Top of the page ... very little to report.  Jeezus, trying to get an answer out of Pundit is like pulling teeth with a rubber band and bubble-gum.

But!  He did make at least a partial effort, and so I feel better in responding to the issue of Brain Damage.  I feel like maybe, just maybe, we can keep both threads (Pundit's outrage over Brain Damage, my outrage over being told what I can and cannot use in an RPG without being Swine) going without one swamping the other, and without Pundit going into total weasel-mode to avoid ever actually discussing anything other than what he most wants to talk about.

Boy, I'm optimistic.

   Brain Damage

What a bone-headed idea.  I've spent ... what ... a year now?  thinking this over, trying to find a way that I might be misreading it.  But no, it really is every bit inherently offensive and superior.

Specifically:  Ron seems to have gotten the idea into his head that a certain structure of story ... the structure of stories he prefers ... is hard-wired into the human brain.  Working from this dubious notion, he "concludes" that other story structures are not perfectly reasonable alternatives, but rather unnatural aberrations caused by damage to the One True Story that lies encoded within us all.

What a load of bollocks.  He likes stories about protagonists and theme and all that stuff they drilled at you in high school.  Other people like stories about chills and thrills and heavy atmospherics, as would fit well around a camp-fire or in a suspense movie.  They're both stories just the same way, and they're both perfectly natural for human beings.

Ron's just using some offensive jargon to dress up his bone-deep certainty that his stories are better than the kind of stories White Wolf people train to tell.  A sadly garden-variety type of internet obnoxiousness.

Now I, personally, know the guy and have benefitted from some of the not-so-boneheaded stuff he does.  So this all weighs in a balance for me (though it has made it much harder for me to take anything he's said since without a heavy shaker of salt).  It's one (major) thing among many.  But for people who were already convinced that knocking their style of play was his defining feature, I totally respect how this would cinch the case for them.  And for those who hear of him through this first, I totally respect how this would convince them that being a jerk is all there is to the man.

Executive Summary:  I think, on balance, he's motivated by a sense of other-people's-suckage way more than he should be, but that it's not his defining feature.  I agree, however, that this is a matter upon which rational people could very reasonably disagree.

If we're done with this one, and want a new "specific instance of swinery" to discuss, I'd be quite interested in what you've got against Vincent Baker.  Every interaction I've ever had with him convinces me that he's just a great big teddy-bear of positivity ... but maybe I've missed something.


And, optimistically, I continue to address what is to me the central issue of this whole Swinery idea:  Where the hell do you get off telling me that I can't mine chaos theory for ideas to make my RPGs better, the same way I mine parenthood experience, and country songs?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat 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.

They would if they're gamers!

If you're seeking a venue in which to discuss Film Theory then I agree, RPGs are not likely to be your first choice.  But if you're seeking some inspiration for how to make your RPGs prettier, you could do worse than look carefully and thoughtfully at movies and how they're put together.  If you know this stuff, even a little, and you're looking for ways to pretty up your game then it's a very natural fit.

You, sir, have mistaken me.  In fact, you've mistaken an awful lot of people.  You think that folks who play story-games start out with some burning, unfulfilled desire to discuss art theory, and then channel it into RPGs for lack of a better venue.  Whereas, in fact, I (and most Story-game type folks that I know) start from a burning desire to have more fun by making prettier and smarter RPGs, and we apply the art theory that we know (as well as everything else, from sitcoms to the nutrition pyramid) in service to that goal.

If you call that pretentious then I call your argument bullshit.  This is gamers, doing what gamers do ... bringing their passions and their interests into the game.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, 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.

You keep saying that, and you keep not having any argument to back it up.  You just assert, as an axiom, that this type of material must not be mixed with RPGs.  Doing so is invalid.

Well, I mix 'em all the time, and it makes for some damn fine gaming.  With results like that, I don't have a hell of a lot of respect for your self-appointed role as "Gatekeeper of What Can Help RPGs."  In fact, it makes me think (as I've said) that you're more than a little bit of a snob.

Quote from: TonyLBBrain Damage

(SNIP)

Executive Summary:  I think, on balance, he's motivated by a sense of other-people's-suckage way more than he should be, but that it's not his defining feature.  I agree, however, that this is a matter upon which rational people could very reasonably disagree.

So, what? You're admitting he is a Swine?

QuoteAnd, optimistically, I continue to address what is to me the central issue of this whole Swinery idea:  Where the hell do you get off telling me that I can't mine chaos theory for ideas to make my RPGs better, the same way I mine parenthood experience, and country songs?

Its not about that, its about you spending time talking about it online (and possibly, in real life) and you and others getting off on talking about things like Film Theory or Chaos Theory or Marxist Political Science or whatever the fuck is the flavour of the month with you people to mutually admire each other's fucking brilliance, and then to turn around and look down on the poor fools who are inspired by Tom Clancy or the new Fantastic 4 movie as poor suckers who are playing an inferior game.
Not to mention trying to argue with gamers that if they only read all of your theories about Story and give up the way they play now, they will be "smarter" roleplayers; and trying to influence game designers to put these ideas into the new editions of old games, whether the fandom likes it or not.

Those are the central ideas.

QuoteThey would if they're gamers!

No, they wouldn't. And if they did, they'd be just a pretentious.

QuoteIf you're seeking a venue in which to discuss Film Theory then I agree, RPGs are not likely to be your first choice.  But if you're seeking some inspiration for how to make your RPGs prettier, you could do worse than look carefully and thoughtfully at movies and how they're put together.  If you know this stuff, even a little, and you're looking for ways to pretty up your game then it's a very natural fit.

Right, so again you're suggesting that your RPGs are superior to others because of how educated you are and how "deeply" you think about RPGs?
Swine.

