots of indie games, natch, since we're pretty well threaded into that community.  But also stuff like Sengoku, Amber, Stargate, Villains and Vigilantes, Castle Falkenstein, etc.  And we playtest each other's games and stuff.

We've also been doing Ticket-To-Ride: Europe recently, which is a hell of a game, albeit not roleplaying.  Then last night we played a lovely little escape-movie thing:  We played the Scooby-Doo gang, in a story where Old Man Withers didn't go along quietly, shot the sherriff and started hunting them all across the booby-trapped length of Spooky Castle Island.  Fred and Shaggy died horribly.  Daphne, Scooby and Velma got clear, although there was some ... ahem ... friction in the remaining team.  

Quote from: Caesar SlaadX+1) Is Capes in any way a response to something you feel is missing from that traditional fare? Or does your traditional fare somehow inform or inspire it? Or was Capes and its contained ideas more born from internet discussion

"Missing"?  The games that don't do what Capes does weren't meant to do what Capes does.  It's sort of like asking whether a kangaroo was created because a bear is "missing" a pouch.  I guess some folks might be motivated by that, but for me?  Uh ... no.  That wasn't my motivation.

I will say that I wanted to cut loose in an unrestrained way, but still have all the big narrative powers I was used to having as a GM.  There's probably a game out there that would have done the trick, but I designed something new.  To make it fair, I gave everyone the unrestricted powers.  Seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but it wasn't because I thought that other games were missing that element.  I just wanted to do something different than what I felt they were built for.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadX+2) Any intimations of any other publications in your future? Or any non-published adventures?

I'm making a game for people who like shoujo manga ... because I am, like, 100% addicted to Kare Kano.  I do this as homage and worship of Miyazawa and Arima ... I love the characters that much.  It's really tres geeky.

I figure it'll either sell a bazillion copies (if the anime community takes it up) or ... like ... twelve (if it doesn't spread beyond gamers).  Heh :D

Follow-Up:

You wrote Capes a few years back. Any plans for another RPG any time soon? If so, what would you do differently this time around?

Quote from: James J SkachWhile your description of what can happen is accurate, do you think there have also been statements that do not just provide positive comments on on style of gaming, but, instead, call into question the validity of other styles?

Oh yeah!  People say stupid, negative, denigrating things.

I see how these sorts of discussions can happen without requiring anyone to say pointlessly negative things.  That's not to say that I don't think people do say pointlessly negative things.

Quote from: James J SkachIf so, could you provide an example of what you believe goes beyond mere positive statements and crosses into explicit denigration of gaming styles - from both sides of the "war"?

Well ... "Brain damage" and "Swine" are the two famous ones 'round here.  Both are straight up attacks on folks ... and, sadly enough, I actually like the positive stuff that both people say that seems to motivate them to these really awful negative passes.

I like folks who are enthusiastic about focussing on straight up unassuming fun ... I just don't like it when they say that's the only thing worth focussing on.

I like folks who are enthusiastic about focussing on story telling and the aesthetics and craft of fiction ... I just don't like it when they say that's the only thing worth focussing on.

Quote from: James J SkachI would have loved you to stop at "an upcoming slot." This is one of those instances you describe (accurately) above wherein someone who has used D&D or C&C for a more immersive or story-focused style could interpet what you're saying as "D&D and C&C are realyl only good for old fashioned fun playing hack and slash."  Just to let you know...

Any chance I could get you to phrase that as a question?  I get what you're saying, and I think it's interesting, but I'm a bit leery of turning this into a back-and-forth of statements.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou wrote Capes a few years back. Any plans for another RPG any time soon?

Uh ... define "soon."  :sweatdrop:  I'm pretty constantly sweating on my shoujo game, but I don't expect to see it in publishable shape for at least a year.  Part of the reason why is below ....

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf so, what would you do differently this time around?

I've got three lessons from my experience so far that I'm deriving major guidance from.

First, I'm focussing much more on making the game easily accessible:  I have, so far, discarded several really nice, really elegant systems on this project because they simply weren't intuitive enough for people to pick up immediately and start to play with just a few minutes of explanation.  Gah.  That hurt ... it hurt me right in the gut, but I think it's really important.

Capes is a really nice, really elegant system that works absolute magic once people understand it.  It is, however, such a holistic mass of interacting parts that it is virtually impossible to describe it in any straight-forward manner.  You can't pick one thing that you can explain as a "foundation" for the next thing, because rules depend upon each other in a closed circle.  What thrills the mathematician in me turns out to be a damn poor idea in terms of actually providing a game that people can grab and go with.  So there are plenty of people who want to want Capes, but take a look at the rule book, cock their head to the side and go "Mrrrmow?" and then put it back on the shelf.  And they're right to do it.

I can't bring myself to regret how I built Capes.  I still love it, even knowing its flaws.  That said, I'm deliberately putting a lot of effort into doing something else this time 'round.

Second, (and this is a touch more controversial), the hugely positive responses to my example of play (and later my online example of play) have convinced me that the Technical Reference style of game-manual is one that gives many people difficulty.  While there are some folks who like, and even need to have the rules laid out like the pieces of a machine, for them to examine and fit together in their mind, there are other folks who like (and perhaps even need) to be told a story about what playing the game is going to be like ... what their place in it will be, and what they will do in that place.  So, in addition to making accessible rules, I'll also be trying to present them in a way that is much more like a story about some fictional players than it is an instruction manual for a game.  The example I've been giving is that it's like using Harry Potter to teach people the rules of Quidditch.  Maybe that'll work, and maybe it won't, but again I'm fairly convinced that there's conceptual territory out there that hasn't been well explored ... at least not by me.

