How does one distinguish between pseudo-intellectual wankery and the regular intellectual kind, anyway?

Quote from: This Guy;534701How does one distinguish between pseudo-intellectual wankery and the regular intellectual kind, anyway?

By the font used, mostly.

Quote from: misterguignol;534703By the font used, mostly.

Ah, okay then.  As long as neither use Papyrus or Comic Sans.

Anyway, this looks harmless enough.  I shall acquire a copy and scan it for secret codes telling me that games are really about addressing a premise or something.

Quote from: This Guy;534704Ah, okay then.  As long as neither use Papyrus or Comic Sans.

Anyway, this looks harmless enough.  I shall acquire a copy and scan it for secret codes telling me that games are really about addressing a premise or something.

There really ought to be a pamphlet on "Watchwords and Tell-Tale Signs of the Story-Gamer and Swine."  Hell, we could probably put one together just by cutting and pasting from various threads here.

Stay Vigilant.

Quote from: misterguignol;534705There really ought to be a pamphlet on "Watchwords and Tell-Tale Signs of the Story-Gamer and Swine."  Hell, we could probably put one together just by cutting and pasting from various threads here.

Stay Vigilant.

Well, I am one.  Unabashedly so.  Don't worry, I'll know the code when I see it.

Quote from: This Guy;534708Well, I am one.  Unabashedly so.  Don't worry, I'll know the code when I see it.

I'm only funnin'.

Quote from: misterguignol;534709I'm only funnin'.

I know!  Besides, you're right, you probably could compile a list of standard defenses of the mindset from around here.

Quote from: Benoist;534696More manuals and guides helping people become great GMs and players, please. Less pointless wankery.

I'm trying to imagine how if only Open Court Publishing hadn't released this D&D-themed book in the Popular Culture and Philosophy series, that there would instead be an amazing guide to being a great GM and player.  

On reflection, though, I don't think that the philosophy professors who edited this were really choosing between publishing this or publishing their play advice book.  That's just my guess, though.

Quote from: jhkim;534735On reflection, though, I don't think that the philosophy professors who edited this were really choosing between publishing this or publishing their play advice book.  That's just my guess, though.

Are you telling me these people are not gamers in the first place? Because if they are actual gamers, they always have that choice before them: to participate to the hobby by helping other gamers get the most out of their games, or just add to the confusion by trying to use role playing games for yet another thing they were not designed to do.

Quote from: Benoist;534738Are you telling me these people are not gamers in the first place? Because if they are actual gamers, they always have that choice before them: to participate to the hobby by helping other gamers get the most out of their games, or just add to the confusion by trying to use role playing games for yet another thing they were not designed to do.

Isn't that a false dilemma fallacy?  

I'd like to think that there is an excluded middle between "write wank and not support the hobby" and "write a book on how to be a great player and support the hobby."

I'd rather people write the books they want to write instead of feeling obligated to write in terms of how some folks narrowly define what writing about role-playing games should be.

Quote from: misterguignol;534740Isn't that a false dilemma fallacy?  

It isn't when you understand I'm talking about each particular choice separately, and use of the resources devoted to that particular choice thereof. At each particular instance, you write either this, or that. You spend this hour writing this post, or drawing maps of your dungeon. Writing about wank, or actually helping GMs getting better.

You could also realize that once a work reaches publication, that's it: it's impacted the hobby in some way, positive or negative, constructive or confusing. Writing another piece of work will not erase or invalidate the impact of your previous work. It'll just add to the overall sum of all the works related to the hobby in some other way.

In other words, it's not because Ron Edwards would suddenly sing the praise of traditional RPGs and write his own immensely fun and popular traditional RPG that it would change the fact the Forge theories have poisoned RPG game design at the well for the last few years.

Quote from: Benoist;534743It isn't when you understand I'm talking about each particular choice separately, and use of the resources devoted to that particular choice thereof. At each particular instance, you write either this, or that. You spend this hour writing this post, or drawing maps of your dungeon. Writing about wank, or actually helping GMs getting better.

It's a false dichotomy because the philosophy thing isn't going to be universally regarded as wank.  I'm not interested in it myself, but I'm capable of imagining that the folks involved might actually see it as a contribution to the hobby.  

It's also not self-evident that the folks involved would write a handbook for GMs/players if they didn't write this.  There are a lot of other options on the table; it isn't "you're either for us or against us."

Way to miss the point.

Quote from: Benoist;534746Way to miss the point.

It's cute when you do a drive-by contentless post when you're backed into a corner.

To wit, is this your point?  I would hope so, since you wrote it:

QuoteIt isn't when you understand I'm talking about each particular choice separately, and use of the resources devoted to that particular choice thereof. At each particular instance, you write either this, or that. You spend this hour writing this post, or drawing maps of your dungeon. Writing about wank, or actually helping GMs getting better.

Here's why this dichotomy doesn't work: there are other options besides "writing about wank" or "actually helping GMs getting better."  Two reasons why this is the case: 1) what constitutes "wank" is not a universally-accepted objective truth.  2) because a given writer decides not to write "wank" does not mean they will instead write what you prefer in its place.

Quote from: RPGPundit;534691Seriously, dude, pseudo-intellectual wankery. RPGs are games.  Games are extremely important to our proper functioning, to our sense of wellbeing, they can even teach children some very basic skills.

But RPGs as instruction on ethics or metaphysics? Utter intellectualoid bullshit.  This product stinks of storygamers and forge pseudo-intellectuals, little dipshits who want to imagine they're great thinkers thinking great thoughts while they play RPGs because they'd otherwise feel ashamed about pretending to be an elf.

Fuck them.
They're intellectual and moral cowards. What can they possibly teach anyone about actual thinking? Clearly, they didn't play enough D&D to learn a thing or two about courage, or they'd have understood that you don't need to pretend you're fucking Sartre just to make up for embarrassment at playing a game (or for that matter that Sartre and his ilk were all a bunch of cunts in the first place).

Wow. Why so angry? :pundit:

These guys are philosophers who also happen to be fans of D&D.  So they thought that it might be fun for them to write some essays that combine two activities that they really enjoy.  And they hope that a few other folks out there might enjoy reading those essays.  

This is no different than all the other books in these series (Philosophy and Seinfeld, Philosophy and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Philosophy and the Lord of the Rings, etc.).

You're not interested.  That's cool.  But you're just being a complete idiot by taking it so personally, and attributing to the contributors to this volume anything like a commitment to "storygames", or a sense of "shame" at being fans of D&D.  And I have no idea why you think contributing to a volume like this makes one an "intellectual and moral coward".  That's just insane.  :rolleyes: