Quote from: Abyssal Maw'Fun' is a perfectly serviceable term. It means enjoyment.

However, if you are involved because you want to "shake people up", "push the boundaries of roleplaying!", "challenge the fictional paradigm", "experience group therapy" or "tackle powerful issues" or any bullshit that sounds kinda like that...

...just admit that your'e really not actually interested in doing anything fun, for you or anyone else. Your'e there for therapy, or to show how serious you are about 'roleplaying' or whatever, or to impress your friends or explore themes... or whatever the hell else.. But quit talking about fun if it isn't part of the process.

QFT

Quote from: TonyLBThanks, I will.  By your definitions I'm a Cheetoist.  And since your definitions are, y'know, definitional ... I guess that means it's true.  In fact, pretty much every theory wonk I've ever met is a Cheetoist.  Cool :-)

Trat's the impression I get from people like Levi, Judd, and you.

Quote from: TonyLBThanks, I will.  By your definitions I'm a Cheetoist.  And since your definitions are, y'know, definitional ... I guess that means it's true.  In fact, pretty much every theory wonk I've ever met is a Cheetoist.  Cool :-)

No. Because sometimes, you (theorists) put other things before fun, and because sometimes you say that the game or the rules are more important than the people involved.

A person who says, "all roleplaying is group therapy" is not a Cheetoist. One who says "System Matters" (with all the capitalised version of that implies) ain't a Cheetoist. People come first - that's Cheetoism. If you had a bad session and blamed the rules or the mismatch of Gamist and Narrativist or some shit like that, instead of the people involved, or if you had a good session and gave credit to the rules, etc, instead of the people involved... No. People first, everything else second.

The abject failure of rpg theory is that it doesn't address plain and simple problems that game groups have. How do I get a game group? What do I do with munchkins? What do I do with cheaters? What if someone won't pitch in for pizza? What do I do with the guy who creates an annoying character then says, "but I was just playing in character"? How do I get people to show up on time, and to give a shit about the setting?

Quote from: TonyLBIs that really something you get from things I've said?  Or is it just a handy accusation that you like to throw at anyone who thinks deeply about their gaming?

Yes, I really do get from your posts that people don't come first in your theory, but abstruse abstractions come first instead. I don't get the impression that you'd run an interesting game, or play an interesting active character. I get no sense that all this theory stuff makes you a better gamer in any way whatsoever.

Quote from: TonyLBBut ... I thought the whole question of asking what people find fun was part of the Cheetoist credo.  I don't really see how you can have it both ways.  Either clear communication is important, or it's not.  If it is then thinking about how to make communications clearer ... that's a good, Cheetoist endeavour, isn't it?

You're still not getting it. "Fun" is not a useful term - it's like "hello", its meaning is as a greeting. The proper response is "what's fun for you?" The difference between us is that I always ask the people I game with, and don't expect there to be a universally-applicable answer - but you're here asking us, expecting some universal answer you can slot into a theory somewhere.

That's the thing - I recognise people as individuals, but theorists don't, they try to slot people into categories of Dramatists or Narrativists or Immersionists or whatever. So you seek a universal definition of "fun".

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrGo fuck yourself.

This, also, tells us a lot about why you've been unhappy with your gaming experiences. Not that you hate me - that's common enough. But that you hate gamers. You constantly express contempt for gamers in general. Hating members of a group kinda makes it hard to have fun with them. It's like a Klan member trying to get into hip-hop.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, I really do get from your posts that people don't come first in your theory, but abstruse abstractions come first instead.

Well then, you've misread me.  Take this new piece of information and adjust how you read me in future.

Quote from: TonyLBWell then, you've misread me.  Take this new piece of information and adjust how you read me in future.

Prove it.

You look at the things which are consistent in a person's posts to figure them out. It's like earlier when I said, "you forgot the part about asking the guy what's fun for him," and you said, "well obviously I'd do that."

It's not obvious at all. Heaps of GMs and players never do it. They just assume that whatever they like everyone must like. With the Forgers, this becomes a more arrogant assertion that even if you liked something different, you didn't really like it, you were just deluded into thinking that.

On an internet with several hundred million users, each with their own views, nothing can be assumed. All we know is what you type here. So if you always "forget" to type that you should ask people what they like, then we'll reasonably assume that you "forget" to actually ask them.