Third, I just didn't do anywhere near enough blind playtesting of Capes.  I need to get the near-finished rules text into the hands of people who have never seen it before, and get reports from them of how they interpreted it, where they had trouble, how they played the game and how it worked out for them.  And I need to do this with not one or two groups, but dozens.  That's gonna be a pain in the butt to arrange, and will likely require both time and money in (what seems to me) fairly large quantities.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay ... I heard this interesting story from a friend last night.  Apparently someone sent a letter to be published that was purely saying positive things about men.  "Men are strong," "Men are rational," "Men can control their emotions."

This prompted a vitriolic response from enraged feminists.  "How dare you say that women are weak, irrational and emotional?  HOW DARE YOU?"

When someone says something positive about X, especially if there is an implied contrast with Y, then it's very, very easy for folks to believe that they are saying that Y does not have that positive trait.

I say "Man, I played a whole bunch of indie games this weekend!  It was so fun I just about wet myself!", and I've just made a statement that is very easy to interpret as saying "non-independent games are not fun."  Wasn't my intent, but that's how the human animal reads that.

And how do you jibe that with the fact that the Foundation-Stone of the entire "Indie-Forge" movement begins, with its very first statement, by declaring that "most gamers are deeply unsatisfied and miserable" (paraphrased from Ron Edwards' very first GNS essay)?

The Forge movement did NOT begin with "how cool are these new ideas we have"; it emphatically began with "mainstream gaming makes people miserable, and if they say they aren't they're either lying to you or themselves".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd how do you jibe that with the fact that the Foundation-Stone of the entire "Indie-Forge" movement begins, with its very first statement, by declaring that "most gamers are deeply unsatisfied and miserable" (paraphrased from Ron Edwards' very first GNS essay)?

Well, like I said in post #17, I see both how conflict can arise from people saying offensive, obnoxious things and how conflict can arise just from people trying to be positive and enthusiastic.  It's not really an either-or proposition.

This might be a good time to point out, however, that stating your assumptions as the context for a question makes it very difficult for me to answer if I don't share those assumptions.  If you say, for instance, "Given the fact that you, Tony, are a liar and a thief, why should anyone listen to you?" I can only answer by (a) going glib and humorous ("Because I'm so shiny!") or (b) trying to counter your assumptions ("Dude, I'm neither a liar nor a thief,") which gets us into a back-and-forth that can easily become more about defending and attacking than asking and answering.

I'm going to assume that anyone asking a question here is genuinely interested in hearing the answer, and so I'm going to avoid both of those patterns.  If I see this kind of strong assumption in future questions I'm not going to answer at all ... I'm just going to say "I don't share the assumptions that your question is based upon.  Please ask it again, in a way that does not depend upon those assumptions."

Tony,

That's a fine approach - no problem with it. Only one question.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, my question includes an assumption with which you don't agree.  Is it OK to, in question form, explore that difference of assumption?

I ask because, I think in understanding those motivating assumptions, and the differences between them, could be valuable to the discussion.

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachLet's say, for the sake of argument, my question includes an assumption with which you don't agree.  Is it OK to, in question form, explore that difference of assumption?

Oh God ... please do!

A question like (for instance) "How do you convince people to play your high-brow, specialized, unappealing games at conventions?" is really hard for me to respond to productively.  The assumption is lurking, but there's no Q&A venue to respond to it, and it structures what I can respond to in the question that is on the table.

Two questions, like "Do you agree that Forge games are high-brow, specialized and unappealing?" and "How do you convince people to play games at conventions?" are incredibly easy to respond to.

So yeah, absolutely, let's get our different assumptions out on the table.  I'd love to!

Quote from: TonyLBWell, like I said in post #17, I see both how conflict can arise from people saying offensive, obnoxious things and how conflict can arise just from people trying to be positive and enthusiastic.  It's not really an either-or proposition.

But let's talk about what actually DID happen. What actually DID happen was that Ron Edwards started off the entire "Forge-Theory" movement with an essay where he claimed that most roleplayers are MISERABLE, and the cause of this misery were Regular RPGs.  That's not what "can" happen, or what "could have arisen", that's what actually happened, over here, in the real world.

So your trying to claim now that in some other hypothetical world Ron's first words might have been "playing narrativist games rock" and he didn't ever say anything that directly attacked Regular RPGs at all is pretty fucking irrelevant, isn't it?


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo your trying to claim now that in some other hypothetical world Ron's first words might have been "playing narrativist games rock" and he didn't ever say anything that directly attacked Regular RPGs at all is pretty fucking irrelevant, isn't it?

Wow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

So here's a fucking question for you: how do you justify talking about the conflict between Forge-games and Regular Roleplaying as being based on simple misunderstanding (and of course, always OUR misunderstanding of YOU), when the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is clear that Ron Edwards fired the first shot in the form of saying that "the VAST MAJORITY of gamers are miserable because of the kinds of games they play"?

How the fuck do you interpret that as being anything other than an attack on regular roleplaying?

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

Which is Tony's nice way of saying, I think, "I don't agree that it's what Ron said."

So here, let's look:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

OK, so, there it is.  Now there's lots of room for couching - my observation, I encounter - lot's of ways to get out of being accused of saying this is the objective truth.

In the spirit of trying to delve into the assumptions to understand current positions better:

Tony,

Do you consider the first sentence of GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, provided above, as an example of a postive statement being misread (that we all agree can happen), or a negative statement?

