NOTE FROM THE ADMINS: The "shootout" is now over, and all posters can feel free to respond to the posts in this thread


Well, the schedules have cleared, and the stars have aligned, and all that.  This'll be fun!  RPG Pundit and I are going to have one of those structured public conversations, like this one.  Here's what that means for you:  Looky, no touchy!  And definitely no posty!

For the first (what? ...  we've got lives, I don't want to do 100 posts ... sheesh ... where did Levi get the time?) 50 posts (total) this'll just be Pundit and myself, alternating our positions and responses.  Anyone elses posts?  Naughty naughty.  It'll probably be deleted ... but not before we laugh at you in Private Messages.  Haha!  After 50 posts, who knows?  It'll probably open up to broader discussion.  These things usually do.

So, I'll start:  The Swine.  I hear a lot about them from Pundit.  Like the Secular Humanists of an earlier era, they have apparently spread their pernicious influence far and wide, all while refusing to even admit their own existence.

I think that's because they actually don't exist.  Specifically:  Pundit seems to claim (though perhaps he'll correct me) that he knows things that are true of each and every person who likes certain games and espouses certain viewpoints on RPG Theory.  He is claiming, in short, that a fairly sizable number of people, many of whom I know personally, are all in lockstep on a wide (and, it seems, growing) number of issues.

Now I'm pretty sure this isn't true.  I mean ... I know these people, and they don't seem to be in lockstep on much of anything.  They also don't, by and large, seem pretentious or deceitful or spiteful or bitter, or any of the things that all Swine apparently are.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're all lying to me (and possibly also to themselves).  Or maybe I've misunderstood Pundit's argument.  So here's where we'll discuss and hopefully come to a clearer mutual understanding.

I've got some questions which I think are relevant:

• Who are the Swine?  How can you tell that a person is Swine?  How can you prove that any of them exist at all?
• What is true of all Swine?  What can you conclude with certainty, if you know that someone is Swine?

I hope we can get some solid answers to these.  It'd help me a lot in being able to talk to Pundit's true position, rather than my best guess.

And ... over to Pundit!  Thanks for participating!

Before we even get to those questions, I must attack some of your basic premises.

For starters, no where have I suggested that all the Swine walk in lock-step.  That's the doing of people who want to paint me as some kind of "conspiracy theorist".

I have NEVER suggested that there is an organized set of ideologies that all the Swine are 100% behind and that all the Swine are co-ordinated in their plot to destroy gaming.  Certainly, small groups form of like-thinking Swine.

But you start out your whole argument trying to expect me to take as a given an assumption that I do not share, not in the least.

In fact, if you look at my writings, you'll see that I've highlited that in fact there are several groups of Swine, starting with the division between WW Story-based Swine and Forge Theory Swine, who hate each other at least as much as they hate normal roleplayers.

So first, let's redo these ground assumptions, shall we?

RPGPundit

Well, see, we probably should have started with your post anyway.

So ... can you answer the questions I listed above?  I'll recap:

• Who are the Swine? How can you tell that a person is Swine? How can you prove that any of them exist at all?
• What is true of all Swine? What can you conclude with certainty, if you know that someone is Swine?

In fact, generally, if you've got something important that you believe then I think it'd be much faster for you to come out and express it, rather than waiting for me to ask about it.  It'd be nice to have a discussion that people can follow without having to search back through all of your previous writings in order to deduce your central position from how it is expressed in specific contexts.  

Let's start again from the ground up, with the context firmly on the fundamentals of what you believe about the Swine, rather than any specific application (such as comes up in other threads where Swine are relevant, but not central) and get things out in the open.  That sounds like a good start.

QuoteWho are the Swine?

The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth. This need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives. In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play".

Likewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs.
So the Swine have it as part of their make-up, conscious of the fact or not, the destruction of the RPG industry, and indeed of the hobby as a hobby or as play. All this for their own selfish, low, contemptible ends.

Now, only a few of the Swine are the truly incorrigible willfully evil kind that have no real interest in RPGs as a game, as play, or as fun, and want only to fulfill some kind of sick psychosis. Sadly, the vast majority of the Swine were hapless rubes, the willing or unwilling fools that bought into the foul creeds of the real Swine in the 1990s when the Swine took over the entire ideological basis of the Gaming industry; hence that era being what I've called gaming's "generation of Swine". Most of these gamers had come into RPGs playing D&D and having a great old time, but let themselves be hoodwinked into thinking that how they were playing RPGs was "wrong" or "stupid", and in their desperate desire to appear as sophisticated as the Swine appeared (and only the very young and impressionable, or the terminally stupid, could fail to see through the Swine's cheap two-bit artistic posturing and pathetic pseudo-intellectualism), they let themselves be brainwashed into thinking that playing story-based games where nothing happens and the players are cheerleaders for the DM's (or the game designer's) brilliance were somehow more fun than blowing up buildings or cutting orcs in half.
Fortunately, with each year in the last six or so, there have been less and less people fooled by the Swine, some of the lost generation have even reformed themselves, and the damage is slowly being repaired. Slowly, the hardcore Swine are being pushed more and more to the margin, leaving only the most extreme cases to continue arguing meaninglessly in places like rpg.net and the Forge, still pretending that they are the ones who matter.

There is obviously some kind of deep psychological explanation for why the Swine are like this, which I won't pretend to be able to analyze, except to look at the most basic probable cause which is that people who become Gamer Swine are the ones who don't have enough going for them in the real world or in their real lives to give them some kind of a sense of validation. I mean, I sure as fuck don't need to play RPGs as a way to make myself feel smart, or to pretend I'm doing meaningful work. I play RPGs as a way to get away from that shit; that shit being what I do in the real world, in my real life. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of the Swine don't have much of a real life.

QuoteHow can you tell that a person is Swine? How can you prove that any of them exist at all?

A person is a Swine by their attitude, what else? If someone is online, talking about how their games and gaming are "Art", or more "intelligent" than mainstream games and mainstream gamers, trying to get artistic or intellectual validation for their activities in the hobby, then they're Swine.

QuoteWhat is true of all Swine? What can you conclude with certainty, if you know that someone is Swine?

By their fruits you shall know them.  If someone spends their time speaking out against regular roleplayers or regular roleplaying; if they speak up against the standard landmarks of RPG gaming, if they try to argue in favour or defense of Story-based gaming or the Forge and its Theories, if they express contempt and denigration or a patronizing sort of faux-pity for the "unwashed masses" who play D&D, if they try to claim that D20 doesn't exist, or shouldn't exist, if they try to compare their amateur game design to the Beat Poetry movement or talk about how gamers are Brain Damaged for liking mainstream RPGs, then they're pretty well marked off as Swine.

RPGPundit

Okay!  See, now we've got some definitions.  Now I feel like we have a better chance of getting somewhere.  Thank you for expressing yourself so clearly.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth.

Cool.  I get this.  I understand the definition, and I can work with it.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives. In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play".

"Has to" ... hrm.  That's a little ambiguous in the wording.  Clear this up for me, would ya?  Is it:

• In order to be Swine, the person's need for self-validation has to be so great that they stop trying to have fun.  If they have self-validation as their primary goal, but not to the extent that it makes them stop having fun then that means they are not Swine, or...
  
• If a person has self-validation as their primary goal then they are Swine and we know for certain that they will stop having fun.  They will do this because they have to, in order to pursue their goal of self-validation.

Y'see, the sentence really could be read either way ... but those are very different claims to make.  The Swine in #1 are an extremist subset of the much broader group "people who play for self-validation" ... whereas in #2 all people who play for self-validation are inherently extremists in a particular way.  Best to make sure we're both understanding it only one of those two ways!

Quote from: RPGPunditNow, only a few of the Swine are the truly incorrigible willfully evil kind that have no real interest in RPGs as a game, as play, or as fun, and want only to fulfill some kind of sick psychosis.

That one's a bit tricky to interpret ... but I think the key part there is "willfully."  As I read it, you're saying that many of the Swine have destroyed their own sense of fun unintentionally.  They still want to have fun, and pursue a path that they think will lead to them having fun (through Art! or something) but the path leads nowhere good.  Have I got that right?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf someone is online, talking about how their games and gaming are "Art", or more "intelligent" than mainstream games and mainstream gamers, trying to get artistic or intellectual validation for their activities in the hobby, then they're Swine.

No, I don't think (by your definition) that's the case if self-validation isn't their primary goal.  It's clearly not the case if the discussion of artistry isn't in the service of self-esteem at all.  Like ... I've seen people who are just really, really enthusiastic about a game's artistic value, but they're still playing it primarily to play a game, and having loads of fun.  Your definition says they're not Swine, but your detector would claim that they must be.  In short, that way of detecting Swine seems at variance with your definition of Swine.

   Suppose, for instance, Henry is regaling us with stories of his long-running D&D campaign, and he says "Gawd, my players were doing such cool, heroic stuff ... like something out of Tolkien or Beowulf.  When Grelnak scored that natural twenty, and the demon-serpent-king's three heads went flying off snickety-snack, we were all hugely stoked!  I totally understood the appeal of telling these heroic stories.  In that moment we made art, all of us together.  I love when that happens!"Henry's talking up the artistic merit of his game, but it's not in a quest for self-validation.  Does that prove to you that Henry is Swine?  If so, does that mean that your definition of Swine has to change?

Quote from: RPGPunditBy their fruits you shall know them.  If someone [... snip ...] then they're pretty well marked off as Swine.

Okay.  That's another fine answer to the first question of (roughly) "How can you mark them off as Swine?"  But I still need an answer to the second question:

• What is true of all Swine? What can you conclude with certainty, if you know that someone is Swine?

I can see how you could overlook the distinction, but this is in fact a separate and important question.  Logically, if you've got a whole bunch of things that say "If A then Z," "If B then Z," "If C then Z" ... they're not very interesting on their own.  We need something that we can conclude from Z before any of the other statements say anything fun and useful.  So I'm looking for a statement in the form "If Swine, then X."

I'll give you some possibilities ... a True/False sort of thing to jumpstart you.  I suspect that you've got many more things that you can say with certainty, but these are the ones that spring to mind:

• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will hate D&D
  
• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will hate the RPGSite
  
• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will not have fun playing RPGs
  
• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will have at least one game X about which he believes "Playing X is inherently and objectively a more important and meaningful experience than playing D&D."

