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

What you're calling hardcore Nar is what Ron used to call pervy Nar. Settembrini is just following in the wake of years of Forge discussions.

I know that. It's also not what you were saying.

"Pervy Nar" is a clear genre. What you were doing earlier was begging the question of the legitimacy of GNS.

And furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

So now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenI know that. It's also not what you were saying.

"Pervy Nar" is a clear genre. What you were doing earlier was begging the question of the legitimacy of GNS.

And furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

My God, are we going to start using the terms now? 'Pervy' was thrown out years ago. It's just a question of whether the game has many points of rules-contact. For instance, we used to play RQ in a simmy way, despite it offering only a certain amount of support for this. Pendragon is a pervy sim game by those old terms, having many more points-of-contact wired in. Does that mean it's fundamentally different? We can argue about it, but it sure isn't settled.

Now, whether GNS is 'legitimate' or not is a separate question. I'm simply pointing out that Sett has reproduced part of it. Actually, it's more like Jared's Beeg Horseshoe.

I don't give a fig for what other morons do (I note that these don't include the big demons like Ron or Vincent). Look around you right here to see people telling other people they're doing it wrong.

Quote from: David RSo now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Regards,
David R

I'm inclined to believe the latter, if only for the added element of hypocrisy.

Quote from: David RSo now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Oh fer Fukuyama's sake.

This is like the arguments we used to have on rec.games.board where a few Euro fanatics would deny that Euros and wargames were different types of games...and therefore they were to be judged by the same criteria...which meant that wargames were overly fiddly & boring.

Practically everyone sees (at least) two centers of gravity, one for "traditional" games and another for "Forge-y" games. It's only when somebody tries to express a preference that differs from someone else that the argument gets trotted out that there's really nothing to distinguish the two varieties except that one works better.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPractically everyone sees (at least) two centers of gravity, one for "traditional" games and another for "Forge-y" games. It's only when somebody tries to express a preference that differs from someone else that the argument gets trotted out that there's really nothing to distinguish the two varieties except that one works better.

Well you got a couple of problems here.

Firstly old Sett isn't really talking about "centers of gravity". At different times he's molded his definitons to fit games he does not approve of. Also in a sly underhanded manner he's pushing for the concept that certain games are rpgs and others not...further conflating the issues with the question of playstyles.

Secondly I have serious doubts about these "centers of gravity". IME actual play of both Forge and Trad games reveals more similarities then differences. Now, we can I suppose reduce this conflict to a "cultural" question, but I fail to see how Sett's jargon has any bearing on what goes on around gaming tables and how you constantly speak about centers of gravity which has  nothing to do with what Sett is saying.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWell you got a couple of problems here.

Firstly old Sett isn't really talking about "centers of gravity".

Some clarification from Sett here would be helpful, I agree. (Going back to the wargame/Euro arguments...there are games such as Cosmic Encounter and Illuminati which do a good job of pleasing both audiences.)

QuoteAt different times he's molded his definitons to fit games he does not approve of.

I'm sorry, it's possible that I've overlooked this, or else that it didn't strike me as a significant [edit: and therefore memorable] defect in the overall thrust of his argument.

QuoteAlso in a sly underhanded manner he's pushing for the concept that certain games are rpgs and others not...further conflating the issues with the question of playstyles.

I seem to recall him getting into a row with Pundit by insisting that both Thematic and Adventure are varieties of roleplaying games. I think this is mostly a semantic distraction, though Sett recently claimed on Pundit's blog that Adventure RPGs have more to do with Battlelore, CCG's, and comic books than they do with Thematics. I disagree.

QuoteSecondly I have serious doubts about these "centers of gravity".

It may reflect a very different range of experience between you and many other gamers. Regardless of preferences (even people who don't express a preference), I think most people see a distinction, basically revolving around formalizing a radical redistribution of the "traditional" player-character/GM-world breakdown of authority & responsibility.

Look, I'm not denying your experience, but even so I realize it's not a very strong argument to claim you're atypical without providing ample evidence. It's not a proof, but if you want to know my impressions & perspective, there they are.

For all that is good and holy:

- Elliot is right. If people would remember, my first comparison was between "ASL" and "Memoir ´44"

- The terms are neutral. I´m not. Why is this so hard to grasp? Are you stupid? There is no inherent bias in calling something a Thematic Game. because that´s what they are, that´s what they are called by Forgers themselves!

- Adventure Gaming is not GAM.GAM doesn´t exist, IMO. I am a through and through simulationist GM, in the english language understanding of simulation.

- Adventure Gaming is just my proposed (used to be industry standard) term for all games called "trad" by propagandists.

- It´s not about a specific playstyle

- If you wanna talk about playstyle, we can talk about my "pillars of  adventure roleplaying"

Even moreso: I don´t NEED anybody here to use my proposed words.
It´s not a fucking theory.

It´s just an observation, for crying out loud.

As my Memoir 44 and ASL example proved, there can be no ultimate judgement. It´s moronic to judge between the two games. To talk about them as if they were one category is an exercise in dumbness and muddled brainwork.

And this is the state of RPG discourse on the internet. With the Forgers being very, very guilty of having caused it.

BUT: We can talk about aesthetic choices. Like talking about HipHop and Rock n Roll = no real comparison can be made.

Quote from: droogMy God, are we going to start using the terms now?

Only because you brought them up. I'd prefer not to, thus the scare quotes.

QuoteNow, whether GNS is 'legitimate' or not is a separate question. I'm simply pointing out that Sett has reproduced part of it. Actually, it's more like Jared's Beeg Horseshoe.

It's different from both, and the claim that Sett's just recapitulating Ron or Jared serves what purpose, exactly?

QuoteI don't give a fig for what other morons do (I note that these don't include the big demons like Ron or Vincent). Look around you right here to see people telling other people they're doing it wrong.

Not sure about Ron; it has included Vincent, though that's based on old comments. Furthermore, Sett can correct me, but I don't think he's terribly focused on Ron here. Jesus wasn't a Christian! Ergo, we can't say anything about Christianity?

See, droog, it´s just like this:

People all around the world are struggling for words, when faced with adressing the issue (the issue being, that there´s need to adress a certain type of games). I proposed better words. Nothing more nothing less.

Do I need to show you examples how often people want to seperate ARGs and TRGs in actual conversation?

To me it´s obvious, and I really don´t care if you use my proposed terms. because if you don´t, you are still making the division, it´s just so that you sound way more stupid or insulting while doing so.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on, given my state of inebriation, but droog strikes me as being in possession of a valid point.

Not at all, he is as wrong as ever.

The "forgey" vs. "trad" divide is at totally different one, then the GNS categories.

Which should be clear to everyone.

Probably, probably. Who am I to disagree.

Can I ask a question?

Why TF are you up this early on a Sunday?