Quote from: Abyssal MawToo often these 'choice' moments are phrased in terms of "ha, now I shall give the players a Hard Choice. Will they pick X or Y?". The real magic is when the player pulls out some other option Z nobody else considered.

This is too true, and answers perfectly the question "Well, if you don't want 'deep' and 'meaningful,' why don't you just play a boardgame or MMO?"

Quote from: JimBobOzSo what you're saying, Abyssal Maw, is that the GM should provide the players with a full range of options and choices for their characters?

The thing that depressed me when I played Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer or even just read My Life With Master was that they were all about exploring the human condition, sure - but exploring the dark depths. It was all about how much of a cunt, how miserable and wretched your character could be.

Whereas I'd like at least the option of playing a decent person, of their rising up to the heights.

Its little surprise to anyone that the Swine, in their pretentious elitism, have contempt for the qualities of the human spirit; ultimately a reflection of their own self-loathing, but openly expressed as a degenerate obsession with all that is low and vile about human failings.

Its the same with post-modernists in general, and (curiously) most academic marxists.  They all express a remarkable level of contempt and cynicism about humanity, which is of course a reflection of their own bitterness from failure as human beings.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzBut at least Levi gets it. People matter.

*Shrug*

I clarify GNS stuff for people, too, on occasion.

Cheetoism, for all the goofiness of the term, is a lot easier to play "remote defender" for, though - it's more straight-up sensible.

What bugs me about this is that it's a discussion about JimBob's theory in a place where his input is censored.

Quote from: RedFoxWhat bugs me about this is that it's a discussion about JimBob's theory in a place where his input is censored.

Tough shit.

Quote from: droogTough shit.

I wuv you, too.

Quote from: Erik Boielle*right on stuff*

I submit that somebody who plays Dogs in the Vineyard and finds his fellow players to be cunts might be seeing what they're really like.

Quote from: RedFoxWhat bugs me about this is that it's a discussion about JimBob's theory in a place where his input is censored.

Doesn't matter. The web's a big place. Anyone who is genuinely curious about the topic, whether loving the ideas or hating them, whether they want to praise me, correct me, or abuse me, has the rest of the web to do so with my response. I would say that anyone who posts in a place where I can't respond doesn't want my response, so they wouldn't listen even if I could give it.

Quote from: droogI submit that somebody who plays Dogs in the Vineyard and finds his fellow players to be cunts might be seeing what they're really like.

My fellow players were lovely. They felt that the game obliged them to play characters who were cunts, though, and they didn't like that. Which you would realise if you'd read my posts, instead of just going, "oh, that prick jimboboz, I'll skim over his post and abuse him for it."

Quote from: RedFoxWhat bugs me about this is that it's a discussion about JimBob's theory in a place where his input is censored.

Jim Bob's Cheetoism is a sort of reaction to the self-important pseudo-academia disgorged by rpg.netters as they try to establish themselves as philosopher kings of the RPG Nation, right?

So, they ban him, and then go on blathering in the same way, but without the annoyance of having someone call them on their up-puffery.  They thought kicking him out would be enough, but it wasn't.  Now they have to straw-man his argument to salve their delicate, bruised sensibilities.  So they're having a phantom argument with a guy they had escorted from the building to defend a bunch of silly conceit that is utterly marginal to almost everyone on the planet.

This is the internet at its finest, and Jim Bob has clearly scored a direct hit on an exposed nerve.

That's not annoying, Fox--it's beautiful.

That's not why I was banned from rpg.net, Divine Hammer. There's a thread here on that, The Big Purple Does Not Love Me Anymore, if you wish to discuss my banning, please do it there, and don't present me as a "You can't handle the truth! You banned me because you can't handle the truth!" sort of guy.

The people there have been given the links. Those who wish to hear my response can do so, and more importantly they can look at wiki. Cheetoism may have begun as a pure joke, but good jokes have a bit of truth in them. The truth of this one was that people matter, and this has been forgotten by much rpg theory and discussion online. "Well, if you think these things haven't been discussed enough, go do it!" And so I have; see the wiki.