Poor Roger   Anyway, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for with that question ... something that we can say about the Swine beyond the tautology of saying "If Roger is Swine then he is Swine."

Ooh boy ... I think we're getting closer to the meat of the discussion, and I am excited!  I hope you're having fun too.

Quote from: TonyLB

• If a person has self-validation as their primary goal then they are Swine and we know for certain that they will stop having fun.  They will do this because they have to, in order to pursue their goal of self-validation.

Ok, first may I say: fuck you for making complicated "list" things and other little special effects designed to make it harder for me to edit out your quotes to be responded to.

Second, out of the two options you presented, this one is certainly closer to the truth, but its deceptive as well. Nowhere did I say that someone who has "self-validation as their primary goal" will "stop having fun for certain".  What I said is that the necessity to conceive of RPGs as Art or Intellectual pursuit or what have you will TAKE PRECEDENCE over the fun.  So that when given the choice between a game being "fun" and a game being "Art" or "Intellectual" or whatever, the Swine will always pick the latter over the former.
You're trying to play a nice little game here where you get me to accidentally say that no swine could possibly be having fun and that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Swine don't care about fun first.

QuoteThat one's a bit tricky to interpret ... but I think the key part there is "willfully."  As I read it, you're saying that many of the Swine have destroyed their own sense of fun unintentionally.  They still want to have fun, and pursue a path that they think will lead to them having fun (through Art! or something) but the path leads nowhere good.  Have I got that right?

No. Its more like what I just said above. You're trying to box me into a corner by making it an either/or "fun"/"swine-stuff" situation, so that all you have to do is show some swine that appear to have fun and you've "won" the argument. Except that isn't my fucking argument at all. Nor is it that the Swine have somehow deluded themselves or don't know they're not having fun.
What is true is that there are some swine (a tiny minority) that don't give a fuck about RPGs at all, probably don't even actually play the RPGs, and are just in it for the "scene".  Then the majority of Swine do play RPGs, but they derive their primary sense of fun not from the actual playing of the game itself, but from the "fun" of pretending to be all artistic and intellectual, and that the game becomes a means to that end.  The fun you have playing "The Shab al-hiri Roach" is the fun of getting to act as though you're the modern day incarnation of a beat poet, a dangerous intellectual rebel, and looking down on games like D&D.

QuoteNo, I don't think (by your definition) that's the case if self-validation isn't their primary goal.  It's clearly not the case if the discussion of artistry isn't in the service of self-esteem at all.  Like ... I've seen people who are just really, really enthusiastic about a game's artistic value, but they're still playing it primarily to play a game, and having loads of fun.  Your definition says they're not Swine, but your detector would claim that they must be.  In short, that way of detecting Swine seems at variance with your definition of Swine.

   Suppose, for instance, Henry is regaling us with stories of his long-running D&D campaign, and he says "Gawd, my players were doing such cool, heroic stuff ... like something out of Tolkien or Beowulf.  When Grelnak scored that natural twenty, and the demon-serpent-king's three heads went flying off snickety-snack, we were all hugely stoked!  I totally understood the appeal of telling these heroic stories.  In that moment we made art, all of us together.  I love when that happens!"Henry's talking up the artistic merit of his game, but it's not in a quest for self-validation.  Does that prove to you that Henry is Swine?  If so, does that mean that your definition of Swine has to change?

Your example is idiotic.
I might say that a given moment in an RPG game came out like a work of art, or that someone's adventure was a "masterpiece", but that's clearly not what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fuckers who write long essays  about how playing White Wolf games is the same as being Jackson Pollock or writing a Forge micro-game about degenerate construction workers in depression-era america makes you exactly like Allen Ginsburg. That sort of shit.

QuoteI'll give you some possibilities ... a True/False sort of thing to jumpstart you.  I suspect that you've got many more things that you can say with certainty, but these are the ones that spring to mind:

• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will hate D&D

True. Of course, he might repeatedly claim he does not, say that he's played it, some of his best friends are D&D playing slobs, etc etc. ad nauseum.

Quote

• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will hate the RPGSite

True. But again, he might avoid admitting it in public areas.

Quote

• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will not have fun playing RPGs

Untrue.  He will have fun, but the fun he gets out of RPGs is not the same kind of fun a normal roleplayer gets from it. Its the fucked-up fun of pretending that you're doing something really meaningful and important, and doing it better and more radically/rebelliously than people who play regular RPGs.

Quote

• True or False:  If Roger is Swine then he will have at least one game X about which he believes "Playing X is inherently and objectively a more important and meaningful experience than playing D&D."

True. He will probably have several.  Again, he might repeatedly state in public that he thinks all games are equally good, "why can't we just get along", etc etc.
But as in the other cases, his discussions on other occasions, "in-house" discussions on the Swine sites, and backhanded commentary will reveal his real feelings on the subject.

QuoteOoh boy ... I think we're getting closer to the meat of the discussion, and I am excited!  I hope you're having fun too.

:raise:


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're trying to play a nice little game here where you get me to accidentally say that no swine could possibly be having fun and that's not what I'm saying at all.

Oh Pundit.  You may not believe this, but I don't want to argue against your rhetorical slips.  What a losing proposition that would be for me!  If I learned anything about your theory I'd only be learning misconceptions.  And if I made any telling points, you'd just shrug it off by saying that I wasn't responding to your real thoughts.  I wouldn't get any benefit from whaling on a straw-man.

