Quote from: SettembriniWe have to discuss the values that are at stake!

Yes values (if at all) not morality.

QuoteIf you eliminate player input, what do you achieve as a DM?
Do you use it to realize your power fantasy?
Do you use it to transport emotions?
What kind of emotions?
Do you railroad because you are lazy?
Do you railroad because players are lazy?
What kind of enjoyment is it?
Do you condone this kind of enkoyment?

Start up an thread, then we'll talk.

Regards,
David R

Ultimately, it´s hard to discuss for me in english.
I´m too harmstrung, too many terms of the humanities and from newspapers and cultural discourse that I´m lacking.

Also in english I can´t figure out fast enough who´s actually up to what I´m trying to communicate.
In German, I can spot sentences and phrases that are telltales of people that are of a lower reflective ability, or that have obviously no idea what is talked about.
In English, that´s next to impossible, especially as I´m also communicating less than perfect. A stupid question can mean anything from being a telltale for stupidity to pointing out that I communicate in a incomprehesible way.

But to discuss moral values, I need sophisticated communication channels.

To sum that up, I´ll bow out of discussions like these [in English], but I´ll try to add some ideas once in a while.

See me on the sidelines of discussions like these, or in the middle of some strategic Adventure Gaming thread.

Keep it going, I´ll be reading and learning.

QuoteYes values (if at all) not morality.

This leads nowwhere, it´s the same to me.

Look at my above post.

When my english (and understanding of anglophone academic/cultural discourse) is good enough, we´ll speak again. I´ll start reading an English Newspaper today, to catch up.

So long.

Prussians are so muddled. No wonder they've lost so many wars.

Which is to say, what is this thread about? Settembrini now announces that he'll express his opinion on gaming? As opposed to the past, when he... expressed his opinion on gaming?

:huhsign:

We are not muddled, we are making very fine distinctions. And I only have a rather limited command of English.
I need a scalpell, whereas I´ve only got a club.

Smashing things I can.
But not dissect them.

But I´ve come to the conclusion, that things must be dissected.

EDIT: "We" Prussians only participated in the losing of one war. All others we won or stalemated.

I don't buy that your obnoxious and intellectually dishonest behavior is the result of language barrier.

"I'm wasn't really having a discussion, I was just probing you to find out if we could have a discussion" is arrogant and rude in any language.

I can, however, believe that the confusion over words like "moral" is the result of language barrier. When most people see "moral" they think "ethical." I don't know if that makes more sense from your side of the language fence, but perhaps it'll help. "ethical/moral" is not going to suggest "something I believe in as an artistic ideal," i.e. Impressionist art, Romantic music, Adventure gaming. They're going to read it as "pertaining to issues of right behavior toward human beings, such as lying, stealing, and killing.

In that sense, while there are certainly moral issues involved in roleplaying playstyles, for instance if one's playstyle involves being a dick in some way to fellow players, the subject of roleplaying playstyles is not inherently a moral one.

That help?

Peace,
-Joel

Well, I for one think you're on to something, and it's something worthy of discussion. Moral philosophy isn't my strong point (I'm a political philosophy guy), but others are raising some interesting stuff.

And the rest of you: how well do you speak German? You need to give Settembrini a chance if you don't want to look like parochial louts. If you don't want to participate, piss off. I say that in the nicest possible way.

Quote from: droogAnd the rest of you: how well do you speak German? You need to give Settembrini a chance if you don't want to look like parochial louts.

I speak it not at all, but then, I'm not posting to German-language rpg forums and then wondering why people don't understand what I'm trying to say Instead, I post to forums in my own language, where it really is my fault if people don't understand me.

There are levels of command of a language where it's plain a person can't express their meaning simply because they don't have the words - like I would be, trying to talk about this sort of thing, the difference between "morality" and "value judgment", in Italian (which I can speak conversationally). People would immediately know I just wasn't up to it.

But Settembrini's command of English is plainly better than my command of Italian. At his level of expression, which is better than many native English-speakers, we can't tell the difference between "language problems", and "muddled thinking." We honestly can't tell whether he'd do any better in German. Whereas if you saw me speaking Italian, you could immediately see I'd do better in English!

I don't think it's a bad thing to say to someone "what the fuck are you talking about?" and ask them to clarify it. We're not mocking his poor command of the English language, because his command of English is quite good - as I said, better than most native speakers. We say, "what the fuck?" to native English speakers, too. We treat him equally - just as well or badly as everyone else here.

He should post some stuff on a German-language forum, perhaps the problem is that like many of us, he only thinks of this stuff as he types it, so it's not always perfectly clear and concise. So maybe if he sorts it out in German with some other Germans, he can come back here and express it better in English.

Or maybe he'll still be muddled. Who knows?

Pseudoephedrine seems to have some understanding of what he's talking about. So do I, though I don't quite have the vocabulary for it.

For the record: I brought up the language thing, because I feel I cannot express what I want, and cannot judge other´s posts consistently. Nobody mocked my english.

QuoteHe should post some stuff on a German-language forum, perhaps the problem is that like many of us, he only thinks of this stuff as he types it, so it's not always perfectly clear and concise. So maybe if he sorts it out in German with some other Germans, he can come back here and express it better in English.

The typing & thinking is definitely a problem, but that´s just an aggrevation of the language barrier. It´s not so much a literal language barrier but really a cultural & education barrier.

Actually, I´m sorting things out in german all the time, and will post concised ideas over here as food for thought. But as it stands, I cannot polish or refine my ideas (regarding the subject matter) here in any satisfying  timeframe. Or without a lot (a lot!) of misunderstandings (surely half of them on my part).

So, that´s it, see you in some thread with some lighter fare.
I´ll be watching you native speakers.

Of course I´ll wrap up the other threads I started to honour the posts happened there.

Quote from: droogWell, I for one think you're on to something, and it's something worthy of discussion. Moral philosophy isn't my strong point (I'm a political philosophy guy), but others are raising some interesting stuff.

If by this you mean can gaming be discussed within a moral context ?, yeah sure. Pseudoepherine's example of my "linchpin" thread is an elegant example of this. Come to think of it, JH Kim's "fast forward" thread is another appropriate example - I think. So we kid ourselves if we think that gaming can't be discussed in this manner. In fact earlier on I proposed that if Sett really was honest with this subject, he could have phrased it in a manner more condusive for all to participate in.

Asking "Can we discuss games in a moral context?" would have resulted in far more responses from "average" gamers, who may not have the requisite vocabulary but who surely have an opinion on this. Everyday gaming table examples would have been bandied about and much fun could have been had by all. But...

QuoteAnd the rest of you: how well do you speak German? You need to give Settembrini a chance if you don't want to look like parochial louts. If you don't want to participate, piss off. I say that in the nicest possible way.

...Sett's post was not really about this. No, I think from reading his comments so far, it was about establishing a stand. Perhaps he's suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome - funny since this war is imaginary - or maybe it's because he wants to drop the pretense of actually honestly discovering how other folks game and why they play in their chosen style (for some this is interesting) and say, that his playstyle is the one true way and all others are morally inferior.

The vehicle in which he uses to convey his bile - morality. Cheeky. Read his post in the beginning of this thread. See how, he continues to redefine the concept of Swine. All this is not new. He's done it before. But this is the first time, I've seen him use language issue's as an excuse for not defending his stand.

I think this has more to do, with the fact, that he has had a rethink of the situation and perhaps realizes that his comments were indefensible - not that games could/should be discussed in a moral context but rather his comments regarding the superiority of his playstyle over all others.

I have not had much dealings with Sett, but in all of them he has been perfectly clear from where he is coming from. In fact, in this very thread, he  explanied his posting style which I thought was very civil of him to do, but the more I read his comments, I realize that this has nothing to with language but rather Sett's attempt to tell everyone else how inferior their gaming is - much like his men vs milksop thread.

So, yeah gaming can be discussed within a moral context, but this is not what Sett is really interested in - check out his list of question for me with regards to railroading - his interest is more in the us vs them domain.

:shrug: I don't really have the vocabulary to discuss this issue as well, but I do have a good idea where Sett is coming from.

Regards,
David R

As I mentioned in another thread...

The real problem (IMHO) is when you have a group of people sitting at a table to play an RPG, and they have different ideas of what that experience is supposed to be like.  Whether you want to call that morals, aesthetics, or playstyles -- they aren't all on the same page about what's supposed to happen with the RPG.  Illusionism, Railroading, and Dice Fudging are good if that's what the players want to happen.  Character mortality, power gaming, and so on are also good if the players want that.  Problems occur when the people at the table want different things from the experience.  This is aggravated by the players not discussing this before play begins.  In many games, the GMs idea of what the game is supposed to be like is the most important -- and so it's most important that the GM share their point of view with the group.  

