Quote from: TonyLBI'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...

Why? How the fuck is that relevant to the discussion? The issue that we'd agreed to discuss, the on that you're pussyfooting around with all these questions and your insistence on endlessly debating semantics is the issue of the Swine: whether they really exist or not.
I think I've already done enough to define the Swine. The question now is: do you or do you not admit that there are people like those I've referred to?
Of course, I believe that you in fact believe in many of the things I've described as "Swinedom", so you're living proof that the Swine do exist. But even if you want to feign innocence, are you seriously going to pretend that those people are not present in the hobby?

QuoteI 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.

That WAS my answer. When I say "artistic" or "intellectual" as Swine activities, what I mean is being Pretentious by talking a lot about art or academics.

That's your answer, unless you're asking me what my definition of REAL Art and REAL intellectual pursuit would be, which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand except to say that "Roleplaying is neither".

QuoteAnd 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."

And you're desperate to talk about #1, something I've already discounted as not really being useful to my definition of Swine, because you think it'd be easier to trap me with it than with #2.

QuoteSo ... 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.

How about if I answer these questions, and then we get to the fucking point?

Quote(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?

The genuine article is "not found in Roleplaying".  For the sake of our discussion, that's all that matters. I will NOT let you veer this off into a semantic discussion about the "real definition" of Art or Academia.

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

Its possible for a person to derive enjoyment from their RPG BEING pretty or smart. It is also possible for a person to derive REAL (albeit stupid, IMO) enjoyment from trying to "make" their RPG be art or intellectual. In neither situation am I saying "they just believe they're having fun but they're not". I'm just saying that, in the latter case, their fun is a menace to everyone else's fun in the hobby because of the psychological needs the people having that kind of fun exhibit, whereby they need to force everyone else to recognize that their kind of "fun" is somehow superior, prettier, or smarter than everyone else's, and they cannot accept that other people would not recognize this.

Quote(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.

Why the fuck would it matter? Look, nothing is impossible: purple elephants might spring out of your ass tomorrow and start to sing chilean folk songs, but that wouldn't have much of anything to do with our conversation at hand either.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy? How the fuck is that relevant to the discussion?

Well, here's why:

You've said that Swine are people who are motivated by the pretense that they're doing something artistic or intellectual when they roleplay.  You've further said that you can tell these people, because they talk about roleplaying as if it's art (or possibly "Art-with-a-Capital-A," or "High Art").

It seems, to me, like you're assuming several steps in that argument without ever quite stating them.  Maybe the hidden steps would be convincing to me, and maybe they wouldn't.  I won't know until I get a look at them.  So I'm trying to figure out how you are so sure that these same people aren't, for instance, people who genuinely enjoy bringing artistic sensibilities and techniques to the act of playing their game.  If that's what they're doing then saying they're doing it wouldn't be pretensious ... it would be honest.  In which case, at least the way I understand your definition, they would not be Swine.

Now, you asked me to define what I mean by "artistic," and "intellectual," and I did.  I hope that you can see from how I think about the terms why I don't have a problem believing that people are playing RPGs in an artistic way (by my sense of the word, and perhaps by theirs) and sincerely deriving their fun from that.  I see no great reason to suspect those people of having only pretensions of artistry.

You, on the other hand, do see some reason to believe that those people are pursuing merely pretensions of artistry ... and that belief is sort of central to your whole notion of the Swine.  This idea that you can jump directly from the observation "They're acting as if RPGs can have art in them" to the conclusion "... and therefore they can only be pursuing pretensions of artistry" looks awfully strange to me.  I get that you believe it, but I don't understand why.

So I'm trying to get some sense of how you're filling in that gap.  Is it because RPGs cannot have anything artistic in them?  That seems to be what you're saying, but it begs the question, why?  What is your definition of art, such that RPGs can't conceivably contain it?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe issue that we'd agreed to discuss, the on that you're pussyfooting around with all these questions and your insistence on endlessly debating semantics is the issue of the Swine: whether they really exist or not.

Exactly.  I hope I've made it clear how I am still pursuing that discussion ... indeed, how my questions are absolutely key to my understanding your arguments in this regard.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow about if I answer these questions, and then we get to the fucking point?

I'd be delighted if you'd answered the questions ... but you didn't.  Again, you answered tangential questions that you'd rather talk about.  Your rhetoric is nicely crafted to make it look like you answered though:  I particularly liked your answer to question #2, where you say (roughly) "They can enjoy the game BEING pretty or smart, and they can enjoy MAKING the game artistic and intellectual (but I refuse to define how I use those terms)," and carefully avoid speaking to the question of whether they can enjoy MAKING the game pretty or smart.  Very slick ... but still not an answer.

I'll present my original questions again, in case you forgot them.  I believe I've established my reasons for thinking them relevant.  I still want answers:

(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.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, here's why:

You've said that Swine are people who are motivated by the pretense that they're doing something artistic or intellectual when they roleplay.  You've further said that you can tell these people, because they talk about roleplaying as if it's art (or possibly "Art-with-a-Capital-A," or "High Art").

It seems, to me, like you're assuming several steps in that argument without ever quite stating them.  Maybe the hidden steps would be convincing to me, and maybe they wouldn't.

If you believe this, then you obviously have some supposition of what these "steps" are. Feel free to suggest them, and I'll comment on their validity. As it stands, I have no idea what you're talking about.  The terms I've used seem pretty fucking self-explanatory, and no one but you seems to have any problem figuring them out, or figuring out just how utterly irrelevant and distracting to the topic to divert this into some kind of debate about "what is real art" or "what is real intellectualism".

QuoteI won't know until I get a look at them.  So I'm trying to figure out how you are so sure that these same people aren't, for instance, people who genuinely enjoy bringing artistic sensibilities and techniques to the act of playing their game.  If that's what they're doing then saying they're doing it wouldn't be pretensious ... it would be honest.  In which case, at least the way I understand your definition, they would not be Swine.

How hard is this for you to get?? The pretentiousness is not found anywhere other than in the very notion that RPGs can be something more meaningful than a game, a fucking HOBBY. It can be a personally-meaningful hobby, if that's what you're looking for, fine. But the idea that you are superior in your playing of a game than other people in their playing of a game is bollocks.