Thanks
Jim

Quote from: RPGPunditSo here's a fucking question for you: how do you justify talking about the conflict between Forge-games and Regular Roleplaying as being based on simple misunderstanding (and of course, always OUR misunderstanding of YOU), when the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is clear that Ron Edwards fired the first shot in the form of saying that "the VAST MAJORITY of gamers are miserable because of the kinds of games they play"?

Okay, you clearly need, like ... an example of play of how to write a question that isn't loaded to the gills with assumptions.  Here's the assumptions you built into that question:

• Tony believes that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding.
• Tony believes that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided.

So if you wanted to ask the questions as questions, it would go like this:

• (1) Do you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?
• (2a) If so, do you believe that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided?
• (2b) If not, why are you making such a point of talking about how simple misunderstanding can lead to conflict?  Isn't that irrelevant in light of the past roots of the present conflict?

Now see, those are questions I could actually answer.  In fact, if anyone is actually interested in hearing the answers, I'd be happy to answer them.

But the mess of assumptions up above?  Unanswerable as asked ... it's just a rant with a question mark at the end.

Tony,

Do you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?
If so, misunderstanding of what, and by whom?
If not, then what is the source of the conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachDo you consider the first sentence of GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, provided above, as an example of a postive statement being misread (that we all agree can happen), or a negative statement?

It's a negative statement, plain and simple.  I don't even particularly care if it's an accurate statement ... even if the people he met were miserable sods, every last one, he's the one choosing to concentrate on the misery rather than look for what they're doing right.

FWIW, the assumption I disagree with is not "Ron says negative stuff," it's "Everything that's come out of the Forge as a board and as a community is dependent upon Ron and his theories."  Ron's simply not that all-embracingly important.

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?

No.  Hard, negative, denigating things have been said.  They are good cause to be offended.

Quote from: James J SkachIf not, then what is the source of the conflict?

I don't think it has a single source.  I think that it is perpetuated by a broad range of elements, from the living history of the internet ("Ron said this!  I can google it!") to ongoing spirals of offensiveness, to ... lots of things.

For my part, I don't want to denigrate people who play different games ... I like different games, and even the ones I don't personally like I respect.  And yet I find that people get offended by me anyway.  So I've been personally interested in examining how that happens.

The more I understand of how these conflicts can come into being without intent, the easier I find it to excuse and understand people who are in a conflict with me.  It becomes easier to see (or at least to hope) that they are nice, enthusiastic, positive people but that we're in a bad little cycle of the type that's been played out so many times before.  The more I understand that, the mellower I can be.

Because of that, I think it's well worth pointing out that the perpetuation of hostility has several causes ... and that "The other guys are assholes!" may well be one of them on occasion, but it's not the only cause all the time.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, you clearly need, like ... an example of play of how to write a question that isn't loaded to the gills with assumptions.  Here's the assumptions you built into that question:

• Tony believes that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding.
• Tony believes that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided.

So if you wanted to ask the questions as questions, it would go like this:

• (1) Do you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?
• (2a) If so, do you believe that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided?
• (2b) If not, why are you making such a point of talking about how simple misunderstanding can lead to conflict?  Isn't that irrelevant in light of the past roots of the present conflict?

Now see, those are questions I could actually answer.  In fact, if anyone is actually interested in hearing the answers, I'd be happy to answer them.

But the mess of assumptions up above?  Unanswerable as asked ... it's just a rant with a question mark at the end.

Well thats pretty EVASIVE!!

FINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

I'm chugging along ....reading this thread - and no damn answers fropm this Tony person.

You running for political officee or something ? You got the sidestep down pretty well.

 - Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarFINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

Wellll ... I was gonna ... but really, setting up my own questions and then answering them?  Didn't seem right. :sweatdrop:

James asked some questions that were ... y'know ... like mine, but different enough that I'm really glad he did it.  "What's the source of the conflict?" is ... that's a nice question.  I expect different people would each have different answers to that.

Quote from: KoltarWell thats pretty EVASIVE!!

FINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

I'm chugging along ....reading this thread - and no damn answers fropm this Tony person.

You running for political officee or something ? You got the sidestep down pretty well.

 - Ed C.

Hey Ed...I like you and all, you're a nice guy..but...

Tony has answered every one of my questions in a straightforward way.  My assumption is he's being honest.  So back off, GURPS-boy...

OK...the GURPS-boy was harsh.  I apologize.  It's new for me to defend Tony... :haw:

Ok: this may, or may not, be a gaming related thread.  I don't know for sure. WHat I DO know is that it isn't really 'Off Topic' enough to be here in the ghetto... especially without comment.


Or did my computer do something really weird and I'm the only one?

Quote from: SpikeOr did my computer do something really weird and I'm the only one?

It's a moderator call, that's all.  Discussion is here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6995).

Quote from: TonyLBIt's a negative statement, plain and simple.  I don't even particularly care if it's an accurate statement ... even if the people he met were miserable sods, every last one, he's the one choosing to concentrate on the misery rather than look for what they're doing right.

FWIW, the assumption I disagree with is not "Ron says negative stuff," it's "Everything that's come out of the Forge as a board and as a community is dependent upon Ron and his theories."  Ron's simply not that all-embracingly important.

Tony,

Well, this gets to be a bit of a conundrum.  I mean, I get what you're saying and you and I have gone through this conversation - so I'm cool with it.  But the quote comes from the seminal document of GNS theory, regardless of the author, it still comes out basing the entire theory on the negative statement.

So, in reality, I'd saw this is not about Ron at all. It's about a theory that starts with a negative statement, builds upon that with exclusionary tactics, and culiminates with the claim that people were brain damaged - regardless of who said which part.

Just so you know - it's one of the reasons I like the Q&A threads.  I know where Luke stands with respect to certain ideas.  If I ask enough people (and it's only supposed to be a handful, right), I can better delineate who believes what ideas and how prevalent the idea is among the theory folks. All driven by your concerns...

EDIT: And yeah, there's no question in this one :p

Tony,

What was the first RPG you played (and when)? What RPG have you played the most?

In a related follow up, you seem to mostly focus on rules-light games these days (that's mostly what I've seen you talk about over the years, and your own RPG is a rules-light game IIRC). Has that always been the case, or did you move from more rules-heavy games like D&D etc. to the lighter stuff?

Quote from: James J SkachEDIT: And yeah, there's no question in this one :p

That's okay, I'll give you one based on what I read as some of your assumptions:

- Do you, Tony, believe that GNS is the most important and/or influential piece of theory to come out of the Forge?

Answer:  Oh, hell no.  In my opinion, many, many things with no relationship to GNS whatsoever have far, far more of an impact on actual design than GNS does.  For instance, I see many games that are inspired directly by various insights people have put forth about ways to set Stakes for resolution.  I don't see any games that I look at and say "Oh, this comes from such-and-so discussion about GNS."

I think GNS is way more of a big deal to people who are on the outside of the Forge looking in (whether pro- or con-) than it is to folks in the community itself.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat was the first RPG you played (and when)?

Hrmmmm ... thassa long time ago.  Did I sit in on that Champions game at camp before I picked up the PHB for D&D?  Or was it the other way around?  Gah!  I should be able to remember this.

Anyway, D&D and Champions were my first big games, and my friends and I all pretty much played both, as the mood struck us.  I'm enough of a comic-book nut that I did more GMing for Champions ... and so when I headed out to college (where GMs were, for some reason, more scarce) I ended up playing a lot more Champs.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat RPG have you played the most?

Champions.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn a related follow up, you seem to mostly focus on rules-light games these days (that's mostly what I've seen you talk about over the years, and your own RPG is a rules-light game IIRC). Has that always been the case, or did you move from more rules-heavy games like D&D etc. to the lighter stuff?

Heh.  Champions.  I've got rules-heavy in my past.

And, frankly, I've played Burning Empires recently, which I don't consider all that rules-light a book.  I liked the rules complexity.  My fellow players did not.  So I'm in rules-light mode these days somewhat over my own protests :(

Quote from: TonyLBOh, hell no.  In my opinion, many, many things with no relationship to GNS whatsoever have far, far more of an impact on actual design than GNS does.  For instance, I see many games that are inspired directly by various insights people have put forth about ways to set Stakes for resolution.  I don't see any games that I look at and say "Oh, this comes from such-and-so discussion about GNS."

I think GNS is way more of a big deal to people who are on the outside of the Forge looking in (whether pro- or con-) than it is to folks in the community itself.

Tony,

Given the answer above, do you think that GNS provides any benefit to discussing RPG's?
If so, in what ways?
If not, why not?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachGiven the answer above, do you think that GNS provides any benefit to discussing RPG's?

I've heard from enough people who say that they've gotten benefit out of it that I'm inclined to think that it can be helpful for some people.  I really don't know from personal experience ... it was never one of the bits that clicked with me.  I'm pretty sure that I understand it, I just don't find that it makes my discussions any easier.

Quote from: James J SkachIf so, in what ways?

You'd honestly have to ask somebody who has personally benefitted from it.  I'm just the wrong guy to ask, sorry.

Quote from: TonyLBNo.  Hard, negative, denigating things have been said.  They are good cause to be offended.

I don't think it has a single source.  I think that it is perpetuated by a broad range of elements, from the living history of the internet ("Ron said this!  I can google it!") to ongoing spirals of offensiveness, to ... lots of things.

For my part, I don't want to denigrate people who play different games ... I like different games, and even the ones I don't personally like I respect.  And yet I find that people get offended by me anyway.  So I've been personally interested in examining how that happens.

The more I understand of how these conflicts can come into being without intent, the easier I find it to excuse and understand people who are in a conflict with me.  It becomes easier to see (or at least to hope) that they are nice, enthusiastic, positive people but that we're in a bad little cycle of the type that's been played out so many times before.  The more I understand that, the mellower I can be.

Because of that, I think it's well worth pointing out that the perpetuation of hostility has several causes ... and that "The other guys are assholes!" may well be one of them on occasion, but it's not the only cause all the time.

This is all such UTTER bullshit.  Do you know how you actually end hostility?

By admitting the place where YOUR SIDE was wrong.

What you're saying here is the equivalent of saying: "yeah, you know there were many reasons why those indians were mad at us cowboys; the fact that we said "this is great land" doesn't mean that we necessarily meant to say "we're taking it from you", and in any case there was a lot of mistakes either way. We know that the indians have shown a lot of hatred to us, and we now admit that they made some serious mistakes by raiding our wagon-parties."

Well fuck you.

You want peace? you really want peace? ADMIT THAT YOUR SIDE STARTED IT.

You want to "move beyond" all the criticisms thrown at your side because of Ron Edwards? DISAVOW yourselves of Ron Edwards.