No ... what I want is to address your real thoughts, fairly and correctly expressed.  If I find something that makes sense then I will have learned something real and valid about your theories.  And if I make telling points then they'll be directed at something real.  I hope you see how that's much more of a win-win situation for me.

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, out of the two options you presented, this one is certainly closer to the truth, but its deceptive as well. Nowhere did I say that someone who has "self-validation as their primary goal" will "stop having fun for certain".  What I said is that the necessity to conceive of RPGs as Art or Intellectual pursuit or what have you will TAKE PRECEDENCE over the fun.  So that when given the choice between a game being "fun" and a game being "Art" or "Intellectual" or whatever, the Swine will always pick the latter over the former.

(... grouped together for (what seems to me to be) topical similarity with ...)

Quote from: RPGPunditThen the majority of Swine do play RPGs, but they derive their primary sense of fun not from the actual playing of the game itself, but from the "fun" of pretending to be all artistic and intellectual, and that the game becomes a means to that end.

Oh, so that's what you meant.  Okay.  I didn't get that vibe from your first quote.  Thanks for clarifying.

I must admit that I'm intellectually tempted by the question of why it's okay to derive fun from pretending to be a prancy elf, but not okay to derive fun from pretending to enjoy the creation of art.  But I just can't get psyched for that line of argument, because I don't think it's relevant to the real people: my experience is that the people doing this aren't pretending to enjoy creativity.  They really do enjoy being part of the creation of beautiful and stimulating stories.  So do I, in fact.  I personally feel a lot of similarities to the way that I enjoy playing a challenging piano piece well, or the way I enjoy the construction of an elegant proof for a knotty mathematical problem.

Now I know some people who get their fun out of the pure act of creation.  They just want to do this stuff, and they don't give a fig whether anyone's paying attention.  Personally, I'm more of a performer than a pure creator ... I like feedback.  I like applause.  I even like the blank looks that tell me that I just totally flubbed something.  I like an audience to play off of.  So maybe that means that I'm in it more for self-validation than my friends who create without reference to the audience.  I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

In any event, the bigger question:  Does your theory of Swine have anything to say about the many gamers who find sincere, unfeigned fun in artistic and/or intellectual roleplaying?  Are they Swine?  Are they Not-Swine?  Can anything be said with certainty?

Quote from: RPGPunditI might say that a given moment in an RPG game came out like a work of art, or that someone's adventure was a "masterpiece", but that's clearly not what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fuckers who write long essays  about how playing White Wolf games is the same as being Jackson Pollock or writing a Forge micro-game about degenerate construction workers in depression-era america makes you exactly like Allen Ginsburg. That sort of shit.

Awww ... well that's a terrible test for Swine then!  It lets so many of them off the hook, just because they haven't written a big essay.

Unless you're saying that the only people who are Swine are the ones who write such essays.  But you've previously said that there are a lot of Swine ... that, for instance, the Forge is just crawling with them.  Whereas this test would say that there is a vanishingly small number of Swine.  So I'm inclined to think that this test is way too restrictive to be of any use to you.  Is there some other way that you can tell that a person is Swine?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote from: RPGPunditTrue. Of course, he might repeatedly claim he does not, say that he's played it, some of his best friends are D&D playing slobs, etc etc. ad nauseum.

True. But again, he might avoid admitting it in public areas.

Untrue.  He will have fun, but the fun he gets out of RPGs is not the same kind of fun a normal roleplayer gets from it. Its the fucked-up fun of pretending that you're doing something really meaningful and important, and doing it better and more radically/rebelliously than people who play regular RPGs.

True. He will probably have several.  Again, he might repeatedly state in public that he thinks all games are equally good, "why can't we just get along", etc etc.  But as in the other cases, his discussions on other occasions, "in-house" discussions on the Swine sites, and backhanded commentary will reveal his real feelings on the subject.

Well, this is just awesome, unvarnished stuff.  I'm finding it hard to respond to it fairly just now because of the sudden uncertainty (above) about who the Swine even are, but once that settles down I will undoubtedly be getting right back to this material.  I'm just gonna let it simmer on the back-burner for a post or two, until we have a better understanding of precisely who these claims apply to.

Quote from: TonyLB(... grouped together for (what seems to me to be) topical similarity with ...)Oh, so that's what you meant.  Okay.  I didn't get that vibe from your first quote.  Thanks for clarifying.

I must admit that I'm intellectually tempted by the question of why it's okay to derive fun from pretending to be a prancy elf, but not okay to derive fun from pretending to enjoy the creation of art.  But I just can't get psyched for that line of argument, because I don't think it's relevant to the real people: my experience is that the people doing this aren't pretending to enjoy creativity.  They really do enjoy being part of the creation of beautiful and stimulating stories.  So do I, in fact.  I personally feel a lot of similarities to the way that I enjoy playing a challenging piano piece well, or the way I enjoy the construction of an elegant proof for a knotty mathematical problem.

In that case, the fundamental issue you have is that it appears that you believe that RPGs are "Art" and are "Intellectual".
I, and most normal gamers, just think they're a game.