QuoteNow, you asked me to define what I mean by "artistic," and "intellectual," and I did.  I hope that you can see from how I think about the terms why I don't have a problem believing that people are playing RPGs in an artistic way (by my sense of the word, and perhaps by theirs) and sincerely deriving their fun from that.  I see no great reason to suspect those people of having only pretensions of artistry.

So what you're saying here is that you believe RPGs can be "Art", in the sense of having some meaning or purpose beyond having fun/socializing etc?

QuoteYou, on the other hand, do see some reason to believe that those people are pursuing merely pretensions of artistry ...

They're pursuing pretensions of being worthwhile human beings because of how they play a fucking game. That's the pretentiousness. The idea that you're feeling all sophisticated and fucking superior because you're pretending that the way you play a fucking game is better than the way others play it. Its sickening.

Quoteand that belief is sort of central to your whole notion of the Swine.  This idea that you can jump directly from the observation "They're acting as if RPGs can have art in them" to the conclusion "... and therefore they can only be pursuing pretensions of artistry" looks awfully strange to me.  I get that you believe it, but I don't understand why.

You clearly don't believe this because you want to believe that RPGs have some kind of great artistic value. If you didn't have this Swinish notion, you wouldn't have any problem understanding why.

QuoteSo I'm trying to get some sense of how you're filling in that gap.  Is it because RPGs cannot have anything artistic in them?  That seems to be what you're saying, but it begs the question, why?  What is your definition of art, such that RPGs can't conceivably contain it?

Yes, I don't believe that smearing excrement on canvas is "art". I don't even believe that sloppy freeform interpretive dance is "art". I don't believe that wearing black or drinking vermouth makes you an "artist", just like talking a lot about Sartre or Camus doesn't automatically make you a smart person. Nor does using a lot of big words make you well-spoken.  All of these things are just bullshit trappings that people use as an alternative to the actual talent or dedication that are required to do worthwhile things in society.
So I'm sure a fuck not going to believe that playing The Mountain Witch makes you a fucking artist.

QuoteExactly.  I hope I've made it clear how I am still pursuing that discussion ... indeed, how my questions are absolutely key to my understanding your arguments in this regard.

I'd say that they're more likely "key" to your hopes to try to catch me in some kind of cheap rhetorical trap or to try some pathetic attempt to claim that by my definitions I must somehow be a "swine".

QuoteI'd be delighted if you'd answered the questions ... but you didn't.  Again, you answered tangential questions that you'd rather talk about.  Your rhetoric is nicely crafted to make it look like you answered though:  I particularly liked your answer to question #2, where you say (roughly) "They can enjoy the game BEING pretty or smart, and they can enjoy MAKING the game artistic and intellectual (but I refuse to define how I use those terms)," and carefully avoid speaking to the question of whether they can enjoy MAKING the game pretty or smart.  Very slick ... but still not an answer.

That's because "making the game pretty and smart" is your way of trying to argue that its making RPGs either Art or Academic pursuit, which is nonsense.  Working hard at the hobby-skill of roleplaying is one thing, talking a lot about "incoherence" and "illusionism" and occasionally playing some one-shot microgame about erotic victorian university professors, or dressing in black and calling yourself "Lord Nocturne" and pretending to be a Vampire (all while in either case pissing all over the "unwashed masses" that dare to have fun actually playing a game) is another thing entirely...

QuoteI'll present my original questions again, in case you forgot them.  I believe I've established my reasons for thinking them relevant.  I still want answers:

(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?

Its utterly fucking irrelevant to this discussion. It is SOMETHING COMPLETELY UNAVAILABLE THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF RPGS.  It would be going out and painting the sistine chapel, or writing the theory of general relativity. It would no way shape or form involve diddling with d10s.

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

Your question is a fucking trap. Because as I've REPEATEDLY STATED, "pretty and smart" is something TOTALLY DIFFERENT from pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-artistic, and therefore has nothing to do with my definition of the Swine.

Quote(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.

See the answer to question 2. Seeing as how I've ALREADY REPEATEDLY STATED that RPGs can be pretty and smart without being pretentious, I can certainly say that NORMAL ROLEPLAYERS can enjoy making their rpg play be pretty or smart. Since that's nothing to do with what the Swine are doing though, its utterly beside the fucking point of this thread.

But of course, feel free to go ahead and try to somehow turn this into a rhetorical trap now... :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHow hard is this for you to get?? The pretentiousness is not found anywhere other than in the very notion that RPGs can be something more meaningful than a game, a fucking HOBBY. It can be a personally-meaningful hobby, if that's what you're looking for, fine. But the idea that you are superior in your playing of a game than other people in their playing of a game is bollocks.

My goodness ... that whole paragraph looks rife with juicy, meaningful subtext to me.  RPGs can be personally-meaningful, but they can't be more-meaningful-than-a-game?  And anyone who says they are more-meaningful-than-a-game is claiming that they're superior to other people who only find them personally-meaningful?  I feel like maybe I've found a Rosetta Stone to Pundit-speak here, if only I can figure out how the terms match up to something I can understand.  

I'd love to try feeding back my best guesses about what he's saying, and have Pundit correct me (and explain himself in the process).  But every time I do that, he gets all "You're trying to trap me into a set of assumptions that are not mine!  You Swine!"  So I guess that tool of communication is off the table

Okay then, true/false time again ... this time with questions I do not even fully understand.  It's like probing the ground with a strange object to try to discern the shape of the object.  Wierd.

True or False:  Swine claim that their play is more-meaningful-than-a-game.
True or False:  If you say your roleplaying game is "artistic" you are saying that it is more-meaningful-than-a-game.
True or False:  It is axiomatic (known without argument) that traditional roleplay can be personally-meaningful but cannot be more-meaningful-than-a-game.
True or False:  Claiming that your play is more-meaningful-than-a-game, while someone else's play is merely personally-meaningful is saying that your play is superior to their play.

I suspect that there's something here about art as a subjective value vs. art as an objective value ... but like I said, I don't want to come across as trying to force my assumptions on Pundit.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo what you're saying here is that you believe RPGs can be "Art", in the sense of having some meaning or purpose beyond having fun/socializing etc?

Yes, I believe that RPGs can have meaning for their players that is not limited to having fun and socializing.  I'm not going to talk about whether that's "Art" by your terms, because so long as you refuse to talk about how you use the terms they're only muddying the conversation.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's because "making the game pretty and smart" is your way of trying to argue that its making RPGs either Art or Academic pursuit, which is nonsense.

