Quote from: StormBringer;350718Incorrect.  In this case, the 'audience' is pretty much anyone that would get wind of it, hence the authour's desire to keep the communications secretive.

No, I'm sorry, anyone who goes looking for this stuff gets what they deserve. The fact that people can merely find out about things that bother them does not entitle them to be offended, unless you can describe an "offense." People doing things i don't like is just that. Private LARPing sessions are not a spectator event. Merely because some Jehovah's Witness finds Werewolf LARPs to be degenerate and offensive does not mean it is.

Even from the most exacting standard of viewing pornography or dominance-tainted sexual expressions as contributing to violence against women, this game just does not fit the bill. It's really more closely related to fiction written by people from a critical feminist perspective. Could it be used for coercive, un-artistic purposes? Sure, but football more often leads to rape and I don't see anyone banning that.

Private activity, not your cuppa, end of story. I could see how an advertising campaign for this game could be viewed as threatening, but the game itself?

Quote from: kythri;351745Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

As best I can figure, he's got some sort of weird grudge against, well, something, and apparently sees it wherever he goes regardless of whether it's actually there or not.

Quote from: Koltar;351618Quite right.


"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee that the speech will be listened to by an adoring audience, or even an audience. It also is not a shield against being mocked, ridiculed, dissected, or ignore.

The non-game"game" everyone is talking about is getting disparaged and mocked - as it should be for the piece of excrement idea that it is.
Thats also a part of "Freedom of Speech!!"


- Ed C.

Koltar, I salute you. If everyone grokked it like you did, the world would be a better place!

Quote from: Reckall;351736[Forgers] have an unique way to mistake their own experiences (which I respect) for those of the whole wide world (which is delusional). Almost everything in the way they act can be explained by this simple observation.

This is why they're called "forgers". They lie about or mistake their experiences and those of others.

I wrote a Socratic dialogue with Uncle Ronny here. It's worth noting that the essays I linked to are no longer available on indie-rpgs.com. I've not kept track of Forger internal politics so I'm not sure what the story is there. However, virtually all words of Edwards in that piece are actually quoted from him. I think the only ones I made up are "fuck you" at the end.

QuoteI fully agree with this principle. But, at least in my experience, it doesn't apply to all the games that came out from "The Forge". [...] "Primetime Adventures". [...] "Don't Rest Your Head"/"Don't Lose Your Mind"

It's worth remembering that there are two classes of "Forge" games. There are those which were created there entirely, and those where the authour had an idea, developed it a lot, then passed it through the Forge in draft form and for moral support. The latter games are more widely-played and generally less depressing than the former.

Sorcerer or My Life With Master are examples of entirely-Forge created games, Burning Wheel or HeroQuest are examples of Forge-fiddled games. I would argue that apart from the moral support, these games lost more than they gained by being fiddled with by the Forgers. Luke Crane with his BW, for example, would have benefited from someone who'd cut out a lot of the game design chatter and needless duplication in his text, instead he got the Forgers who made it more rambling and elaborate.

QuoteI still like more to judge a product by what it is, and not from the background it sprang from. Mostly because I don't know at all the background of the things I like.

I do, too. I'm not one of those fuckwits who'll refuse to buy a game, book or movie because that guy was part of it. If Adolf Hitler wrote an episode of Darling Buds of May it would still be a nice and fun telly show.

However, what I've found is that the more Forgers are involved in the creation of an rpg, the more narrowly-focused, pretentious and depressing it is.

There are certain authours whose work we can be fairly sure we'll like, and certain we'll be fairly sure we'll dislike. Written by so-and-so, worth checking out, written by this other person, not worth opening the cover. Preudice? Absolutely - but necessary.

There exist over 2,000 rpgs published in print in the English language. Even if we gamed as a full-time job 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year, at just one day a game we'd take ten years to play them all. And then someone would say, "yeah but you only played it for 8 hours, so you don't really understand it." So by necessity we must prejudge most rpgs. We must be prejudiced.

QuoteWhich, I'm sorry, but begs even more the question "Why, then, a link to THE WHOLE BOOK was posted here?"

Don't ask me, I didn't post the link, nor would I have. I believe the proper treatment for vile stuff is obscurity. Were I running a tv station or newspaper, I would give only plain text and boring descriptions of serial killings and the like. Publicity encourages the deviant.

QuoteNow, this is news to me! Do you have a link?

Somewhere in Pundit's blog. God knows how he found out. Here.

Quote from: kythri;351745Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

Probably because there isn't one.

Hm. No. Probably there are a couple. When I discuss with a Forgite, the archetipal debate goes like this:

ME: Play what you want and let me do the same.

FORGITE: You want to impose your way to do things to the world!!

ME: Dude, did you READ what I wrote?

As it happens, when people "explain" to me that FoS doesn't shields someone from criticism when I wrote the same thing two posts before I wonder the same thing.

The reasons why I bought the matter up of FoS was not related to this forum. Maybe the first time I wasn't clear about this, so I furter clarified the point later. I felt important to mention the issue after reading some posts that criticized "Gang Rape" by lumping it up with illegal acts. It isn't. In turn, posting the book here without permission was.

[Not to mention clueless: one labels something as "dangerous" and then makes sure that the thing has the best possible diffusion and free publicity :rolleyes:]

I'm sorry if OTH is offended because I'm not available to answer to him 24/7. But my par for losing sleep is still either the girlfriend having surgery or an earthquake. Beside, I wonder why he choose to plonk me, seeing that he already didn't bothered to read what I wrote.

So, here are your windmills: I have no problems with criticism about something I wrote - I simply expect from the other guy that he read it. And I don't find smart starting an "holy crusade" that only ends up with giving to the "crusaded" more visibility and ammo. As always, others' mileage may vary

You do realize there are no Forgites here, right?

The closest thing we have is David R and even he doesn't know what the fuck you're smoking.

Quote from: pawsplay;351774No, I'm sorry, anyone who goes looking for this stuff gets what they deserve. The fact that people can merely find out about things that bother them does not entitle them to be offended, unless you can describe an "offense." People doing things i don't like is just that. Private LARPing sessions are not a spectator event. Merely because some Jehovah's Witness finds Werewolf LARPs to be degenerate and offensive does not mean it is.

Werewolf LARPs are not specifically designed to simulate gang rape.

Quote from: Reckall;351800Probably because there isn't one.

Hm. No. Probably there are a couple. When I discuss with a Forgite, the archetipal debate goes like this:

Get a fucking blog.

Quote from: StormBringer;351816Get a fucking blog.

He certainly doesn't actually seem to be conversing with anyone here, so may as well.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351797I wrote a Socratic dialogue with Uncle Ronny here.

He! That was funny

More than that, I see that, even when broken down piece by piece, it is still amazingly difficult to understand what Edwards wants to say in the first place. Maybe those "understanding" him simply share his basic experiences. If this is the case, I'm happy I don't.

By re-reading what he wrote, however, I'm even more amazed at the number of wrong basic assumptions you can find in his "teachings". For example, IMHO the "extreme GM experience" is when someone writes a novel or a script, something where you apparently have control over everything. Try to do it and you will see how you are lucky if you actually control half of the stuff. Characters will tell you how, given the situation, they logically behave. Events will tell you how they logically evolve... For every thing you want to put in your story there will be a consequence out of your control that you must face. And this when you are the GM and the characters at the same time, and where you can ever go back in the manuscript and change events if you don't like their outcome. Imagine when other active minds are involved...

If Edwards fails to grasp something so fundamental in the craft of storytelling, it's no wonder that he is so fixated against "the omnipotence of the GM!!", and that he then develops ways to prevent something that doesn't exists in the first place.

[Which is, BTW, why I instead find being a GM so relaxing: you come up with the basic premise of a story and a bunch of villains/locations/stuff, and then you throw the players in the water with the sharks and watch the show... ]

QuoteIt's worth noting that the essays I linked to are no longer available on indie-rpgs.com. I've not kept track of Forger internal politics so I'm not sure what the story is there. However, virtually all words of Edwards in that piece are actually quoted from him. I think the only ones I made up are "fuck you" at the end.

I looked for "A Hard Look to Dungeons & Dragons" (still his pinnacle, IMHO) and I wasn't able to find it. Something strange in the era of internet. However, that no one bothered to copy the essay when it was available and to post it elsewhere may be telling.

QuoteSorcerer or My Life With Master are examples of entirely-Forge created games, Burning Wheel or HeroQuest are examples of Forge-fiddled games. I would argue that apart from the moral support, these games lost more than they gained by being fiddled with by the Forgers.

Talking about My Life With Master there is a reason why I'm considering to buy it. If I understood correctly, the game uses a basic structure: A Master (the GM) the Minions (the players) and the Townfolks (the victims). This structure can then be adapted to a variety of settings: for example, the dynamics within a modern megacorporation.

Now, I would find extremely interesting to play a game at MLWM where the Master is Edwards, the Minions are his Evangelizers, and the Victims are all the other innocent role-players. Just to see, you know, what happens when you short.circuit the thing.

Actually, by reading on Wikipedia descriptions like:

"Self-loathing is a measure of the power that a minion has to intimidate the Townsfolk, while Weariness limits their abilities to complete their tasks. Love allows minions to resist their Master and his demands on them."


I wonder if the game wasn't conceived from the beginning as an inside joke.

QuoteSomewhere in Pundit's blog. God knows how he found out. Here.

Well, reading the list of "academic papers" Edwards wrote make still more amazing his incapacity (or unwillingness) to explain concepts and ideas in a simple form. But maybe it is just me.

At last FATAL has a rival forge game...

Is this the GNS version of FATAL?

Quote from: J Arcane;351803You do realize there are no Forgites here, right?

You're funny. What's the next hoax? Nobody here reads threads on storygames and nobody there reads therpgsite? You are all hilarious, on both sides of the fence

Quote from: boulet;351832You're funny. What's the next hoax? Nobody here reads threads on storygames and nobody there reads therpgsite? You are all hilarious, on both sides of the fence

I just meant in the sense that he seems to see the Forge everywhere, but short of a few sympathizers who rear up and throw fits occasionally, or pop up to shill hard now and then, there really aren't a lot of Forge folks at all here, and pretty much none of them are in this thread at this point.

So his wandering in and swinging blindly, and constantly rambling on about his personal little vendetta from some forum somewhere, makes him look on the whole to be less coherent than Pundit, and half as entertaining.

Quote from: J Arcane;351861So his wandering in and swinging blindly, and constantly rambling on about his personal little vendetta from some forum somewhere, makes him look on the whole to be less coherent than Pundit, and half as entertaining.

I would say 'half' is being a bit generous.

Quote from: Reckall;351829Well, reading the list of "academic papers" Edwards wrote make still more amazing his incapacity (or unwillingness) to explain concepts and ideas in a simple form. But maybe it is just me.

It's not unusual at all. Remember that those involved in the sciences do not need to do any kind of essay-writing in university, they only have to have the expression and comprehension skills given them by high school. And anyone who's done science at uni will tell you that the lecturers and their textbooks are not often clear, and certainly not concise.

Remember also that at PhD and post-doctorate level, you're not writing for the layman, you're writing for other specialists. Not many people know about or are interested in bat penises, so anyone reading his papers is going to know heaps already, Edwards will just be extending their knowledge slightly.

However, it is true that the muddled thought present in the GNS essays - the old words given new definitions which contradict themselves, the arbitrary and inconsistent categories - is inconsistent with good science. He's divisive, not incisive.