Quote from: JimBobOzYou 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.

No, I actually wouldn't.  I'd realize that you know your own mind best, and that if what you're saying now contradicts what I thought you were saying earlier then the obvious answer is that I misread you earlier.

It wouldn't make a heck of a lot of sense to try to pin you down to the beliefs I thought you had, and criticize you for abandoning them.  You never had them.

Quote from: MarcoIf 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.

So it has value as a social flag.  Like folks have been saying, it's not content it is part of the presentation of content.

I'll buy that.

My working definition of fun: the opposite of the sensation I've felt while reading this thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2471

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

In a gaming context, I think most appeals are approximately equally valid. Stuff like "You can't do that, that's out of character!" or "That wouldn't happen, it's not realistic." Or "That's off gener, I won't allow it."

I think all of these are as valid as "that's not fun." How valid those are (and fun) depends on the group.

QuoteOnly 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'm not sure I understand this. I've made decisions I knew would lead to less fun because of a feeling I was supposed to be realistic and impartial and, certainly, dependant on the group, I would reconsider those.

I mean, I've gotten, over the years, a better grasp of what being a good GM means to me and it isn't complete fidelity to a concept of "realism" or (always) a concept of "balance" or any other single such thing.

But, yeah--I might be misunderstanding you.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBSo it has value as a social flag.  Like folks have been saying, it's not content it is part of the presentation of content.

I'll buy that.

Yeah--as content, fun is pretty subjective. However, social flags are, IME, ultra-important and if you can get someone into a clear conversation by starting with "fun" that's more than most theory-words do (Imagine a player asks for a more 'narrativist' game--imagine trying to figure out what the hell they mean and having a six hour discussion where they use buzz words like Story Now and Premise and 'no GM Force' and you're still trying to figure out if they really mean it the way The Forge means it or the way a lot of other people mean those words).

-Marco

Quote from: JimBobOzThis, 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.

No. It's just you. Constantly harping on this has gone past any point and is now just needling.

Please stop it.

Quote from: MarcoIn a gaming context, I think most appeals are approximately equally valid. Stuff like "You can't do that, that's out of character!" or "That wouldn't happen, it's not realistic." Or "That's off gener, I won't allow it."

What about "That's against the rules."? If we're talking about single actions in the game, then I consider rules more important than "fun".

It's fun to be able to hold your ground against a dragon in D&D. Does that mean the GM should let me do this at first level, if all the players agree that it would be fun? I don't think so.

The problem I have with the "do whatever is fun"-credo is that it assumes that players know exactly how a game must be put together to get the most fun out of it. I don't think this is true.

Sure, everybody recognizes what's fun to them. I know if I have a good time at the gaming table or not. So do you. So does everybody else. But that doesn't necessarily make any of us expert game designers who know how to tweak a roleplaying game to our tastes perfectly. Just because I know what a great steak tastes like, doesn't mean I can cook it, too.

I'm not saying that a game designer knows what's fun for me, better than I do. Or that a game designer can tell me what I do and don't enjoy.

All I'm saying is: "Do whatever you want" is not good gaming advice. It's only helpful if I already know what a game must be like for me to enjoy it. And if I already know that, why would I need gaming advice?

QuoteI'm not sure I understand this. I've made decisions I knew would lead to less fun because of a feeling I was supposed to be realistic and impartial and, certainly, dependant on the group, I would reconsider those.

Why did you think you needed to be realistic and impartial? Was it because you thought it would lead to a more enjoyable game? That a realistic and impartial GM would ultimately lead to a more fun gaming experience?

QuoteI mean, I've gotten, over the years, a better grasp of what being a good GM means to me and it isn't complete fidelity to a concept of "realism" or (always) a concept of "balance" or any other single such thing.

The only thing I've tried to do thoroughly as a GM was stick as close to the rules as possible. If that led to a bad gaming session, then that was the game's fault, not mine. If the rules of a game don't help me have fun, I chuck the game. I don't start bending backwards to make it work somehow.

Quote from: James J Skach... I have to say this is possibly the most ironic, funny quote I've seen in my time here:

..."abstruse abstraction"...

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.

The irony was intentional, and nasty. Anyone who used a lot of abstractions and really knew what they were talking about would know a word like "abstruse", and would by seeing that word be made aware of their own wanky words; anyone who used abstractions and were a bit foggy on what the fuck they were talking about might not know that word, and would realise they're out of their depth and should just speak plainly.