Look, the only person here who's defined what they mean by the terms "artistic" and "intellectual" is me.  By the way I read them (and explained them), it's perfectly clear that RPGs can be artistic and intellectual.  So where does "nonsense" come into it?  It's not like you actually can't make sense of what I'm saying.  You just disagree.  It's only nonsense by some other set of terms ... which you won't disclose because you claim they're irrelevant.

If your definitions of the terms are so irrelevant then maybe you shouldn't be making so many arguments that depend upon them.

Quote from: RPGPunditI can certainly say that NORMAL ROLEPLAYERS can enjoy making their rpg play be pretty or smart.

Wow.  Thank you.  That looks, to me, like a straightforward answer to my questions #2 and #3.

Now, like I said, the last thing I want to do is to grab some rhetorical mis-step by you and make too much out of it.  So I'm gonna double-check here:  It sounds to me like you're agreeing that people can set out to make their games pretty or smart, and that they can enjoy the act of doing that.  Is that correct?  Or am I making too much of the statement?

Holy fuck... and we continue with "Uncle Tony's Cavalcade of Irrelevant Shit That Has Nothing To Do With The Topic at Hand..." :rolleyes:

Quote from: TonyLBMy goodness ... that whole paragraph looks rife with juicy, meaningful subtext to me.  RPGs can be personally-meaningful, but they can't be more-meaningful-than-a-game?  And anyone who says they are more-meaningful-than-a-game is claiming that they're superior to other people who only find them personally-meaningful?  I feel like maybe I've found a Rosetta Stone to Pundit-speak here, if only I can figure out how the terms match up to something I can understand.  

If you really don't understand, literally don't understand what I'm saying, it must be because the fundamental of your world-view is so utterly different than mine that you just literally can't understand why the shit that the Swine say could possibly be offensive to anyone else.  Ergo, you must be one of the Swine. Congratulations.

QuoteOkay then, true/false time again ... this time with questions I do not even fully understand.  It's like probing the ground with a strange object to try to discern the shape of the object.  Wierd.

Oh let the fucking bullshit die, will you?! We're 40% into the fucking thing and we still haven't gotten to where you actually make a fucking argument against my position on the Swine.

QuoteTrue or False:  Swine claim that their play is more-meaningful-than-a-game.

True. Of course, often they pretend that they don't feel this way, pretty well anytime that admitting it would risk them losing an argument or other people not buying the crap they're selling.

QuoteTrue or False:  If you say your roleplaying game is "artistic" you are saying that it is more-meaningful-than-a-game.

True, if you mean to say that you are an Artist by playing this game. If you say "artistic" but just mean pretty (and not "filled with deep aesthetic significance that makes me worthy of great praise for my genius") then obviously not.

QuoteTrue or False:  It is axiomatic (known without argument) that traditional roleplay can be personally-meaningful but cannot be more-meaningful-than-a-game.

True.
Look, obviously we're having trouble here, so let's go back one more step and put you through RPG-preschool, since you seem to have been sick that day:

There's two things you need to know about Roleplaying Games.
The first is that they are GAMES.
The second is that they involve ROLEPLAYING.

That's it. Its right there in the name: GAMES.  Where's the fucking problem, bitch?

QuoteTrue or False:  Claiming that your play is more-meaningful-than-a-game, while someone else's play is merely personally-meaningful is saying that your play is superior to their play.

True, by obvious logic. If you are claiming that doofus over there is just doing "rollplaying" and "hack and slash", while you are creating fucking High Art over here, you are by definition making claims of superiority. You can also try to be all nice and patronizing, like in the latest edition of the WoD mainbook where it says you should feel sorry for all the poor inferior D&D players and try to "educate" them in the more intelligent way to play, but when it comes down on it you are looking down on what most people actually do with RPGs as being unworthy of you.

QuoteLook, the only person here who's defined what they mean by the terms "artistic" and "intellectual" is me.  By the way I read them (and explained them), it's perfectly clear that RPGs can be artistic and intellectual.  So where does "nonsense" come into it?  It's not like you actually can't make sense of what I'm saying.

No, you're quite right Mr. Dictionary. Fuck, first "pretentiousness" now "nonsense"... is all of this shootout just going to involve you nitpicking about my semantic use of words? Or do you have a fucking point?
In any case, you're quite right when you say that I can make sense of what you're saying. When I said "nonsense" above what I really meant to say was "utter fucking bullshit with no grounding in truth or relevance".

QuoteWow.  Thank you.  That looks, to me, like a straightforward answer to my questions #2 and #3.

Now, like I said, the last thing I want to do is to grab some rhetorical mis-step by you and make too much out of it.  So I'm gonna double-check here:  It sounds to me like you're agreeing that people can set out to make their games pretty or smart, and that they can enjoy the act of doing that.  Is that correct?  Or am I making too much of the statement?

Why the fuck not? Sure, yes. Absolutely. Now are you just intentionally missing the part where I've repeatedly said IT HAS NO FUCKING RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE AT HAND OF "SWINE", IN NO WAY DESCRIBES THE SWINE, OR WHAT I THINK THE SWINE DO?
You may as well be asking me to confirm or deny the statement that "puppies are cute"; for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

But yes, please, go ahead now and try to make something out of my confirmation of the above that will cleverly turn around your increasingly desperate failing search for a semantic sophist's counterargument to my obvious truths.

RPGPundit

Top of the page, and time for the sum-up ... which, sadly, not one of our flashiest.

I had some questions I really wanted to have answered, clarifying Pundit's earlier claim that there is no such thing as sincere artistic roleplaying.  He didn't think they were relevant, and spent a lot of time accusing me of laying rhetorical traps, or flailing, or like that rather than just answering the questions so we could move on.

I'm not thrilled with how many posts we spent on that, but hey, I eventually found out what he thought so I guess all's well that ends well.  Sorry if we put anyone to sleep ... I think I can promise more action (and maybe some explosions!) on this page.

To recap:  Pundit doesn't, actually, think anything terribly crazy or radical on the subject.  He thinks that people can and do work to make their games prettier and smarter, and that they can and do derive enjoyment from that.  So that's a relief.  Common ground.

Then he's got some big snit going about "Artists" and such that's supposed to be completely different from the above, as he's careful to point out at every juncture.  So never let it be said that Pundit thinks that the deliberate creation of beauty is enough to qualify as art.  It's not.  He's got higher standards than that.  Yep.

Fortunately for me, at this point, I'm content to proceed without knowing precisely what his standards are.


So, anyway, 'nuff questions for a while (unless Pundit's arguments suddenly develop a new and surprising wrinkle ... but I don't expect that anymore).  Here's what I believe.  I believe that Pundit has no certain way to distinguish a well-meaning, enthusiastic gamer sincerely trying to bring beauty and smarts to his game from a pretentious poser trying to name-drop art-terms in order to feed an overwhelming vanity.

The simple use of art terms, even really abstruse art terms, is nowhere near enough.  There are people who know this stuff, and it inspires them with new ways to make their game pretty and smart, and (as I've said before) quoting the source of their inspiration isn't pretention, it's honesty.

   Actual Play Example:  I do some animation, and so I study some Film Theory.  A little.  A cocktail-party smattering, if you will.  But enough to have some sense of Eisenstein's theory of montage.  This sort of lay fallow in my mind for a long while until reading Mamet's On Directing Film and McCloud's Understanding Comics (both of which point out different applications of the principles of montage in different media) made me think "Hey, you can do this kind of intercutting in any medium that narrates from a specific viewpoint ... by switching the viewpoint.  I could do that in RPGs!"

The result is some pretty simple, reliable, crafty type stuff.  For instance, if you draw attention (in your narration) to something in a scene that would take some time and attention to observe, it gives the implication that the people in the scene are watching that thing, which has an impact on the emotional tenor of the scene.  You've intercut a snippet of scene into your work in order to impact how people read the whole.  Montage.

So I had some mooks burst in on a PC supernatural investigator, and the player decided he was going to be a cool customer.  I thought that was cool, but I wanted to make sure the mooks didn't sound like pushovers.  So I was going to have to describe them glowering and menacing and all that good mook stuff, but I first described the rain pattering gently on his office window, and the way droplets ran down in little fits and starts.  THEN I described the mooks menacing ... but the whole tone of the scene had changed.  The emotional subtext was that these roughnecks weren't enough to distract the PC from the pitter-patter of the rain.  The player in question was very happy.  He felt that I'd conveyed how totally his character dominated the scene ... while still making the mooks realistic and dangerous.  There ya go:  I'd made the game prettier.  That makes me happy.

Now when I go to describe that later ... why on earth would I NOT mention that I was inspired by Eisenstein?  It'd be dishonest.  I didn't make up the technique myself, I just borrowed it.What result are you going to see from the above example, when I get on message boards to discuss?  Well, I think it's obvious:  I'm going to talk about how I'm adapting what I know of Eisenstein's film theory to my roleplaying, and how it's working fairly well, but not so perfectly that I couldn't use some suggestions.  And then other people are going to talk about what they know, which may well involve more art terms that inspire them.

I'm pretty sure that the Pundit, primed and motivated to see Swine wherever he looks, would read such an exchange and think "Those pretentious PRICKS, acting like their roleplaying is High Art.  It's just a fuckin' game, but they have to try to dress it up with all sorts of pseudo-artistic bullshit.  They're obviously doing that to try to look down on me, pretending that they're better than me.  They're SWINE!"

This is, fundamentally, where I see him going wrong over and over again.  He hears artistic or intellectual terms being bandied about, and he immediately decides that the people are pretentious.  He pre-judges.  Thereafter, he interprets everything he hears from them through his prejudice.

That's why he keeps telling us that the Swine lie almost all of the time, in order to hide their true motivations ... because the vast majority of what these people are saying does not accord with his sense that they're pretentious, bitter, hateful, spiteful people.  But rather than re-examine his assumptions, Pundit just carries blithely on, picking and choosing the pieces of evidence that he'll believe and ignoring the rest.

Now there's a legitimate question here:  Are all people, no matter how pretentious they seem, really just posting (perhaps clumsily) from their own sincerely enthusiasms?  And no, they probably aren't all doing that.  I'm not quite that much of an innocent.  There are probably some people out there who really do look down on people who game Not-Like-Them, and there are probably even some who lie about what they believe in order to win points against their "enemies."

But I don't think this bad behavior has anything to do with the idea of bringing artistic sensibilities to a game.  People who despise anything different, and who inflate their own egos by trying to tear down other people ... they didn't get that way by trying to apply art to their games.  They're just assholes, who happen to use art as a tool, and they have infinitely more in common with assholes who use other tools (like masculinity, or politics, or fashion) than they do with anyone who uses their knowledge of art to sincerely and honestly improve their own gaming.

Quote from: TonyLB(snipped: exposition)

Wow... playing to the crowd much, are we?

QuoteSo, anyway, 'nuff questions for a while (unless Pundit's arguments suddenly develop a new and surprising wrinkle ... but I don't expect that anymore).  Here's what I believe.  I believe that Pundit has no certain way to distinguish a well-meaning, enthusiastic gamer sincerely trying to bring beauty and smarts to his game from a pretentious poser trying to name-drop art-terms in order to feed an overwhelming vanity.

If you start describing your game experience quoting academic texts or comparing it to Indie Cinema or Beat Poets, you're a swine.
If you're saying "we were playing and there was this scene where people got really into their characters and it was awesome"; you're probably not.

QuoteThe simple use of art terms, even really abstruse art terms, is nowhere near enough.  There are people who know this stuff, and it inspires them with new ways to make their game pretty and smart, and (as I've said before) quoting the source of their inspiration isn't pretention, it's honesty.

Bullshit. Its pretentiousness. Its stuck-up. Its a way to make them feel better about themselves and more intelligent than those around them.

Look, dude, I was a university-level teacher. I come from academia, and I know how these fuckers work.
I know that there's lecturers, for example, that lecture to share what they know, and lecture to show off how much they know, and those are two very different things.
The former will rarely if ever need to talk in Jargon, and when they do they will be able to explain those concepts or terms in ways that a 10 year old could understand them.
The latter will fill their conversation with Jargon, often using it even when simple common English words would have more than sufficed to express themselves, and will pepper their phrases with big words and phrases just to show off the fact that they know them. And they will make no effort to define any of these terms in simple ways; if they bother to define them at all, they will do so in as byzantine a way as possible, to create a "litmus test" of understanding that will act as a way to separate those who are willing to accept their ideas and assumptions (and thus their genius) from those who are clearly stupid and ignorant (ie. those who don't give a shit enough to drool over the Brilliant Teacher's every word). They don't want to communicate.

The former WANT you to understand. The latter specifically DON'T want you to understand, they want you be impressed with how much they know that you don't.  They want you to struggle to grasp their genius.
In other words, they're utter shitheads.

The Swine are the latter; the ones who (to bring this back to RPGs) intentionally invent Jargon and Theory and talk about Art with a capital A, and try to sound deep and brilliant and mysterious because they want to impress others with how much they know and impress upon you how little they think you know.

That's what we're talking about. Them, and their "useful idiots", the people who want to get on the bandwagon of feeling smart about themselves and so they'll worship these fuckers to get their approval.

QuoteActual Play Example:  I do some animation, and so I study some Film Theory.  A little.  A cocktail-party smattering, if you will.  But enough to have some sense of Eisenstein's theory of montage.  This sort of lay fallow in my mind for a long while until reading Mamet's On Directing Film and McCloud's Understanding Comics (both of which point out different applications of the principles of montage in different media) made me think "Hey, you can do this kind of intercutting in any medium that narrates from a specific viewpoint ... by switching the viewpoint.  I could do that in RPGs!"

Holy fuck. :rollbarf:

Yes, see... you're a Swine. You're a Swine for feeling the need to use these terms, and for needing to show off your use of these terms.
And you're a Swine for thinking that all of this makes your type of gaming better, and that others should revere your kinds of games.

QuoteI'm pretty sure that the Pundit, primed and motivated to see Swine wherever he looks, would read such an exchange and think "Those pretentious PRICKS, acting like their roleplaying is High Art.  It's just a fuckin' game, but they have to try to dress it up with all sorts of pseudo-artistic bullshit.  They're obviously doing that to try to look down on me, pretending that they're better than me.  They're SWINE!"

This is, fundamentally, where I see him going wrong over and over again.  He hears artistic or intellectual terms being bandied about, and he immediately decides that the people are pretentious.  He pre-judges.  Thereafter, he interprets everything he hears from them through his prejudice.

Its not pre-judging. Its just judging.

QuoteThat's why he keeps telling us that the Swine lie almost all of the time, in order to hide their true motivations ... because the vast majority of what these people are saying does not accord with his sense that they're pretentious, bitter, hateful, spiteful people.  

No, I say this because you lie, on a regular basis.

And here's where your whole argument falls down: you're desperate to only talk about the Swine's activities inasmuch as it applies to their own internal activities.
That's all fine and good, you're all still shitheads and idiots for engaging in this kind of pretentiousness, but frankly if that's ALL you did, I wouldn't give a flying fuck about you.

The part where you go from just being pretentious fucks to being Swine that started a WAR with us is in your activities with regards to gaming as a Hobby.
If you all just stayed in your own little areas and diddled yourselves in your little pseudo-academic circle-jerk, no one would care.
The problem with the Swine isn't about that at all. Its all to do with their attitude and actions with regards to the rest of us in the roleplaying hobby. With your desire to impose yourself in RPG forums, to impose your theories, to impose your games, and to subvert and alter mainstream games to fit your "movements".

QuoteNow there's a legitimate question here:  Are all people, no matter how pretentious they seem, really just posting (perhaps clumsily) from their own sincerely enthusiasms?  And no, they probably aren't all doing that.  I'm not quite that much of an innocent.  There are probably some people out there who really do look down on people who game Not-Like-Them, and there are probably even some who lie about what they believe in order to win points against their "enemies."

"Probably"? "Some"? :raise:

Let's see: there's the WW-swine's subversion of roleplaying all through the 90s, Marc Rein·Hagen and the Story-based gaming movement, Bruce Baugh, Rebecca Borgstrom, the RPGnet fashionistas and Modclique, and of course the whole fucking "Brain Damage/Beat Poet" crowd over at the Forge, Edwards, Vince Baker, and all the other scum; plus the "useful idiots" who drank the koolaid all of the above were peddling.

Oh yes, and the countless Storygame Swine who have come onto this site to cause trouble since my tenure here began.

If your goal in this shootout is really to try to prove that the Swine are a Myth, you aren't going to win by discussing semantics about "art" or even by trying to engage in an apologetic for what Swine do in the privacy of their bedrooms; you can only win if you can prove that the above aren't actually Swine and haven't actually engaged in despicable behaviour that amounts to an assault on D&D, D20, regular roleplaying games, and average gamers.

That's your fucking challenge. There's your goddamn fucking "legitimate question".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit. Its pretentiousness. Its stuck-up. Its a way to make them feel better about themselves and more intelligent than those around them.

You don't know their motives.  You think you know their motives, but all you really know is the motive that you've chosen to assign to them.

If you had shown any real judgment in assigning motives to people then that'd be one thing.  Maybe I'd put some faith in your intuition.  But it looks to me like, the moment someone says anything having to do with art or intellectual pursuits, you just immediately go off the deep end into assuming your worst-case Swine scenario.  You don't weigh anything, or consider anything, you just respond reflexively to the merest whiff of artistic terms.

As I said ... not judgment, but prejudice.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, see... you're a Swine. You're a Swine for feeling the need to use these terms, and for needing to show off your use of these terms.
And you're a Swine for thinking that all of this makes your type of gaming better, and that others should revere your kinds of games.

This is ... sorta what I'm talking about, actually.  You're wrong on all counts, naturally.

I don't feel a need to use the terms, or to show off by using them.  I was talking about using artistic terms in roleplaying, so I gave an example of when I would do that.  It seemed apropos.

I use such terms because I feel totally entitled to borrow (and mangle!) the insights of people smarter than me for any purpose I damn well feel like, and what I often feel like borrowing them for is to help me make RPGs prettier and smarter.  I did not go out one day and say "Hey ... what Art Theory term can I pretend to, to assuage my ego ... oh, I know!  Eisenstein!"  Rather, one day I said "Oh, hey, what little I know about Eisenstein just gave me an interesting idea about playing RPGs."

Similarly, I've said "Oh hey, what I know of martial arts just gave me an interesting idea for about playing RPGs" and also "Oh hey, what (very little!) I know of horseback riding just gave me an interesting idea about playing RPGs."  Things percolate around in my mind, from all facets of my life, and they give me ideas.  I'm guessing that you don't have as much of a problem with me taking some insight from jujitsu and applying it to RPGs.

And, as I've said before, I don't even believe in one type of gaming being superior to another.  I just like making my game pretty, and this idea helped me do that.

When I said that the last time, you said "Well if that's true then you are Not Swine."  It's still true, but apparently now I'm Swine in spite of that.  Sheesh.  Make up your mind already.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you all just stayed in your own little areas and diddled yourselves in your little pseudo-academic circle-jerk, no one would care.
The problem with the Swine isn't about that at all. Its all to do with their attitude and actions with regards to the rest of us in the roleplaying hobby. With your desire to impose yourself in RPG forums, to impose your theories, to impose your games, and to subvert and alter mainstream games to fit your "movements".

So the great crime is that people who like to bring these things from their lives into their RPGS (a) joined RPG forums where (as roleplayers) they totally belong, (b) talked about the games they were playing, as those forums were designed to support and (c) talked about how they could have fun the way they wanted within the context of games with broad appeal.

That's not some foreign element imposing.  That's a bunch of people being part of their own communities.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf your goal in this shootout is really to try to prove that the Swine are a Myth, you aren't going to win by discussing semantics about "art" or even by trying to engage in an apologetic for what Swine do in the privacy of their bedrooms; you can only win if you can prove that the above aren't actually Swine and haven't actually engaged in despicable behaviour that amounts to an assault on D&D, D20, regular roleplaying games, and average gamers.

Oh, c'mon.  I'm not going to prove that every single person on that list is a saint, any more than you're going to prove that every single person on that list is a Swine.

First, the evidence needed to prove that someone wasn't secretly pretentious would be an actual telepathic record of what the person was thinking every moment of their lives ... because if we just go based on what they say and do, that doesn't count (for you) because the Swine are such liars.  I mean, even if I pick an individual person on the list (Vincent Baker, for instance ... or myself) who I am pretty much mortally certain is not Swine, there's no amount of evidence that can possibly convince you so long as you have the magic-wand of "Well, he's just lying" to wave away anything that doesn't suit your theories.

Second, you aren't even asking that we do this impossible thing for one person, but rather an uncounted multitude.  We're supposed to ... what? ... mind-read every single person who ever played a White Wolf game and judge each of them individually?  Heh.  Yeah, I don't think either of us is up to shouldering that burden of proof.

Naw, the best we're really going to do is to make some arguments back and forth about whose standards for judgment are more reasonable, given that we can never be 100% certain.  But if you want to rail about the limits of what we can prove or disprove, go right ahead.  It's good theater.

Quote from: TonyLBYou don't know their motives.  You think you know their motives, but all you really know is the motive that you've chosen to assign to them.

If you had shown any real judgment in assigning motives to people then that'd be one thing.  Maybe I'd put some faith in your intuition.  But it looks to me like, the moment someone says anything having to do with art or intellectual pursuits, you just immediately go off the deep end into assuming your worst-case Swine scenario.  You don't weigh anything, or consider anything, you just respond reflexively to the merest whiff of artistic terms.

As I said ... not judgment, but prejudice.

Let's say, for a moment, that I don't know their motives.
So what? Their actions are proof.  If you held a heart full of hate for regular gamers but never ever showed it, I really wouldn't know you from Adam.
On the other hand, even if you spend half your time preaching love and understanding for D&D, but then spend the other half talking about Brain Damage, I can only assume that one of those halfs is full of shit, and odds are its the supposed "positive" half.

Even if one of the Swine were "sincerely" doing what they did out of a wish to convert others because they care so much about them and want to better their lives, I really don't give a fuck, anymore than I would give a fuck if a Born-again Christian thought he was preaching at me out of love for me, or out of desire to be an asshole. The end result is entirely the same.

QuoteI use such terms because I feel totally entitled to borrow (and mangle!) the insights of people smarter than me for any purpose I damn well feel like, and what I often feel like borrowing them for is to help me make RPGs prettier and smarter.  I did not go out one day and say "Hey ... what Art Theory term can I pretend to, to assuage my ego ... oh, I know!  Eisenstein!"  Rather, one day I said "Oh, hey, what little I know about Eisenstein just gave me an interesting idea about playing RPGs."

Similarly, I've said "Oh hey, what I know of martial arts just gave me an interesting idea for about playing RPGs" and also "Oh hey, what (very little!) I know of horseback riding just gave me an interesting idea about playing RPGs."  Things percolate around in my mind, from all facets of my life, and they give me ideas.  I'm guessing that you don't have as much of a problem with me taking some insight from jujitsu and applying it to RPGs.

First, according to some of the people over on the commentary thread, you're not even right about what you're saying. Which is part of what makes all of this so pathetic; its not academia, its pseudo-academia. Its half-assed intellectualism.

Not that whole-ass intellectualism would be oh so much better. I'm not arguing for more rigourous standards; I'm arguing that people who are actually real academics or intellectuals operating within their own fields would usually not feel the need to pine intellectually in a game forum: They get enough of that shit in their real jobs.
If they did have things that made it useful for them to use in their games, they wouldn't be bothering to write theses about them, they'd just apply them into the games and talk about the games themselves.  The need to talk about it with jargon springs entirely out of a desperate need to be recognized.

QuoteAnd, as I've said before, I don't even believe in one type of gaming being superior to another.  I just like making my game pretty, and this idea helped me do that.

Except that by definition your position requires that you feel your gaming ends up being "superior" to those who lack your deep level of academic qualification  and investigation.

QuoteSo the great crime is that people who like to bring these things from their lives into their RPGS (a) joined RPG forums where (as roleplayers) they totally belong, (b) talked about the games they were playing, as those forums were designed to support and (c) talked about how they could have fun the way they wanted within the context of games with broad appeal.

That's not some foreign element imposing.  That's a bunch of people being part of their own communities.

No, they're trying to turn forums about RPGs into forums where their kind of playing and their kind of talking about games becomes the pre-requisite.  You have to read the essays, and accept the brilliance of those who wrote the essays, if you want to participate in the discussion. And you have to look down on those who enjoy playing the games that your theories end up deciding are "incoherent" or "fail to create story" or whatever other bullshit terms you've invented to be condescending and condemnatory of the games you dislike.