As it is, right now, your side just keeps saying that either there "is no conflict" or that your side just wants it to end, but everything you keep doing is clearly a sign that you know there's a fight, and you're fighting it. LIKE THIS VERY THREAD; which was a product of your discussions on the Storygame sites about how to push your agenda on fora like this one.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou want peace?

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit[Y]ou really want peace?

Yes.

Next question?

If you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

RPGPundit

Tony, another set of follow up questions.

I think it was Kyle who argued that rules-light games tend to appeal to more advanced gamers, while rules heavy games (especially D&D, Traveller and Champion) tend to appeal to newer gamers. Most of us learn to RP with D&D and such, after all, and only after that move onto things like Wushu (Similarly, Burning Empires seems to be one of the most popular Forge games despite being by far the most rules-intensive).

Do you agree with this idea, and if so, why do you think it's the case? What import do you think this has for designers of RPGs if it's true?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

RPGPundit

"Mommy, mommy, he started it! No, mommy, he started it! It's his fault! It's not fair, he started it!"

It doesn't matter who started it. It matters who ends it, either by converting their opponents to their beliefs, by reaching a reasonable compromise both sides can agree with, or by giving in to the other side's beliefs.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Mommy, mommy, he started it! No, mommy, he started it! It's his fault! It's not fair, he started it!"

It doesn't matter who started it. It matters who ends it, either by converting their opponents to their beliefs, by reaching a reasonable compromise both sides can agree with, or by giving in to the other side's beliefs.

Tony is repeatedly claiming that he "wants" to end the war.
Yet he doesn't seem to want to go to the extent that is required for a compromise: the FIRST step of any compromise would be to acknowledge the errors commited by the Forgies.  The one thing that you can reliably see from virtually EVERY Forgite-storygamer is an absolute refusal to believe that they are to blame for the conflict or that they have in fact ever done or said anything wrong. They always want to claim that it is just all a big misunderstanding, that they've been "misinterpreted" or that its all just the product of people being "afraid" of their radical new ideas.

So he doesn't want to compromise, he obviously doesn't want to surrender either, I can only assume that when he says he "wants" to end the War the only thing he really means is that he wants our side to lay down and die.

Fuck him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDo you agree with this idea, and if so, why do you think it's the case?

I don't know.  I have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to experienced hands.  I also have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to folks who have never gamed before.  I look at the success of simple games like (to pick one of my favorites) Jungle Speed at spreading like wildfire, and I think "Ooh, I want in on that!"

But frankly, the only way those ideas are ever going to be more than hypotheticals is if somebody manages to actually create the game that does it in a recognizable way.  Boy, it'd be nice if that were me.  Here's hoping.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat import do you think this has for designers of RPGs if it's true?

If it's concluded that it's true then I think it'll drive a lot of people away from rules-light.  There's a lot of interest in helping new and prospective gamers to get into the hobby and get enthusiastic, and I'm pretty sure that priority will trump other benefits of light rules in the minds of many designers.

Now that, of course, is hearsay ... I don't speak for anyone but myself.  I can speak with authority for myself though:  If I become convinced that rules-heavy inherently draws beginning players better then I'm gonna start designing rules-heavy games.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

Because that's not what I believe.  I don't think that any one source started the conflict.  I think, as I've said, that it arises from many causes.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said one of those causes?  Yes, yes it is.  I've said that ... what ... many times so far in this thread.  It's not really that big a deal to me to say ... sorry if you feel that it's not satisfying to hear unless you wring it out of me somehow.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said the only cause of the conflict?  Uh ... no.  I just don't see any sensible way of explaining it that way.  They offend some folks, and (for example) Pundit offends some folks, and just plain misunderstanding offends some folks, and like that.  There are many causes.

Now when we get into questions of "Who started it?" ... well, I frankly just lose interest.  That's no longer talking about reality ... it's talking about which pattern you prefer to impose upon reality, what parts to ignore and what parts to highlight, where to begin the story and what to relegate to the unimportant prelude.  It's spin.

I don't believe that, at the end of some "War," Ron will emerge clearly the villain in all ways, and Pundit will emerge lily-white with all his supposed faults shown to be virtues.  Nor, of course, do I think that it will work out the other way 'round.  I figure that no matter how much anyone talks about it, they'll both continue to appear as the flawed and often offensive human beings we've become familiar with ... and no amount of arguing one way or another is going to change that.  Trying to spin this conflict as anything other than a whole-hearted street brawl is intellectual wankery of a sort that holds no entertainment value for me.

There's a big mess, and everyone had a part in making it.  I'm mostly interested in where we go from here.

Quote from: TonyLBBecause that's not what I believe.  I don't think that any one source started the conflict.  I think, as I've said, that it arises from many causes.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said one of those causes?  Yes, yes it is.  I've said that ... what ... many times so far in this thread.  It's not really that big a deal to me to say ... sorry if you feel that it's not satisfying to hear unless you wring it out of me somehow.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said the only cause of the conflict?  Uh ... no.  I just don't see any sensible way of explaining it that way.  They offend some folks, and (for example) Pundit offends some folks, and just plain misunderstanding offends some folks, and like that.  There are many causes.

Tony,

What other specific causes can you point us to?
Do you beleive the Pundit would have any fire if there wasnt already an issue to address?

Quote from: TonyLBNow when we get into questions of "Who started it?" ... well, I frankly just lose interest.  That's no longer talking about reality ... it's talking about which pattern you prefer to impose upon reality, what parts to ignore and what parts to highlight, where to begin the story and what to relegate to the unimportant prelude.  It's spin.