Note also that I did not mean to say that the Swine are only "pretending" to enjoy themselves by feeling superior about their "Artistic" and "intellectual" play.  I'm sure their enjoyment is genuine; the "Pretending" part comes not in the enjoyment, but in pretending that RPGs are something more significant than what they are, and claiming that they are somehow doing Great Things by playing the kinds of games they play.

And that's where the difference comes in: when you have fun pretending to be a prancy elf, you know you're enjoying playing a game.  When you're having fun pretending to be a Beat Poet by playing My Life With Master, your fun is derived from making claims about the significance of your activities that are not justified by the actual significance of the activities themselves.

QuoteNow I know some people who get their fun out of the pure act of creation.  They just want to do this stuff, and they don't give a fig whether anyone's paying attention.  Personally, I'm more of a performer than a pure creator ... I like feedback.  I like applause.  I even like the blank looks that tell me that I just totally flubbed something.  I like an audience to play off of.  So maybe that means that I'm in it more for self-validation than my friends who create without reference to the audience.  I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

I'm not saying that RPGs can't be beautiful, or exciting, or smart.  But they're beautiful, exciting and smart GAMES. The Swine operate under the pretense that what they're doing is something somehow more sophisticated than a "mere game": that they're creating Literature or capital-A Art or something as intellectually significant as a Graduate thesis.

QuoteIn any event, the bigger question:  Does your theory of Swine have anything to say about the many gamers who find sincere, unfeigned fun in artistic and/or intellectual roleplaying?  Are they Swine?  Are they Not-Swine?  Can anything be said with certainty?

There's no such thing as "sincere" "artistic or intellectual" roleplaying. RPGs are a fucking game. There's nothing wrong with playing RPGs in a way that you make smart campaigns (my own campaigns tend toward being pretty mentally-involved for me and the players), but they aren't anything other than a game at the end of the day.

So if your question is: Is there anything wrong with playing a smart game? The answer is of course no.
That in no way negates the fact that the Swine care more about looking and acting "smart" rather than playing a fun fucking game, and that's what the whole problem is.

QuoteAwww ... well that's a terrible test for Swine then!  It lets so many of them off the hook, just because they haven't written a big essay.

This sentence is amusing, given that earlier you had claimed in this post that you didn't want to waste your time "arguing against my rhetorical slips". So which is it? Are you going to waste time nitpicking at my statements, or are you going to get the point behind what I'm saying?

Just for the sake of clarity let me revise my original statement: I'm talking about the fuckers who write long essays, short posts, or anything in between where they compare playing WW games to being Jackson Pollock or being a Beat Poet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn that case, the fundamental issue you have is that it appears that you believe that RPGs are "Art" and are "Intellectual".
I, and most normal gamers, just think they're a game.

Well, that's not an either-or proposition.

I do believe that RPGs can be artistic and intellectual.  I also believe that they're games.  They're all that, and more.

Quote from: RPGPunditNote also that I did not mean to say that the Swine are only "pretending" to enjoy themselves by feeling superior about their "Artistic" and "intellectual" play.  I'm sure their enjoyment is genuine; the "Pretending" part comes not in the enjoyment, but in pretending that RPGs are something more significant than what they are, and claiming that they are somehow doing Great Things by playing the kinds of games they play.

"Great Things"?  Odd phrase.

When I play an artistic game, the artistry is important and meaningful to me.  If it's also important and meaningful to the other people at my table then I'm a happy performer with an engaged audience.  If it turns out to have any importance or meaning to people I tell about it, that's gravy.

But neither I nor most players I know care whether their play is objectively important and meaningful to all humanity.  It is entirely possible for me to enthusiastically pursue a game's meaning for me without insisting that it have any meaning for you.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's no such thing as "sincere" "artistic or intellectual" roleplaying. RPGs are a fucking game.

They're games with significant latitude for artistic and intellectual content.

If that's not where you get your fun, that's cool.  But I think it's shoddy reasoning to assume that people who do get some fun out of the creative elements of RPGs can't do so in the context of playing a game.

Quote from: RPGPunditJust for the sake of clarity let me revise my original statement: I'm talking about the fuckers who write long essays, short posts, or anything in between where they compare playing WW games to being Jackson Pollock or being a Beat Poet.

Well, how far does that go?  Is anyone who personally values the artistic or intellectual elements of a game Swine?  Or is it only the people who insist that everyone agree upon the objective artistic and intellectual value of the game?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, that's not an either-or proposition.

I do believe that RPGs can be artistic and intellectual.  I also believe that they're games.  They're all that, and more.

And that's where you and I part company. Its just a fucking game.

Quote"Great Things"?  Odd phrase.

When I play an artistic game, the artistry is important and meaningful to me.  If it's also important and meaningful to the other people at my table then I'm a happy performer with an engaged audience.  If it turns out to have any importance or meaning to people I tell about it, that's gravy.

But neither I nor most players I know care whether their play is objectively important and meaningful to all humanity.  It is entirely possible for me to enthusiastically pursue a game's meaning for me without insisting that it have any meaning for you.

The evidence seems to show otherwise.  If the Swine were really like this, and not prosletyzing out of a need to shore up their shaky reality, then there'd be no problem.  Yet there clearly is.

QuoteThey're games with significant latitude for artistic and intellectual content.

So you are admitting that you believe some games are objectively more Art and more Intellectual than others?

QuoteIf that's not where you get your fun, that's cool.  But I think it's shoddy reasoning to assume that people who do get some fun out of the creative elements of RPGs can't do so in the context of playing a game.

For a guy who claims he's not out to play rhetorical cheap tricks, you sure are loving changing the goalposts at every opportunity.
Fact is, whatever you're talking about up there is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is the dude that gets his fun out of making a big song and dance number out of how smart or special he is because of the type of RPGs he plays and the ways he plays them.

QuoteWell, how far does that go?  Is anyone who personally values the artistic or intellectual elements of a game Swine?  Or is it only the people who insist that everyone agree upon the objective artistic and intellectual value of the game?

I've already clarified this. See above.

RPGPundit

Top of a new page, and time to sum up (fairly and accurately, I hope!) what's been said to date.  But first, I'll field a brief side-question from Pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you are admitting that you believe some games are objectively more Art and more Intellectual than others?

The quote he was responding to was me saying "They're games with significant latitude for artistic and intellectual content," and I suspect what we're suffering from here is pronoun trouble.  The subject of the nearest sentence was "RPGs" (from "RPGs are a fucking game") and so my sentence expands out (at least as I meant it) to say "RPGs are games with significant latitude for artistic and intellectual content."

All RPGs, in my opinion, from Toon to D&D, from CoC to DitV.  There's latitude there for art, whether people choose to take advantage of it or not.  That's what I was saying.  So the answer to Pundit's question is "No, I don't think some games are objectively more art or more intellectual than others."


Now ... back to recapping!  

In our first page we had a nice little back and forth where (roughly) Pundit said "Swine are people who try to get validation from pretending to be all artistic and intellectual about their games," and I said "But what if they're not pretending ... what if they really do have fun with the artistic and intellectual elements?"  To which Pundit responds:

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's no such thing as "sincere" "artistic or intellectual" roleplaying.

... and ...

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd that's where you and I part company. Its just a fucking game.

That, to me, is our big sticking point at the moment.

Pundit:  I'd like to ask you if you can clarify some things about your position.  I realize that I may be asking you to restate things that you feel you have stated with crystal clarity already.  I know that can be frustrating.  I apologize in advance if this is the case, and I ask that you bear with me.  Your viewpoint is quite different from the way I think about games, and I really want to be 100% certain that I understand where you're coming from.  I'd rather spend a post or two building that foundation now than have us spiral off into misunderstandings later.

I liked how well the "True-or-False" format worked for us last time, so I'm going to do it again ... though in deference to Pundit's dislike I will reluctantly abandon my much-beloved LIST tags

True or False:  It is impossible to play a roleplaying game in a way that is artistic or intellectual.

True or False:  It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from playing a roleplaying game in an artistic or intellectual way.

True or False:  It is impossible for someone to believe that they derive sincere enjoyment from playing a roleplaying game in an artistic or intellectual way ... if they claim that they're doing so then they are knowingly lying.


For my part, I believe that all of the above are false.  I have fun playing RPGs in many, many ways.  I like fondling polyhedral dice (oh, my lovelies!) and I like hanging out with friends and I like crushing my enemy and seeing him cower before me.  One of the ways that I have fun playing RPGs is by creating and appreciating well-crafted stories that touch the heart and fire the mind.  That's art, right there.  It doesn't have to be great art for it to be art.  Doing that is part of the whole scene at my table, when my friends and I sit down to play a game.  It is (for us) an integral part of playing the game, like throwing dice or speaking in character.

Quote from: TonyLBAll RPGs, in my opinion, from Toon to D&D, from CoC to DitV.  There's latitude there for art, whether people choose to take advantage of it or not.  That's what I was saying.  So the answer to Pundit's question is "No, I don't think some games are objectively more art or more intellectual than others."

Ah hah.. and under the heading of "whether people choose to take advantage of it or not", I get to my second question: Do you believe that certain playstyles of RPGs are more intellectual or Artistic than others?

QuotePundit:  I'd like to ask you if you can clarify some things about your position.  I realize that I may be asking you to restate things that you feel you have stated with crystal clarity already.  I know that can be frustrating.  I apologize in advance if this is the case, and I ask that you bear with me.  Your viewpoint is quite different from the way I think about games, and I really want to be 100% certain that I understand where you're coming from.  I'd rather spend a post or two building that foundation now than have us spiral off into misunderstandings later.

I liked how well the "True-or-False" format worked for us last time, so I'm going to do it again ... though in deference to Pundit's dislike I will reluctantly abandon my much-beloved LIST tags

True or False:  It is impossible to play a roleplaying game in a way that is artistic or intellectual.

Its entirely possible to play RPGs that are smart, or that turn out beautifully.  What is impossible is the idea that RPGs are anything "more than a mere game", that they are Art-with-a-capital-A, or that they are a subject that merit a rigorous intellectual pursuit (usually stated by people who wouldn't know how to pursue something with intellectual rigour to save their lives, and who thus settle for creating absurd pseudo-intellectual significance to meaningless pursuits like RPGs).

QuoteTrue or False:  It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from playing a roleplaying game in an artistic or intellectual way.

Ok, I think before we can continue on this, we have to define what the fuck you mean by "artistic" and "intellectual"; otherwise you're just trying to tend a rhetorical trap for me.