But basically I just like irony.

Sometimes I soliloquise upon how the discourse of contemporaneous roleplaying dialectic is one which is characterised by a praxis of excessive verbiage and circuitous circumlocution, and indeed defined by the substitution of commonly-understood meanings of words for new meanings which are not clearly enunciated to the audience, whose banality of observation and conception is masked by that very verbiage, or obscured by obfuscation, and one whose paradigm questions the dominant one, indeed is subsversive of the traditional patriarchal model of the roleplaying group dynamic.

That's irony, too.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe irony was intentional, and nasty

So I get one point for recognizing the irony, but lose a point for seeing it as amusing instead of nasty.

Oh well...back to zero.

Quote from: James J SkachSo I get one point for recognizing the irony, but lose a point for seeing it as amusing instead of nasty.

Well, it should be amusing for you, because you're not a theory wanker - not from what I've seen so far. It's only meant to be nasty to the guys who really do talk like that, or aspire to. Like that idiot who wrote "Roleplaying as Ritual Discourse."

I wanker a lot, just not theory :eek:

Any guy who tells you otherwise is lying...

EDIT: In the interest of honesty, I have apparently coined the terms "Required Shared Narrative Control" and "Voluntary Shared Narrative Control."  At least, I wasn't able to find previous references when I was shamed into realizing I had made up new terms.

It was all an accident.  A terrible, terrible accident.  I swear.

Quote from: WhitterWhat about "That's against the rules."? If we're talking about single actions in the game, then I consider rules more important than "fun".

It's fun to be able to hold your ground against a dragon in D&D. Does that mean the GM should let me do this at first level, if all the players agree that it would be fun? I don't think so.

The problem I have with the "do whatever is fun"-credo is that it assumes that players know exactly how a game must be put together to get the most fun out of it. I don't think this is true.

I don't consider "that's against the rules" in the same category as "that's not fun" or "that's not properly playing your character." There's an objective/subjective gradient there in most cases that is very different.

However, if you are cleaving to a specific agenda on that point we can agree to disagree.

QuoteAll I'm saying is: "Do whatever you want" is not good gaming advice. It's only helpful if I already know what a game must be like for me to enjoy it. And if I already know that, why would I need gaming advice?

Is "keep the game fun" the same thing as "do whatever you want"? I wouldn't say so. I also think that any one-liner piece of advice is probably questionable as a generality. This, here, is the strawman you're looking for, I think.

QuoteWhy did you think you needed to be realistic and impartial? Was it because you thought it would lead to a more enjoyable game? That a realistic and impartial GM would ultimately lead to a more fun gaming experience?

I believed that providing versimilitude was part of the job of the GM. It wasn't a carefully considered opinion nor clearly thought out. That's kind of the point. The right piece of advice to the right person can be valuable. It won't be valuable to everyone all the time--but deciding it's a strawman because it's not valueable to you is kind of bizarre.

QuoteThe only thing I've tried to do thoroughly as a GM was stick as close to the rules as possible. If that led to a bad gaming session, then that was the game's fault, not mine. If the rules of a game don't help me have fun, I chuck the game. I don't start bending backwards to make it work somehow.

Maybe you're saying that GM advice at all is a bad thing and books should just stick to rules?

-Marco

Quote from: JimBobOzThe irony was intentional, and nasty. Anyone who used a lot of abstractions and really knew what they were talking about would know a word like "abstruse", and would by seeing that word be made aware of their own wanky words; anyone who used abstractions and were a bit foggy on what the fuck they were talking about might not know that word, and would realise they're out of their depth and should just speak plainly.

Yeah, because obviously the knowledge of an archaic and never-used-outside-of-asshattery word is the best measure of someone's ability to explain abstract concepts.

Quote from: James McMurrayYeah, because obviously the knowledge of an archaic and never-used-outside-of-asshattery word is the best measure of someone's ability to explain abstract concepts.

They're already using such words. I'm just upping the stakes. It's a little joke, you see. "You're using long words to prove you're deadly smart, well, here's some even longer words, bitch."

See, when I hassle them for using long and obscure words, they say, "zomfg, you're just anti-intellectual!" As if using long words means you're smart. So then I use some even longer and more obscure words to say, "well, no, dickhead."

The irony is multi-layered and everything.

Shouldn't this thread go live in the "theory" subfora?

"When I hear people talk about gaming theory, I reach for my revolver."