If you show up wanting "challenge" and you get illusionism, a player is likely to be unhappy.  If you show up wanting "story" and you get a "killer GM", a player is also likely to be unhappy.

It's not about which side is right / better -- it's about making sure everyone at the table knows how that particular game works.

Quote from: David RIn fact, in this very thread, he explained his posting style which I thought was very civil of him to do, but the more I read his comments, I realize that this has nothing to with language but rather Sett's attempt to tell everyone else how inferior their gaming is - much like his men vs milksop thread.

Yes, but he can't sustain that. It gets knocked down every time. And you know, 'men vs milksops' is just rhetoric. Nevertheless, there's a point here and maybe the rhetoric had to be worked through to get at the useful bit.

Anyway, the guilty flee where no man pursueth. If somebody tells me my game is crap, my reaction is: really? Why do you think so? That may be why I've never had the issues with Forge discussions that some have. I don't mind Settembrini's chutzpah any more than I mind Ron Edwards'. I like to probe what I do and see what oozes out.

I'll take Settembrini's frontal assault over some of the mealy-mouthed ad hominems floating around any day.

Quote from: droogYes, but he can't sustain that. It gets knocked down every time. And you know, 'men vs milksops' is just rhetoric. Nevertheless, there's a point here and maybe the rhetoric had to be worked through to get at the useful bit.

Yes there are a two points here. The second being Sett enagaging in Swine-ish behaviour. I have no doubt of Sett's ability to raise interesting points in a provocative manner. Unfortunately this wasn't one of those times.

QuoteAnyway, the guilty flee where no man pursueth. If somebody tells me my game is crap, my reaction is: really? Why do you think so? That may be why I've never had the issues with Forge discussions that some have. I don't mind Settembrini's chutzpah any more than I mind Ron Edwards'. I like to probe what I do and see what oozes out.

I agree with this.

QuoteI'll take Settembrini's frontal assault over some of the mealy-mouthed ad hominems floating around any day.

I like honest open discussions myself, but I put up with the fact, that some feel the need to talk with a cunty attitude.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMiller's biography is sensationalistic drek that relies heavily on third-party rumour and conjecture reported as fact. He is also notorious for misquoting Foucault to prove his own point about Foucault's life being some sort of Nietzschean experiment.

Yes, I figured you'd go after Miller, rather than the criminologist, the NY Times, and the most profound anti-postmodernist thinker of our age.

I had to include his name for the sake of intellectual honesty, in the hopes that you would not sink to trying to beat up on the biographer in the vain hope that people would ignore the fact that it was not the "right-wing rags" but highly respectable sources that criticize Foucault's actions at the end of his life.

Shit, one of my professors in University was at Berkeley at the same time as Foucault, knew him, and described him as "a man devoid of any values".  That pretty well sums it up. The postmodernist route is a route that leads to running around infecting people with AIDS for your own kicks, because nothing actually matters.

QuoteRaymond Tallis and the NYT article I think you're referring to rely on Miller's biography.

http://www.michel-foucault.com/tls.html by Clare O'Farrell, a Foucault expert.

Ah, right, let's believe the rampant post-modernist who's entire career depends upon Foucault's integrity, rather than an intellectual giant like Tallis, or a "right wing rag" like the NYT.

QuoteI can't find a free copy of Daniel Maier-Katkin's only article on Foucault, since I don't have a subscription to the relevant criminology journal, but I'd be surprised if he had another source than Miller's biography.

Maier-Katkin's report was a very interesting criminological analysis of Foucault's actions and whether he was or was not knowingly and willingly infecting people with AIDS while understanding the implications of this.  His conclusion was the Foucault should have faced criminal charges, had he not died from AIDS-related complications long before anyone figured out what he was doing.

Foucault is one of the 20th Century's greatest monsters. Not on a personal level, though what he did was deeply sick, and he was obviously a fucked up human being with absolutely no inner compass, but on an ideological level. He is responsible for the erosion and onward route to collapse of our civilization.

RPGPundit