So you think there's any way to objectively establish the source of this conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachWhat other specific causes can you point us to?

Here, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

Really, pick one of the ways that human beings piss each other off, deliberately or accidentally, and it's probably had a hand in this train-wreck somewhere along the line.  To be honest, I'm not keeping a comprehensive list.  It just seems like such a "glass-is-half-empty" sort of thing to do :(

Quote from: James J SkachDo you beleive the Pundit would have any fire if there wasnt already an issue to address?

Nope.  Nor do I believe Ron would have any fire if there wasn't already an issue for him to address.

Quote from: James J SkachSo you think there's any way to objectively establish the source of this conflict?

No.  In fact, I'll go beyond just saying "No" to that.  Not only can't we establish the source, I don't think there is a single objective source, because I don't think that this conflict suddenly emerged one day, like a newly mutated disease without any antecedents, in a single point on the globe from which it started to spread.

I understand that, by discarding all the ways that different factors converge to influence events, and by choosing an arbitrary point to say "This is when it begins, everything before here is declared Not Relevant," you can choose a subset of history that has a narrative flow like that ... but that's not history, it's a narrative lens that you use in order to see history distorted.

It's like asking "What is the source of American democracy?"  What you answer isn't The Answer, it's a story you choose to tell:

"Well, on July 4th, 1776..."
"Well, King George had many hereditary ailments, which drove him toward dementia ..."
"Well, Martin Luther ..."
"Well, during the Rennaissance ..."
"Well, Arabic scholars preserved certain texts ..."
"Well ... see ... long ago some people made a city and they called it Athens, and in this city ..."

I'm a big believer in the power of stories, but I'm also fond of remembering that reality is universally more complicated and nuanced than the labels that we use in order to understand it.


Now let me make one thing clear:  I'm not trying to excuse anyone here.  I'm not saying "Oh, the Forge folks aren't to blame, they're just in the grasp of history."  What I'm saying is that if you want to lay blame there's plenty to go around for everyone.  Trying to shift the responsibility for any one person's actions off on another by saying "Well, he started it!" is fundamentally an act of story-telling.  It's not logic, it's an appeal to our desire to be entertained by a simple yarn with a beginning, middle and end.  At the end of the day, no matter what stories you tell about it, you did what you did, and you're responsible for it.

And, frankly, from a practical point of view ... I'm with Pseudo on this.  I consider time spent arguing about who started what wasted time.  It's an unending argument, pretty much by definition.  The frustration it produces in the people who fight that fight is almost palpable.  I don't intend to shoulder the burden of caring about that.  I've seen what that kind of grudge does to the people who carry it.  I'd rather spend my time and energy figuring out what I'm going to do next.

No, its clear. Ron Edwards had 2 years give or take to spew his vitriol before I even showed up. Its not like he and I were both around and we started feud like hatfields and mccoys.  

I'm here because he is: If he hadn't started it, I wouldn't have to be here to finish it.

As to the "why" of why Ron Edwards started the entire movement of Theory and Storygamers shitting all over Regular Roleplayers: I don't give a fuck.  The important thing is knowing that they shot first, they attacked ME first, and now I'm going to put my fucking boot in their face at every opportunity, until I grind them into the dirt and crush their fucking jaws so they can't keep on spitting their poison.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBHere, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

Really, pick one of the ways that human beings piss each other off, deliberately or accidentally, and it's probably had a hand in this train-wreck somewhere along the line.  To be honest, I'm not keeping a comprehensive list.  It just seems like such a "glass-is-half-empty" sort of thing to do :(

Tony,

Here's what I have so far in your list of things that caused this conflict (please note, I'm not talking about wht keeps the conflict going, but what began the conflict).

• Forge/GNS says nasty things.
• Forge/GNS says positive things that are misunderstood/misinterpreted.
• Forge/GNS says things that are lost in translation so; herresay (see number 2).

Is that a fair assessment to date?
What would you say non-Forge/non-Story-Game folks did to begin (not continue, but begin) the conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachIs that a fair assessment to date?

Sadly ... no, not really.  You've framed your assessment of what I've communicated to you so far (for which, thank you!) in two ways that are importantly different from what I meant to convey:  First, you're not talking about the things that keep the conflict going and increase it, but are talking about what began it.  I think I've been fairly explicit that I'm not talking about what began it (and, in fact, don't think it "began" in the kind of way you're talking about) but am talking about what keeps it going and increases it.

And second, I haven't been talking about just stuff that the Forge/SG folks do.  Ah, what the heck, maybe this'll be clearer after my answer to your next question.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat would you say non-Forge/non-Story-Game folks did to begin (not continue, but begin) the conflict?

I think that non-Forge/non-SG folks did the following things to contribute to the growth and perpetuation of the ongoing conflict:

• Said nasty things.
• Said positive things that are misunderstood/misinterpreted.
• Said things that are lost in translation

... and, in addition, I'll lay the following contribution to the credit of everyone involved ...

• Given a borderline statement that can be either read charitably ("Oh, that's a reasonable sentiment poorly worded") or uncharitably ("That scumbag!"), people in every part of our internet community have often chosen to read uncharitably, to their own detriment.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know.  I have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to experienced hands.  I also have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to folks who have never gamed before.  I look at the success of simple games like (to pick one of my favorites) Jungle Speed at spreading like wildfire, and I think "Ooh, I want in on that!"