A good rpg theory would have a useful place helping game groups to "perform". But many never reach that stage, and I'm not sure I could advise well on that. But I do know how to get a game group, and keep it. There's a lot I don't know, but thanks to the internet I can talk to lots of people who can tell me.

Getting a game group and keeping it - these are the things gamers often struggle with. Most game books, and all rpg theory, doesn't discuss that stuff. By talking to lots of gamers and asking them their experiences, good and bad, I'm trying to fix that up.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not why I was banned from rpg.net, Divine Hammer. There's a thread here on that, The Big Purple Does Not Love Me Anymore, if you wish to discuss my banning, please do it there, and don't present me as a "You can't handle the truth! You banned me because you can't handle the truth!" sort of guy.

I wasn't painting you in that fashion at all, at least not deliberately.  My impression from the ban threads was that folks just kind of didn't like your tone (or that you just didn't fit in).  I think the Cheetoism attitude is part of that tone.

In any event, some who took umbrage at your statements and your tone still feel the need to argue with you in absentia.  Something you said clearly rang a bell.

I think it did touch a nerve, yes. As I said in jhkim's thread dissing me, rpg theory - and game book advice, for that matter - basically doesn't talk about this simple stuff, how we get people to the game table, and what happens there, with Anna talking to Bob in a friendly happy way, and Charlie and Dave bitching about Erika behind her back, then returning to the group and jabbing at her within the game, and so on.

It's like, the rpg theory guys have been busy polishing the car for years, and I came along and said, "hey, do you even know if it goes? What if there's no fuel in the tank?" They find that distressing. Because for ages people have been saying they were using the wrong polish, and they were arguing they had, and I've said, "well, the polish being good or bad doesn't matter much if it won't go."

"Of course it goes! Everyone knows that!" They exchange a nervous look. "Everyone's car's going, yeah? Everyone's tried to see if it'll run?"

That's the nerve I've touched, as I read it.

One guy's posts pissed me off in that rpg.net thread, this bloke saying that "oh, anti-theory guys just hate long blocks of text, and now this anti-theory is a long block of text, haha, funny." No - I just hate long blocks of text that are wrong and irrelevant. If they're right and relevant, great! I mean, that's why I can read twenty pages of Robin Laws' Laws of Good Gamemastering, but can't read one page of the Timecube guy.

Quote from: JimBobOzMy fellow players were lovely. They felt that the game obliged them to play characters who were cunts, though, and they didn't like that.

Well, okay, but its worth knowing that the game DOESN'T force you to play cunts. These ARN'T nineteenth century mormons, they just look a bit like them. As such the world can function more like fantasy generica, where it may look a bit like 12th century sherwood forest but really everyone has 2006/7 haircuts and the plots are all strangely relevant to current events. Is Robin Hood a freedom fighter or a terrorist etc.

It is easy to say that if your guys keep turning it in to a blood spattered heretic burning fest thats their own fault, but I've had the luxury of sitting down and thinking about it.

Maybe the GM could play up some fairytale elements - say, all the settlers have elf ears, or they ride giant rabbits instead of horses.













And if the bastards still keep executing flopsy bunny for the vicious crime of making lemon cakes when she knows more people like rasberry tarts, then it really is their fault.

:-)

Quote from: JimBobOzMy fellow players were lovely. They felt that the game obliged them to play characters who were cunts, though, and they didn't like that.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what they said. Maybe they were just too appalled at themseves to admit what lies in their souls. I can relate.

I suppose another possibility is that you somehow forced them to act like cunts.

Quote from: droogYeah, I'm sure that's what they said. Maybe they were just too appalled at themseves to admit what lies in their souls. I can relate.

I suppose another possibility is that you somehow forced them to act like cunts.

Wow.  You really are a puddle of human slime, aren't you droog?  

Can't handle someone taking umbrage to your little pet pretense?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  The basic concepts and morality presented in DitV are some of the most disgusting and repugnant in the history of gaming.  I place it about in the same category that I place games like FATAL and RaHoWa.

The fact that you get off on playing games where you fantasize about lynching someone for disapproving of their sex life says far more about you than it does JimBob's group.