QuoteOh, c'mon.  I'm not going to prove that every single person on that list is a saint, any more than you're going to prove that every single person on that list is a Swine.

First, the evidence needed to prove that someone wasn't secretly pretentious would be an actual telepathic record of what the person was thinking every moment of their lives ... because if we just go based on what they say and do, that doesn't count (for you) because the Swine are such liars.

Except that fortunately most of the people on the list are so openly pretentious that we don't have any guesswork involved.

QuoteSecond, you aren't even asking that we do this impossible thing for one person, but rather an uncounted multitude.  We're supposed to ... what? ... mind-read every single person who ever played a White Wolf game and judge each of them individually?  Heh.  Yeah, I don't think either of us is up to shouldering that burden of proof.

Yes, but fortunately for me I don't need to. You're the one who came into this shootout trying to say that the Swine are a myth. All that's needed on my side of the firefight is to demonstrate that a couple of these people are Swine, and my job is done.

You're the one who lost before this fight started, because you were coming in seriously trying to claim that not one of the Swine exist, which involves defending, hiding, or explaining away all of the shit these stupid fuckers have said over the years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOn the other hand, even if you spend half your time preaching love and understanding for D&D, but then spend the other half talking about Brain Damage, I can only assume that one of those halfs is full of shit, and odds are its the supposed "positive" half.

You're a "glass is half empty" kinda guy, aren't you?  Seems to me that you bitch about plenty of people who spend, like 90+% of their time being positive and nice ... you just take whatever smidgin of stuff you can manage to take offense at, and you say "Well, that shows that everything else is a lie."  

I'm not convinced that there's anybody so nice that you wouldn't make an excuse to discount their positive contributions if you felt like bashing them.

I mean, I'm one of the most positive guys I know, and you're all up in arms that I must be a pretentious, condescending asshole, just because ... uh ... I mentioned a russian film-maker by name.

Quote from: RPGPunditFirst, according to some of the people over on the commentary thread, you're not even right about what you're saying. Which is part of what makes all of this so pathetic; its not academia, its pseudo-academia.

Why ... I take exception to that remark.  I'm not doing pseudo-academia or real academia.  I'm not doing anything with reference to academics, period.

I graduated college a long time ago.  I'm no longer part of the academic community, nor do I have any desire to be.  I no longer study things in order to pass tests or impress teachers.  I study them because I find them interesting and useful ... for making my games prettier and smarter, for instance.

The mere idea ... To say that I would have to aspire to academics in order to be interested in art.  What a pompous, elitist, pretentious pack of lies.  Since when did the ivory tower of academia have a monopoly on these ideas?  Since never, that's when.

Say ... is that why you immediately jump from "This person mentioned ART!" to assuming that they're overloaded with pretensions of High Art and Academe and like that?  Are you convinced that normal folks outside of the ivory tower aren't supposed to be thinking about this stuff at all?

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that by definition your position requires that you feel your gaming ends up being "superior" to those who lack your deep level of academic qualification  and investigation.

What deep level of academic qualification would that be?  I majored in math and computer science.  I don't have any qualifications relevant to discussing Eisenstein, and as I mentioned above I don't need any.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, they're trying to turn forums about RPGs into forums where their kind of playing and their kind of talking about games becomes the pre-requisite.  You have to read the essays, and accept the brilliance of those who wrote the essays, if you want to participate in the discussion. And you have to look down on those who enjoy playing the games that your theories end up deciding are "incoherent" or "fail to create story" or whatever other bullshit terms you've invented to be condescending and condemnatory of the games you dislike.

Wow.  Have I been doing this on the RPGSite all along?  Have I been silencing anyone who doesn't believe in Forge Theory, and all that jazz?

Man, I must have been being really subtle about it.  It looks exactly like I've been discussing RPGs with anyone who wants to talk about them, in whatever terms they care to bring to the table.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but fortunately for me I don't need to. You're the one who came into this shootout trying to say that the Swine are a myth. All that's needed on my side of the firefight is to demonstrate that a couple of these people are Swine, and my job is done.

And you're the one who came in saying that all Forge-folks are Swine ... so by the same logic, all that's needed for me to "win" is to demonstrate that one of them isn't Swine, and my job is done.  And I'm not Swine, so there you are.

Now that we've both won the trumped up absolutist positions, maybe we should go back to the discussion of the vast and muddled middle ground.  After all, we've got a whole lot more posts left, and people expect to be entertained.

Quote from: TonyLBNow that we've both won the trumped up absolutist positions, maybe we should go back to the discussion of the vast and muddled middle ground.  After all, we've got a whole lot more posts left, and people expect to be entertained.

I'd be glad to, if you'd actually say anything of substance. Are you at any point going to actually acknowledge that there are countless examples of people on the Forge, on other forums, in their game books, and elsewhere, that have made their mark by shitting on regular roleplayers and games?

If you're ready to discuss specific cases, I am too.

We could start with Brain Damage, if you like.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're ready to discuss specific cases, I am too.

We could start with Brain Damage, if you like.

That sounds fine to me ... but not at the expense of abandoning the discussion we were already engaged in.  I'm happy to handle the two in parallel.

I mean ... seriously ... you can't have expected to say "Tony, you're pretentious lying swine because of several really dubious assumptions of mine that I won't bother to defend!  Now that that's been established, let's discuss something else."  Silly Pundit :nono:

It looks to me like you're an academic elitist, and this whole "Don't try to make RPGs be more than they can be!" is driven by your assumption that people without advanced degrees are incapable of thinking about anything intellectually or artistically challenging.  Because of that, you can't read people who are saying "I'm-a gonna do me some art!" without assuming that they're trying to emulate the people with advanced degrees.  And because of that you look at people who are making art in their own personal, non-academic way and you wrongly see pretenders and Swine.

You want me to address Brain Damage?  Fine with me.  Just keep addressing this issue at the same time.

That's a very nonsensical interpretation of what I said.  What I did say is that most of the time (there are clearly exceptions, like mr. Edwards), actual academics get enough recognition and satisfaction from their endeavours in their actual jobs, and thus don't feel the need to try to make their hobbies seem all deep and sophisticated to make up for a vacuum of recognition in their lives.

What I'm saying, as it relates to this discussion, is that trying to couch your hobby of RPGs with the trappings of some kind of really deep and sophisticated endeavour is not only pointless (because RPGs are not anything other than games), but also probably a sign that you're not getting that in other areas of your life.

And while we're at it, I'll note that "just a game" doesn't mean you can't spend a lot of time actually working on your RPGs as a HOBBY.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's a very nonsensical interpretation of what I said.  What I did say is that most of the time (there are clearly exceptions, like mr. Edwards), actual academics get enough recognition and satisfaction from their endeavours in their actual jobs, and thus don't feel the need to try to make their hobbies seem all deep and sophisticated to make up for a vacuum of recognition in their lives.

That's not the bit I was referring to.  In fact, I didn't even quote that bit.  I was referring to the bit where you said that if I was talking about Eisenstein I MUST either be an academic or trying to pretend to be an academic.  The only way you reach that conclusion is if you believe that non-academics have no business discussing Eisenstein.

But hey, if I'm wrong about you don't say "That's a very nonsensical interpretation of what I said."  Don't be a weasel.  Just say "I don't think that."  Tell me that you think it's perfectly valid for non-academics to talk about artistically and intellectually challenging material outside of the structure of academia.

'course then I'll want to hear why you immediately assume that the people who do that to help their gaming must be trying to be academics.  So you might end up shooting your idea that "Art in RPG = Swine" all full of holes.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat I'm saying, as it relates to this discussion, is that trying to couch your hobby of RPGs with the trappings of some kind of really deep and sophisticated endeavour is not only pointless (because RPGs are not anything other than games), but also probably a sign that you're not getting that in other areas of your life.

Oh.  My.  God.  So now I'm getting my muddy little "I'm just looking for stuff for my game" feet all over your "Deep and sophisticated endeavour"?

I'm not doing this as a nice little "Ask Pundit to confirm what I think he said" discussion any longer.  You dance and wriggle too much, with your "That's not relevant" and "Let me respond to a completely different question," and never a straight answer.  No more.  Now I assert, and if you want to counter my assertions you'd better tell me what you really think instead.

I'm more and more convinced that you are an academic snob.  You think that academics are the only ones who can handle concepts like art theory, or advanced mathematics, or self-referential literature.  Everyone else should stick to Tom Clancey, and the latest summer action blockbuster.  Those are fitting subjects for people who are playing a mere RPG to draw inspiration from.  After all, it's only a game.

Feh.  I say "feh."  I read what I want, I consider what I want, and I take inspiration for my RPG sessions from whatever the hell I want.  I read Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, for instance, and think to myself "Wow, that play is chock full of excellent GMing advice!"  I don't care about your deep and sophisticated endeavour ... I just want some good ideas for my next RPG.

Is there a problem with that?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd while we're at it, I'll note that "just a game" doesn't mean you can't spend a lot of time actually working on your RPGs as a HOBBY.

Of course ... as long as you don't try to intrude upon the lofty heights that only serious academia is allowed to approach.  :rolleyes:   What a self-important load of tripe.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's not the bit I was referring to.  In fact, I didn't even quote that bit.  I was referring to the bit where you said that if I was talking about Eisenstein I MUST either be an academic or trying to pretend to be an academic.  The only way you reach that conclusion is if you believe that non-academics have no business discussing Eisenstein.

No... :rolleyes:
What I DID say is that if you're talking about Eisenstein in the context of RPGs you must be a pseudo-academic.  Because both academics with titles and people with any real capability in film-making or film-theory would not be wasting their fucking time writing about it in the context of RPGs.

Its no surprise that the Great Guru of RPG Theory isn't an historian, or a philosopher, or even an English Major.. no, the great wise chief of the whole "Story Now" Indie RPG Theory Swine movement is a Professor of the Biology of Rodent Genitalia.

And notice that even he doesn't spend a lot of time talking about Biology in the context of his RPG Theory. No, he spends most of his time talking about shit he clearly knows nothing about. Why? Probably because he gets more than enough "biology-talk" at work.

QuoteBut hey, if I'm wrong about you don't say "That's a very nonsensical interpretation of what I said."  Don't be a weasel.  Just say "I don't think that."  Tell me that you think it's perfectly valid for non-academics to talk about artistically and intellectually challenging material outside of the structure of academia.

Sure, its perfectly valid. Its NOT perfectly valid for EITHER academics or non-academics to talk about artistic or intellectual jargon/theory in the contest of fucking Role Playing Games.

Quote'course then I'll want to hear why you immediately assume that the people who do that to help their gaming must be trying to be academics.  So you might end up shooting your idea that "Art in RPG = Swine" all full of holes.

Even if they were real "Doctors of Filmography" or whatever, what they'd be doing at that moment, in the moment they talk about film-design in the contest of a fucking Roleplaying Game, in that moment they'd be doing pseudo-academia.  Just as much as if I, an historian, were to start talking about Marxist Historiography in the contest of the Forgotten Realms.

QuoteOh.  My.  God.  So now I'm getting my muddy little "I'm just looking for stuff for my game" feet all over your "Deep and sophisticated endeavour"?

I'm not doing this as a nice little "Ask Pundit to confirm what I think he said" discussion any longer.  You dance and wriggle too much, with your "That's not relevant" and "Let me respond to a completely different question," and never a straight answer.  No more.  Now I assert, and if you want to counter my assertions you'd better tell me what you really think instead.

Great. About fucking time. I'm waiting.

QuoteI'm more and more convinced that you are an academic snob.  You think that academics are the only ones who can handle concepts like art theory, or advanced mathematics, or self-referential literature.  Everyone else should stick to Tom Clancey, and the latest summer action blockbuster.  Those are fitting subjects for people who are playing a mere RPG to draw inspiration from.  After all, it's only a game.

Hey, check up a couple of paragraphs on this post. I already shot your stupid little contention out of the water.

QuoteFeh.  I say "feh."  I read what I want, I consider what I want, and I take inspiration for my RPG sessions from whatever the hell I want.  I read Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, for instance, and think to myself "Wow, that play is chock full of excellent GMing advice!"  I don't care about your deep and sophisticated endeavour ... I just want some good ideas for my next RPG.

Is there a problem with that?

With doing that? No.
With talking about it online to show off how intelligent you are, while at the same time being condescending toward those who use Tom Clancy or summer action blockbusters as their inspirations? Yes.

Which, btw, you just did. Up there. You're a Swine.


RPGPundit