Do you think that popularity of Jungle Speed amongst the forgies is a tacit admission that forgie games aren't actually that much fun? I mean, I go to GenCon and I have a packed schedule, and I literally don't want to waste my time with stuff like that. In any case, my gaming group is large and local, so I can afford to save that for some boring time later.

Quote from: tonyIf it's concluded that it's true then I think it'll drive a lot of people away from rules-light.  There's a lot of interest in helping new and prospective gamers to get into the hobby and get enthusiastic, and I'm pretty sure that priority will trump other benefits of light rules in the minds of many designers.

Now that, of course, is hearsay ... I don't speak for anyone but myself.  I can speak with authority for myself though:  If I become convinced that rules-heavy inherently draws beginning players better then I'm gonna start designing rules-heavy games.

So do you agree that the goal of players actually independently picking up a given game is more important than following a predetermined set of groupthink-determined aesthetics advocated by any particular design community? The proof is in the pudding, isn't it? If people really like something, than that's the real design goal, isn't it? Can anything else really count as a success?

Hypothetical. (I asked this to Luke, and he refused to answer). If a non-gaming person is cajoled, fooled, or otherwise convinced to "try out" any given game, and they try out ONCE and NEVER AGAIN. Does that person become a new gamer? Does that game count as having "reached the non-gamers?"

When the forgies discuss us, which they often do, and they obviously encourage you to hang around on keep tabs on us.. are they really inviting us to make account at their locations? Do you think we would be treated better or worse than you?

Given that we can't even make accounts in most of these places, how do you think we should treat you?

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo you think that popularity of Jungle Speed amongst the forgies is a tacit admission that forgie games aren't actually that much fun?

No.  I think it's an explicit admission that Jungle Speed is very fun and very addictive ... and a demonstration that people can enjoy more than one type of fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo do you agree that the goal of players actually independently picking up a given game is more important than following a predetermined set of groupthink-determined aesthetics advocated by any particular design community?

Uh ... objectively more important?  I don't even know how such a question would be judged.  It's more important to me to encourage people to game than it is to advocate a specific type of aesthetics.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf people really like something, than that's the real design goal, isn't it?

Broad appeal is a very worthy design goal, and one that I personally value highly.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCan anything else really count as a success?

Yes, other goals are also valid, and a game can be successful in other ways without being broadly picked up.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHypothetical. (I asked this to Luke, and he refused to answer). If a non-gaming person is cajoled, fooled, or otherwise convinced to "try out" any given game, and they try out ONCE and NEVER AGAIN. Does that person become a new gamer? Does that game count as having "reached the non-gamers?"

Wow ... identity politics is wierd.  Do they become "a gamer"?  I don't know.  They're not gaming right now, and apparently won't game ever again.  I suppose I'd say that no, they haven't made "gamer" a part of their identity.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhen the forgies discuss us, which they often do, and they obviously encourage you to hang around on keep tabs on us.. are they really inviting us to make account at their locations?

Bolded to show the assumption.  Can you ask a similar question that doesn't depend upon the assumption?

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo you think we would be treated better or worse than you?

Nobody is treated as well as me.  I'm a rock-star :D   But I suspect that you'd be treated exactly as well as any other new member of the community.  Why not try it, and see?

Quote from: Abyssal MawGiven that we can't even make accounts in most of these places, how do you think we should treat you?

Bolded to show the assumption ... but it doesn't strike me as relevant.  I think you should treat me like you'd treat any other forum poster.

Quote from: TonyLBHere, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

The GNS essay wasn't hearsay.
Brain Damage wasn't hearsay.
You guys trying your damnedest to spin it that way will NEVER make it so. And for as long as you keep defending your dear leader I will keep using what he's ACTUALLY WRITTEN to grind you all into the dirt, over and over again.

Our issues with you people aren't based on "misunderstanding", they're based on actually READING what you have written and understanding it all too well: That is, on having read not what you say to us on our fora, but what you say to yourselves when you think no one else is going to be listening in.  

The Storygames thread is only the latest example of this.

QuoteNo.  In fact, I'll go beyond just saying "No" to that.  Not only can't we establish the source, I don't think there is a single objective source, because I don't think that this conflict suddenly emerged one day, like a newly mutated disease without any antecedents, in a single point on the globe from which it started to spread.

The GNS essay is the single objective source, fuckwit.  Ron Edwards. He started it. It started when all of YOU decided to support a deranged twisted bitter asswipe and make him your Dear Leader, and let his philosophy of elitism and utter disdain for Regular Roleplaying and declarations that Regular Roleplayers are all secretly miserable and brain damaged and need to be pitied and guided into playing the "right" kind of games that are "coherent" and tell "real story" become the foundation stone of your philosophical temple.

QuoteI understand that, by discarding all the ways that different factors converge to influence events, and by choosing an arbitrary point to say "This is when it begins, everything before here is declared Not Relevant," you can choose a subset of history that has a narrative flow like that ... but that's not history, it's a narrative lens that you use in order to see history distorted.

No, here its pretty clear. There's no more moral ambiguity in this than in saying that WWII started when Germany invaded Poland, you cunt.

And me? I'm Patton, and this place is my tank.

QuoteNow let me make one thing clear:  I'm not trying to excuse anyone here.

Yes, you clearly are.

QuoteI'm not saying "Oh, the Forge folks aren't to blame, they're just in the grasp of history."

Yes, you clearly are.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that if you want to lay blame there's plenty to go around for everyone.  

No, there isn't. You have attacked us. We are taking back what is ours.

