How can someone be desperately mediocre and boring? :confused:

!i!

Paris Hilton?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow can someone be desperately mediocre and boring? :confused:

!i!

You tell me!

David,

There are good reasons for breaking up into different "artistic schools", so that you don't have to keep rehashing foundational ground. For an example of the latter, see: just about every thread that Blakkie posted to.

Within RPGs there are a lot of "truths" (basic assumptions about play) that are individually functional, but many of them are more or less mutually incompatible. So you might construct a complete "genre" from a group of compatible "truths", and then another "genre" from another group. People tend to think inductively and they use some subset of "genre markers" as both tools for differentiation and as indicators of the presence of a bunch of other "genre elements".

So basically what I'm saying is that "styles of gaming" exist which share many elements, but which are more or less incompatible. Also (a bit more speculatively) I believe that "styles of gaming" tend to cluster; the distribution across the space of "all styles, tastes, and attitudes about gaming" isn't uniform. Part of this is because people tend to work outwards from they know. Thus you have a vast number of variations (in terms of design & play) working from the premise of: fantasy races, adventuring for fame & experience, detailed combat & magic, escalating power level, players acting as characters taking on the world as represented by the GM. However it may also be due to "real" structural differences; I strongly suspect that there's a fundamental cognitive difference between "expressive" play that demands control over the fiction, and "experiential" play that involves exploring the fiction (even though it may alter the fiction at the same time).

But whatever the reason, focus is an aid to development, and focus means paying more attention to some things and less to other things, possibly none when those other things get in the way of what you're trying to focus on.

I see it as a bit of a cycle, actually. You have focus, a great deal of development ensues, and then you have cross-pollination, which also contributes to development. But without a bit of separation and focus it's a lot harder for new ideas to gain ground.

Quote from: SettembriniYou tell me!

I'm working on it.  The words "German", "roleplaying game", "intellectual", and "over-wrought" keep coming up in different order.

!i!

Elliot although I agree with most (some parts deserve a discussion of their own) of what you have written, I do think there's a difference between what you are saying and the garbage exclusionary position of Settembrini. Also I take it to mean "that styles of gaming" does not mean - rpg and not rpg, which is more or less what old Sett is claiming or rather has claimed before (he keeps changing his damn definitions)

Regards,
David R

So it remains: nobody can make an argument against it.
Sure some people say "vile" things about me.

But the subject at hand = I win.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHunh.  So we can now comfortably lump you into the same camp of over-analytical shitheads.  If that's what you want.

!i!

Well, that's exactly what he wants.

Sett is, even directly in terms of the tastes of German fandom, the exact equivalent of the Forge.  It just isn't obvious to us over here because the taste breakdowns of the German gaming public are like, the exact opposite of here.

He's a minority voice, steeped in bogus "theory" and attacks on mainstream German play.  

Hearing a Forgie confirm his lunacy isn't about proving him right, it's about him having accomplished his goal.

Quote from: SettembriniBut the subject at hand = I win.

Um...okay.

Hooray for you.

Do you perform encores for the dessert crowd?

!i!

Again, no argument whatsoever from you.

What's to argue?  You've unilaterally declared a victory in a fight that I didn't even realise was happening.  I'm simply applauding you for deriving personal satisfaction in finding one person who agrees with you on a RPG discussion site that you dislike.  How can I agrue with that?

!i!

Let's make it clear. To my way of thinking, Sett has only reproduced two of the original categories of GNS. He insists on the division between the two more strongly than Ron Edwards.

Poor old sim gets the shaft again.

Quote from: droogCan I just make the point that this is not 'Forge theory'? This is the off-the-cuff opinion of one guy.

Certainly, though to be fair, I've heard a similar take from Ron.

Droog, I don't think so. It's more like he's cordoned off hardcore Nar, leaving everything else as part of Adventure RPGing.

Quote from: SettembriniBut the subject at hand = I win.

There's an old rule of thumb I learned from the Army.

There are four basic types of enlisted soldiers, defined much like alignments in D&D, only the vectors are Smart/Stupid and Energetic/Lazy.

The Smart+Energetic are the specialists. They're the ones you send out in the field when you need to get the job done.

The Smart+Lazy are the officers. They're the ones who work with the bigger picture and try to attain victory with as little expense (and effort) as possible.

Even the Stupid+Lazy have a place in the armed forces. They're the grunts who make up the bulk of an army.

The Stupid+Energetic on the other hand, well, they're effectively working for the enemy.





Anyway, I just wanted to say it's nice to have you on OUR side :keke: