Mr. Analytical,

I've notice that Grimgent is very strongly a proponent of certain games and systems, and always seems to confuse the fact that the rest of us don't care about in game justifications of the designer's particular neurosis.   I strongly doubt you or I could break him of this interesting, if ultimately pointless, discussion technique.  Attempting to do so undoubtedly will be not unlike beating your head against a brick wall, as he will again and again bring up the in game reasons for you to ignore the out of game stuff you don't like about his favorite pets. Indeed, he may even bring in a Noblis defence to the WW debate as if some In Game Noblis tidbit is ultimately important to wether or not the writers of Mage are in fact forest dwelling masturbators of the highest order or not.

In short, allow him to dwell unmolested in his fantasy land and save yourself the aggrivation.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThere's a reason why WW picked scientists as the bad guys and it's THAT attitude that annoys me about the game, not the (largely irrelevant) in-game justification.

"Bad guys are scientists" doesn't equal "scientists are bad guys". As said, the problem with the Technocracy is their desire to destroy all other points of view until even the concepts of alternatives and possibilities are eradicated from the universe. That has nothing to do with science as we know it.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, it could be Exalted: "Do not believe what the scientists tell you. The natural history we know is a lie, a falsehood sold to us by wicked old men who would make the world a dull gray prison and protect us from the dangers inherent to freedom." Apparently there was a similar passage in the second edition, as well, although I haven't read the book myself.

Gahh.  It's on the back of the book, and it's completely stupid.  That quote does NOT reflect the game AT ALL.  There is, so far as I know, not even the shadow of a hint that Creation is the precursor to our world (or the World of Darkness) anywhere in all of the Exalted cannon.  Just that stupid quote on the back of the book.  First edition I could almost see, maybe wanting to bring in their existing fanbase or not freak them out, but the fact that it's still there in the second boggles the mind.

Heck, I wonder how many people have been misled by the book, and thought it had anything to do with an ancient hidden past.

But otherwise, yeah Blakkie nailed it.  This rant is about ten years too late.  That Mage sure did look foolish...back three editions ago.

Quote from: SpikeI've notice that Grimgent is very strongly a proponent of certain games and systems, and always seems to confuse the fact that the rest of us don't care about in game justifications of the designer's particular neurosis.

What, you are expecting some manner of a "UR favrit gam3 sux" comment in return? You'll be disappointed, no doubt, but that's not going to happen.

RPGPundit, the forum is humming along nicely. You don't have to dredge the bottom of the barrel to scrape up the tarry residue of a plausible OP for a thread. Just let it ride. Set aside this bullshit.

Conan was a legend, and if you don't like him, it's because you're a cowardly wuss who got picked last in the school teams.

The World of Darkness is a load of old bollocks, but it's okay with a decent GM and group. Middle-Earth, World of Greyhawk, etc, were also a load of old bollocks, but okay with a decent GM and group. Build a bridge and get over it.

Quote from: RPGPunditPretty well every White Wolf game bases itself on the concept that "western civilization is evil, science is oppresive, non-western cultures are all hunky-dory".

RPGPundit

That bugs  me, too.

So I don't play it.

I like Conan.  I like him because he's honest, and free; he doesn't lie to anyone, and he does what he wants.  Fantastic escapism, and sort of inspirational.  

Remember the passage about how a civlized man will lie to your face because he doesn't fear you chopping his head off, or some such?  An extreme example to be sure, but a good point.  

Me, I'm totally pro-civilization, pro-technology, pro-morals and pro-ethics.  I'm also pro-fishnets, -lace stockings, -robots, -flying cars, -Thompson Twins and -sushi.

Oh.  And The Human League.

Quote from: blakkieThat he is the prototypical jock? Still stinging from always getting picked last for dodgeball games?

Pulp is about the over-the-top hero who'll conquer the world. Be it by hulking brawn, gentlemanly brains, or such. Conan is just another hero prototype that represents an ideal to identify with fictionally, but everybody has their own favorite.  Me? I like the wilely scamp. The not-quite-gentleman thief. The rogue in the truest sense.

So what is yours? The witty, world-wise academic seems almost too obvious, but nothing else really comes to mind.

Eh, I like all kinds of brawny heroes, I just tend to prefer the ones who fight for civilization, rather than against them.  Batman, for example.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, I'm mostly talking about the original conan stories, and the idea they seem to promote that a "survival of the fittest" brute force is always superior to "weak" civilization.

Its one of the things I've always despised about Conan.

RPGPundit

The Conan stories are most decidedly not anti-civilization.

They're set in a world not-too-subtly based on the late Roman Empire, a society that was overrun by barbarians in OUR world too.

Conan is the wolf and the civilized folk are the sheep. The stories are told from Conan's point of view. He thinks his way is the right way.

I guess you could call that an anti-civilization fantasy, except that Conan doesn't burn Aquilonia to the ground, he takes it over.

Sorry I just don't see it.

Chuck

Quote from: GrimGent"Bad guys are scientists" doesn't equal "scientists are bad guys". As said, the problem with the Technocracy is their desire to destroy all other points of view until even the concepts of alternatives and possibilities are eradicated from the universe. That has nothing to do with science as we know it.

But it does seem to have something to do with the viewpoint Mr A. is talking about. That language of 'alternatives and possibilities' reminds me of the new age crew. Often there's a notion that science is a religion that admits no denial, that crushes poetry and spirituality.

If you read any postmodern philosophy of science then you can't help but recognise the dialectic that underlies Mage... the idea that the truth is not something out there in the world but something that we humans manufacture for ourselves.

Who primarily stands in the way of such thinking?  scientists who point out that the world very much DOES exist and that it can be discovered and that it takes quite a bit of maths and hard-work to do so.  You can't just smoke a joint, do some chanting and come up with "your own truth".

During the time when Mage was being written, the tide of that kind of thinking was sweeping up the beach of academia; out of the literature departments and into sociology, anthropology, international relations, philosophy and so on...

The other side of the coin is nicely highlighted by Smith's _Atheism_.  In that book he looks at the way theists argue for their beliefs and notes that whenever they get into real trouble (like science proving them wrong) they retreat into the sceptical void and start saying "well nobody REALLY knows, do they?".  Combine this with the identity politics you see at RPGnet and in the media whereby you can't criticise religious people for their beliefs and you have the basic power relationship of the philosophical world and WW's characterisation of it:  Science sweeps forward, bannishing mystery (ignorance) causing mystics and religious types to co-occupy the sceptical hinterland of "well nobody REALLY knows" and "well these are my beliefs and they're true for me".

It's no accident that the scientists are the bad guys.  The in game justification just underlines WW's hypocrisy.  Richard Dawkins once said that if you show me a relativist in a plane at 30,000 feet, I'll show you a hypocrite.  Similarly if you show me a company that uses desktop PCs to write games about how oppressive science is then I'll show you a bunch of hypocrites.

I prefer to be charitable and characterise them as doofuses.

They're not even that... they're just college graduates with a liberal arts background.  The game's a fairly decent representation of the postmodernism position but postmodernism sucks so...

Quote from: droogThat language of 'alternatives and possibilities' reminds me of the new age crew. Often there's a notion that science is a religion that admits no denial, that crushes poetry and spirituality.

A false notion that has no basis in reality, of course, since science is perfectly compatible with spirituality, the concepts of which tend to be non-falsifiable in any case.

Quote from: GrimGentA false notion that has no basis in reality, of course, since science is perfectly compatible with spirituality, the concepts of which tend to be non-falsifiable in any case.

We know that, comrade. The question is whether the WW writers know that....