Again, as I've said countless times already: you can have RPGs that are PRETTY and you can have RPGs that are SMART. That's not what the fuck I'm talking about, and its what you are clearly repeatedly trying to steer the conversation toward in order to make it look like I'm claiming that RPGs could never be either.

QuoteTrue or False:  It is impossible for someone to believe that they derive sincere enjoyment from playing a roleplaying game in an artistic or intellectual way ... if they claim that they're doing so then they are knowingly lying.

Oh no, they can believe they are doing "High Art" when they run an RPG, they can really believe that they are the equivalent of Andy Warhol or Jack Kerouac because they run a game of Dogs in the Vinyard.  That's what you'd chalk up to the "lying to yourself" category.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAh hah.. and under the heading of "whether people choose to take advantage of it or not", I get to my second question: Do you believe that certain playstyles of RPGs are more intellectual or Artistic than others?

That's an excellent question.  Thanks!

I think different groups are going to see different amounts of intellectual and artistic material in their games.  I think there are two things that do reliably make a difference:  Intention and Focus.

   Intention:  If the group wants to create art, or to make something worthy of intellectual investigation, then the odds are good that they will have more of those moments than an otherwise equal group that's not trying.

Focus:  If the group pays attention when a moment of art or intellectual challenge arises, then the odds are good that they will have more such moments than an otherwise equal group that lets the moments slip by unnoticed.

Those are pretty much the only things I've seen that have any impact on how much art and intellectual challenge arises from a game.  Things that specifically don't make a difference include the genre the group plays in, what kind of adventures they like, how much angst they pour out, or how many explosions they cause.  You can just as easily create beauty in a blood-soaked raid on the Lizard-King's treasury as you can in a frou-frou cocktail party among messianic avatars of lost religions.

So ... from that, can you tell me whether the differences I highlighted are something that you'd include under the heading of "playstyle"?  Because that's what's going to let me answer this question:  Do some playstyles promote the creation of art and intellectual challenge better than others?

Quote from: RPGPunditIts entirely possible to play RPGs that are smart, or that turn out beautifully.  What is impossible is the idea that RPGs are anything "more than a mere game", that they are Art-with-a-capital-A, or that they are a subject that merit a rigorous intellectual pursuit

I ... don't know what you mean by the distinction between "art" and "Art-with-a-capital-A."  Or, for that matter, the difference between a "smart" game and one that merits a rigorous intellectual pursuit.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, I think before we can continue on this, we have to define what the fuck you mean by "artistic" and "intellectual"

Yeah, I think you're right.  It might also help if, when I'm done, you define what you mean by "artistic" and "intellectual."

Frankly, you've gotten fairly close already by your terms of "pretty" and "smart."  I'm not really interested in a (purportedly) objective standard of excellence, like Art-with-a-capital-A so much as I am with the subjective standard of something that's meaningful to the person creating it.

If something you contribute to the game is something that you personally find beautiful and moving then you've made an artistic contribution.

If something you contribute to the game is something that you personally find thought-provoking or challenging then you've made an intellectual contribution.

Like I said, I'd be interested in hearing how you're using the terms.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, as I've said countless times already: you can have RPGs that are PRETTY and you can have RPGs that are SMART.

Okay, cool.  So while we're having the discussion of terms, above ... can I re-ask the question using these?

True or False:  It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from making their RPG pretty or smart.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh no, they can believe they are doing "High Art" when they run an RPG, they can really believe that they are the equivalent of Andy Warhol or Jack Kerouac because they run a game of Dogs in the Vinyard.  That's what you'd chalk up to the "lying to yourself" category.

That's not answering my question though ... I'm not asking if they can deceive themselves into thinking they're doing High Art.  I'm asking if they can deceive themselves into thinking that they're having fun because of their artistic contributions.  What's your answer to that question?

Quote from: TonyLBThat's an excellent question.  Thanks!

I think different groups are going to see different amounts of intellectual and artistic material in their games.  I think there are two things that do reliably make a difference:  Intention and Focus.

   Intention:  If the group wants to create art, or to make something worthy of intellectual investigation, then the odds are good that they will have more of those moments than an otherwise equal group that's not trying.

Focus:  If the group pays attention when a moment of art or intellectual challenge arises, then the odds are good that they will have more such moments than an otherwise equal group that lets the moments slip by unnoticed.

Those are pretty much the only things I've seen that have any impact on how much art and intellectual challenge arises from a game.  Things that specifically don't make a difference include the genre the group plays in, what kind of adventures they like, how much angst they pour out, or how many explosions they cause.  You can just as easily create beauty in a blood-soaked raid on the Lizard-King's treasury as you can in a frou-frou cocktail party among messianic avatars of lost religions.

Ok, well, if I choose to believe this last paragraph, that would be the point of departure from Swinedom to non-Swinedom right there. The Swine claim repeatedly that there are certain games, certain types of genres, and certain ways to play that are inherently smarter and/or more Artistic than others. They claim, in short, that the way they play is more meaningful and significant than the way normal gamers play.

QuoteSo ... from that, can you tell me whether the differences I highlighted are something that you'd include under the heading of "playstyle"?  Because that's what's going to let me answer this question:  Do some playstyles promote the creation of art and intellectual challenge better than others?