QuoteTrying to shift the responsibility for any one person's actions off on another by saying "Well, he started it!" is fundamentally an act of story-telling.

No, its something called fact, the most powerful rhetorical tool on earth, bucky.

QuoteIt's not logic, it's an appeal to our desire to be entertained by a simple yarn with a beginning, middle and end.  

No, its an appeal to our desire for TRUTH; something I understand your side might find very difficult to comprehend, what with truth never having been very fashionable (Truth having a known anti-Swine bias and all).

QuoteAt the end of the day, no matter what stories you tell about it, you did what you did, and you're responsible for it.

Quite right, just as you are responsible for the consequences of your choosing to continue to hold up Ron Edwards as your patron saint, and I will be responsible of wiping clean my rhetorical knife of your entrails.

QuoteAnd, frankly, from a practical point of view ... I'm with Pseudo on this.  I consider time spent arguing about who started what wasted time.

Of course you do, because your side started it. And you know acknowleding this will be a massive blow to the validity of anything you have to say about the War.

QuoteIt's an unending argument, pretty much by definition.  The frustration it produces in the people who fight that fight is almost palpable.  I don't intend to shoulder the burden of caring about that.  I've seen what that kind of grudge does to the people who carry it.  I'd rather spend my time and energy figuring out what I'm going to do next.

I'm sure Slobodan Milosevic would have "just wanted to move on with his life" too. He doesn't have that luxury, and you don't either.

RPGPundit

Waittaminnit! I thought AM said it was a Forgey rhetorical trick to make political analogies.

Quote from: droogWaittaminnit! I thought AM said it was a Forgey rhetorical trick to make political analogies.

This is commentary: (well, I do still believe that, and I believe we should still avoid doing that).

Tony,

Do you believe that most traditional gaming runs successfully, counter to the theories expressed in GNS and/or The Big Model?

If not, which specific aspects of those theories successfuly described most sucessful traditional gaming?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe that most traditional gaming runs successfully, counter to the theories expressed in GNS and/or The Big Model?

Yes, I do.

I don't have personal evidence to constitute any proof about "most" ... but, with no more proof than my optimism and the admittedly biased sample of what I hear on the internet, I believe that most of it runs successfuly.

I do have personal experience to say for sure that a lot of traditional gaming runs successfully ... which is a weaker statement, but one that I think still runs counter to any notion that traditional gaming is inherently broken.

Tony,

Do you think anyone outside this forum, and by extension the SG forum as an involved part, cares about the war?

Quote from: K BergTony,

Do you think anyone outside this forum, and by extension the SG forum as an involved part, cares about the war?

And if the answer to this is 'no', can you explain just why it is they have been fighting so hard, even before this place existed?

Quote from: K BergDo you think anyone outside this forum, and by extension the SG forum as an involved part, cares about the war?

I don't think that very many people outside of this forum even know of the war in the way that it's understood here.  The phrase "swine" hasn't really ... y'know ... spread.  Only place I've seen it used outside of here is for jokes on SG.

I do think there are a few people who believe that there is an ongoing struggle, that people involved in it need to pick sides, and that doing damage to the "other side" is a valid way to try to benefit your own side.

A very, very few.  But you asked if anyone outside this forum cares, and I expect there are some folks who have come to the same idea, either by imitation or by inventing the notion independently.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd if the answer to this is 'no', can you explain just why it is they have been fighting so hard, even before this place existed?

Since my answer was far more "no" than "yes," I feel I should field this one as well.  There are many reasons why people put down other styles of gaming ... I'll highlight the one that I've been paying most attention to recently, though other folks might give you a different perspective (hey, you can ask Luke and Clash ... their Q&As are still active).

As a community, we're none of us terribly good at saying "Well, I don't really understand why people play Tuna Salad Adventures, but I unconditionally agree that it must be cool, because they can be seen to be having fun with it."  Both fans and skeptics want to analyze a game not on the basis of "Does it provide subjective value to the people who like it?" but rather on the basis of "Does it provide objective, provable value even to the people who don't care for it?"

Which is ... y'know ... wacky.  But there you are.  It seems to be the way we roll, in discussions.

When you're a fan, and you feel that people aren't recognizing the objective value of your game, a very obvious tactic is to argue that the game provides something that no other game provides.  I mean, that's a real good sign of its objective value, right?

Likewise, when you're a skeptic, and you feel that people are overblowing the value of a game, a very obvious tactic is to argue that the game cannot provide something that is objectively important.

And, in fact, both boil down to the same thing:  You say "This other game does not and can not do the cool stuff that my favorite game does."  You're trying to be positive, but in searching for some objective ground to stand on you end up running all the way across the spectrum to pure negative statements.

The more enthusiastic the fan, the more discerning the skeptic, the more vulnerable they are to being tempted to this particular fuck-up.

The more they feel themselves under attack (as, for instance, by other enthusiastic fans saying "Your favorite game does not and can not do the cool stuff that my favorite game does") the more vulnerable they are to being tempted to this particular fuck-up.

Corralled by the very structure of internet discussion boards into a few small pockets of community, enthusiastic fans of all stripes are constantly exposed to both of the above elements.  I'm not at all surprised that many of them (from all portions of the ideological spectrum) succumb to temptation and bash other people's games.  It's stupid, but I understand that there are many factors promoting that particular brand of stupidity.

If you're talking about something else ... if you feel strongly that there's some organized front of people who are acting deliberately in order to attack you from malice, rather than simply pissing you off by accident, then I can't help you.  That's an assumption I don't share.