If you want us to have a different impression of you, you have to work at it. In the same way, Jack Spencer Jr can't complain if we think he's a Bitter Non-Gamer who hates gamers - it's all he's posted. And Uncle Ronny can't complain that we think he hates us, too - it's what he's posted.

In face-to-face communications, we have expression, tone, past relationship, shared experiences and so on to give context and meaning to our words. So the onus can be on the listener to understand, rather than on the speaker to be clear. Online, all we've got is the words, so the entire onus must be on the speaker to be clear.

If your words are not expressing your meaning correctly, then learn to write better. After all, you are TonyLB, you don't have anyone else to apologise for you, as you do for Uncle Ronny, etc: "No, wait, I don't think he means what you think he means..." "But that's what he said." "Yes but..." You need a Mini-Tony to help you out.

I've said clearly:  This idea you have about me is wrong.  I don't think or act the way you've described.

I'm a little confused by your call that I "prove it."  I'm giving you first-hand evidence here.  This is how I play.  This is how I think.

Are you saying that I'm wrong?  That you know how I play and think better than I do?

Quote from: TonyLBI've said clearly:  This idea you have about me is wrong.  I don't think or act the way you've described.

I'm a little confused by your call that I "prove it."  I'm giving you first-hand evidence here.  This is how I play.  This is how I think.

"Prove it" means "elaborate, tell us more, in detail." Just saying, "this is so" ain't proof, it's just your saying so.

For example, if I were to turn around and say to you that I thought much roleplaying game theory was useful and valuable, you'd be quite surprised. You'd require more than my bland assertion that it was so, you'd want me to describe in detail about it.

If I didn't do so, you wouldn't care, but you wouldn't have changed your mind.

I mean, simple assertions aren't very convicing. Jack Spencer Jr for ages said that he gamed. Some of us didn't believe him, asked for details. He told us to fuck off, we should just believe him. Guess what? Turned out, he was bullshitting. The reason he couldn't tell us more was that there was nothing to tell.

So, type whatever the fuck you want - just be aware that your words give a certain impression. Simply saying, "I believe X" or "I do Y" doesn't do much. Speaking at length about X and Y do a lot.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you saying that I'm wrong?  That you know how I play and think better than I do?

No, I am saying I have no clue how you game or what you think. All I know is what you post, and those posts give a certain impression.

What you actually mean or feel in your heart of hearts is irrelevant. We're not psychic. I could say, "Hodgieflop boogle q'atar." And when you express confusion at my babble, say, "but I didn't mean babble! I actually meant, let's play D&D tonight." But how the fuck would anyone know that? All they know is what I type.

Quote from: JamesVIf fun doesn't work as a word, it's because folks insist on bickering over its meaning. It's what makes these types of discussions a pain in the neck to read. Most people have a perfectly functional understanding of what fun is, but in these theoretical discussions some folks treat "fun" as if they've never heard of or experienced it in their lives.

The solution is not to treat "fun" as if it covers the entirety of satisfactory gaming experiences. Words like, "entertaining", "fulfilling", "exciting", "challenging", "dramatic", "emotional". All of these can describe a positive experience and you won't have to invent a thing to get your point across.

Sometimes you have to write a complete sentence to describe a feeling. Right now all of these "fun" threads are trying to shrink a whole bunch of feelings down to one word, and that boat don't always float.

This is the single most useful and sensible response to this whole "what is fun" fad I have yet seen.  Bravo, good sir.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Prove it" means "elaborate, tell us more, in detail." Just saying, "this is so" ain't proof, it's just your saying so.

Wait ... you're not saying I misunderstand my own play?  You're actually arguing that I'm deliberately lying to you about what I think?  And that in order to prove that I'm not lying, I should keep giving details until I convince you?

That might be an interesting conversation for you, but it sounds like an awfully boring one for me.  I already know what I think and do.  There's no suspense, y'see?

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, if I were to turn around and say to you that I thought much roleplaying game theory was useful and valuable, you'd be quite surprised. You'd require more than my bland assertion that it was so, you'd want me to describe in detail about it.

Why on earth would I doubt you?  If you tell me that you think theory is useful and valuable then I'll say "Cool.  I'm glad to know you feel that way.  Some of the things you said previously had given me a different impression, but obviously that impression was mistaken."

Quote from: TonyLBWait ... you're not saying I misunderstand my own play?  You're actually arguing that I'm deliberately lying to you about what I think?  And that in order to prove that I'm not lying, I should keep giving details until I convince you?

No, I don't think you're lying. I think you're just a bad writer, bad at expressing himself. Par for the Forger course, really. That means it's hard to know what the fuck you think. So you need a mini-Tony following you around saying, "no, wait, I don't think he meant what you say he meant... even though that's exactly what he said."

Quote from: TonyLBWhy on earth would I doubt you?  If you tell me that you think theory is useful and valuable then I'll say "Cool.  I'm glad to know you feel that way.  Some of the things you said previously had given me a different impression, but obviously that impression was mistaken."

You would doubt me because I'd obviously be talking shit. Either all that other anti-theory stuff I wrote in the past was bullshit, or this new statement that I quite liked theory, actually, was bullshit.

If I say "X" one thousand times, and then the one-thousand-and-first time claim that I really meant "not X", then I can't really complain when someone asks me to prove it.

I do not say that you should care what anyone thinks of the way you game, if they get the right idea or not. But if you do care, then you should post about the way you game, instead of all these abstruse abstractions.

Just write clearly. I know that it's hard after hanging around all those theory guys deliberately obscuring things and never gaming, but try. Or, be content with people misunderstanding you.

The OP creates a false dichotomy between the utility of a word and specific instances in which it might be used (appeal to authority).

If someone tells me "that last game wasn't fun." the word is very valuable: it indicates that this upcoming conversation is important to me and is, specifically, about things that would improve the person's experience.

Incredibly valuable.

If someone says "that last game wasn't Narrativist," the term is, in fact, far less valuable to me in the context of knowing what they want or what direction the conversation is going (granted, tone of voice and such might well tell me).

As an appeal to shut someone down ("You can't do that, it wouldn't be fun") I don't think it's intrinsically any more valid than any other attempt to shut someone down ("You can't do that, it wouldn't be Cheeotist!").

However, I believe that in terms of GM advice, it has a certain cachet. IME some GM's hold the idea that their games must meet some specific and arbitrary standard (i.e. "my rulings must always be 'realistic'"). The idea that enjoyment of the participants may be more valuable than that standard bears repeating.

-Marco

I find Tony pretty clear, in fact I think lucidity is one of his strengths.

On another note, I see nothing incompatible with putting players first and saying System does Matter.

System does Matter, the players matter more, there's nothing inconsistent in that.

And Jim-Bob, sometimes a lack of clarity is in the writer, but sometimes it's in us as readers.  I think you're being a touch harsh on Tony here, I find he's pretty good at elucidating where someone finds something unclear.

Quote from: MarcoAs an appeal to shut someone down ("You can't do that, it wouldn't be fun") I don't think it's intrinsically any more valid than any other attempt to shut someone down ("You can't do that, it wouldn't be Cheeotist!").

Are you implying that there is no valid way to shut somebody down? Or are you saying that they're all equally valid?

QuoteHowever, I believe that in terms of GM advice, it has a certain cachet. IME some GM's hold the idea that their games must meet some specific and arbitrary standard (i.e. "my rulings must always be 'realistic'"). The idea that enjoyment of the participants may be more valuable than that standard bears repeating.

Only to those who don't understand why those GMs have taken up this standard. It's usually to find a more objective measure of what is.... wait for it... wait for it.... fun.

The claim that such GMs have ignored what's fun for the game in the pursuit of realism, some deep philosophical meaning or whatever the heck else they think is the "point of the game", is the strawman on which too many people base their shit-slinging. For some reason this claim is only made by hypocrits and bullies.

I love you JimBob.  I know we've had our run-ins over in the lounge, but as you've pointed out to me, that's just us disagreeing. But I have to say this is possibly the most ironic, funny quote I've seen in my time here:

Quote from: JimBobOzBut if you do care, then you should post about the way you game, instead of all these abstruse abstractions.

Just write clearly.

What the hell is an abstruse abstraction? I had to look up "abstruse," and I'm a guy who likes vocabulary. Write clearly, indeed. :eek:

I don't want to pick nits - it was a fabulous use of the word.  Just seemed funny to me followed by a request to write more clearly.