I would say that RPGs are just games.  If you start thinking of them as something other than games, ie. "an exercise in shared story construction", or a type of therapy, or anything along those lines, then you are entering into Swine Country.

QuoteI ... don't know what you mean by the distinction between "art" and "Art-with-a-capital-A."  Or, for that matter, the difference between a "smart" game and one that merits a rigorous intellectual pursuit.

In the former case, what I'm inferring is that you can obviously discount my whole point about "Art" by claiming that anything anyone does can be loosely interpreted as "Art". But what the Swine do is suggest that what certain gamers do is NOT "art", and what they do is "Art" (or that the former is a lesser poorer kind of "art" than their "Art").

In the latter case, see the former but substitute "intellectual" for "art".

QuoteYeah, I think you're right.  It might also help if, when I'm done, you define what you mean by "artistic" and "intellectual."

What I'm talking about is pretentiousness. It is actually the pseudo-artistry and pseudo-intellectualism of claiming that you are an artist or an intellectual just because you say you are.

QuoteTrue or False:  It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from making their RPG pretty or smart.

This is entirely beside the point. I've already agreed that people can play RPGs in a way that are both pretty and/or smart as GAMES.  The real issue is with people who suggest their RPG-experience is prettier or smarter than others because what they're doing is more than the "mere games" others engage in.  In other words, the old "role play vs. roll-play" chestnut.

QuoteThat's not answering my question though ... I'm not asking if they can deceive themselves into thinking they're doing High Art.  I'm asking if they can deceive themselves into thinking that they're having fun because of their artistic contributions.  What's your answer to that question?

My answer is that they could be having a real kind of "fun" based on deceiving themselves about the importance of what they're doing.  Its not the "fun" that is the deception, it is the idea of their own importance.

RPGPundit

Y'know, I hate to get all confrontational when we've got this good dynamic building up here ... but you didn't actually answer any of my questions in that last go-round.  You'd quote the question, and then talk about something different.  Here ... let me show you...

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI ... don't know what you mean by the distinction between "art" and "Art-with-a-capital-A." Or, for that matter, the difference between a "smart" game and one that merits a rigorous intellectual pursuit.

[W]hat I'm inferring is that you can obviously discount my whole point about "Art" by claiming that anything anyone does can be loosely interpreted as "Art". But what the Swine do is suggest that what certain gamers do is NOT "art", and what they do is "Art" (or that the former is a lesser poorer kind of "art" than their "Art").

I'm not really all that interested in what you think I believe about Art.  And I've already heard (in some detail) what you think the Swine believe about Art.  What I'd like to hear is what you believe about Art.  That's why I posed the question.  In fact, I was so interested I brought it up twice...

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBIt might also help if, when I'm done, you define what you mean by "artistic" and "intellectual."

What I'm talking about is pretentiousness.

I get that you're choosing to talk about pretentiousness.  And I don't mind you talking about pretentiousness.  But I'd be obliged if you would first answer my question about what you mean when you talk about "artistic" and "intellectual."  Then you can talk about pretentiousness to your heart's content.

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBTrue or False: It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from making their RPG pretty or smart.

This is entirely beside the point. I've already agreed that people can play RPGs in a way that are both pretty and/or smart as GAMES.

Now, see, it may be entirely beside the point you'd prefer to address, but I'm still really interested in hearing your opinion on this.  Saying "Games can be played so that they're smart and pretty" is quite different from saying "People can make smart and pretty their goal for a game, and get good, clean enjoyment from that."  That seems like a no-brainer to me, but a lot of things you've said make me really wonder whether you think differently.

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI'm asking if they can deceive themselves into thinking that they're having fun because of their artistic contributions.

My answer is that they could be having a real kind of "fun" based on deceiving themselves about the importance of what they're doing.  Its not the "fun" that is the deception, it is the idea of their own importance.

And I understand that's an answer you're eager to give, but it's not an answer to my question.  It's just something that you like to say which is tangentially connected to my question.  I'm asking "Can people deceive themselves in Way #1?" and you respond "What I'm saying is that they can deceive themselves in Way #2."


Honestly, this exchange is making me really, really glad that we're doing this in a format with no other posters.  I know from past experience that if you'd posted these entertaining diversions in a public thread, your comment would already be buried under a page or two of people arguing the same old points, pro- and con.  You'd jump in on that argument (as is right and proper ... it's your favorite subject) and these questions that could illuminate something new about your thinking would never get answered.  It's nice to be in a situation where your ability to excite crowds doesn't get in the way of a focussed discussion.

So ... here are my questions again, rephrased a bit more directly.  If you could answer them I'd be grateful.  You don't need to deal with the stuff up-post of this at all if you don't want to.  Just give straightforward answers that actually address these three questions, and then you can elaborate all you want on the subjects that you consider important.  By all means, do both in separate sections of the same post:  electrons are cheap.

(1) What do you mean when you talk about something being "artistic" or "intellectual"?  You've talked a lot about what it means to pretend to those values, but what (in your opinion) is the genuine article?

(2) True or False:  It is impossible for a person to derive sincere enjoyment from making their RPG pretty or smart.

(3) True or False:  It is impossible for someone to believe that they derive sincere enjoyment from making their RPG pretty or smart ... if they claim that they're doing so then they are knowingly lying.