QuoteYou, sir, have mistaken me.  In fact, you've mistaken an awful lot of people.

No, I think I've pretty well got you fucking pegged, and your own posts on this thread pretty well prove it.

QuoteYou think that folks who play story-games start out with some burning, unfulfilled desire to discuss art theory, and then channel it into RPGs for lack of a better venue.  

They're filled with an unfulfilled desire to sound impressive and impress others.

QuoteWhereas, in fact, I (and most Story-game type folks that I know) start from a burning desire to have more fun by making prettier and smarter RPGs, and we apply the art theory that we know (as well as everything else, from sitcoms to the nutrition pyramid) in service to that goal.

Prettier and smarter than people who don't play "Story-game" RPGs, right?
Swine.

QuoteIf you call that pretentious then I call your argument bullshit.  This is gamers, doing what gamers do ... bringing their passions and their interests into the game.

Most of us don't feel the need to impose it on others, though. Like the Swine do.

RPGPundit
(junior high debating champ two years in a row, undefeated champion of the Masonic Memorial Cup debate tournament 2003, 2005, and 2007... suck it, Jimbob)

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, what? You're admitting he is a Swine?

No.  Like I said, I don't think these particular views are his defining feature.  He's done other stuff.  But if you want to focus on this to the exclusion of all else, I can understand that.  It is a very offensive statement.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts not about that, its about you spending time talking about it online (and possibly, in real life)

Oh NO!  Not ... talking about our passions!  WHERE WILL IT END?

God, you really are stuck up, aren't you?  "Oh, it's not so bad for them to play in a different way from me ... if only they'd ... you know ... be properly ashamed of it.  But strutting their non-Pundit views about in public, as if there's nothing wrong with them, it's just so unsavory!"

Quote from: RPGPunditthen to turn around and look down on the poor fools who are inspired by Tom Clancy or the new Fantastic 4 movie as poor suckers who are playing an inferior game.

You ... uh ... do realize that I was offering the whole "Tom Clancy and summer blockbusters" as the kind of thing that you (in your snobbish ways) would look down on, and see as appropriate material for "mere roleplaying games," right?  I mean ... kudos on the rhetoric, trying to twist it around some other way, but I do want to be sure that you haven't fooled yourself.

Me, I use everything, without any of this stuck-up distinction between "high art" and "popular culture."  It's all just grist for the mill, IMHO.  That's pretty much what I've been saying throughout.

In fact, "Rosencrantz and the Silver Surfer Hunt for the Red October" sounds like a fun game premise to me!

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, they wouldn't. And if they did, they'd be just a pretentious.

That's one great big circular argument:  "You're pretentious for talking about this stuff in the context of a roleplaying game, because real academics wouldn't do that, and if they did it would be pretentious, so THERE!"

Quote from: RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBBut if you're seeking some inspiration for how to make your RPGs prettier, you could do worse than look carefully and thoughtfully at movies and how they're put together. If you know this stuff, even a little, and you're looking for ways to pretty up your game then it's a very natural fit.

Right, so again you're suggesting that your RPGs are superior to others because of how educated you are and how "deeply" you think about RPGs?
Swine.

I'm gonna start packaging together the quotes you're responding to with your responses.  It's just hard to remember how really over-the-top nutso your interpretations are, otherwise.
   Tony:  I want to find ways to make my games prettier and smarter.  I find that fun!
Pundit:  So, you're saying that your games are superior to the games of other gamers?  You SWINE!
What the hell ever happened to:

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

Are all those normal roleplayers who are trying to make their game prettier and smarter Swine too?  Is working to improve your gaming chops inherently pretentious on your planet?  Like, anyone who tries to make their game better, they must be trying to make their game better than other people's games?

Oh, in fact ... TRUE OR FALSE:  Trying to improve your game means you're pretentious Swine.

Quote from: RPGPunditPrettier and smarter than people who don't play "Story-game" RPGs, right?
Swine.

Y'know what ... you're either really desperately flailing or else you're actually crazy-in-the-head.  I wonder if there's any way for me to tell the difference from the outside.  I also sort of wonder whether I care.

Ok, since we really aren't getting anywhere here, and you've taken it to the ridiculous position of claiming I'm an elitist by not tolerating your own beliefs that RPGs have to be treated like a fucking doctoral thesis and not recognizing the superiority of your gaming because you can quote Eisenstein, I'm just going to ignore your last post and instead try to redirect that last phase of this thread into getting you to actually have to defend some of the fucking evidence I have of the swine's activities.

So, here we go, the Prosecution's Exhibits A:

http://glyphpress.com/talk/?p=38

Guy claiming the Forge are exactly like the Beat Poets of the 1950s, and that they are "opening fresh wounds in the hide of the mediocrity that sells itself to us" (ie. attacking mainstream roleplaying).

Prosecution Exhibit B:

http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/108#comments

how Marxist theory is vital for running your NPCs.. :rolleyes:

Prosecution Exhibit C:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=328794

Darren't gratuitous shitting on D&D, which he moved from the D20 forum into the Open forum on RPG.net (something he was only allowed to do because he was a mod), where he rants on about the inferiority of D&D.

Prosecution Exhibit D:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=6kqihf54qg4j2jru1qvf3th93t72bq7q&topic=18707.0

Brain Damage. And for extra fun, Ron Edwards compares regular roleplayers to child-rape victims.

Prosecution Exhibit E:

The roll-playing vs. roleplaying essay in the LATEST edition of WoD. No link available I'm afraid, but its right there in the book.

Prosecution Exhibit F:

Gamma World D20.  Bruce Baugh forced his swinish views on a genre he despises because it wasn't "serious" enough for him, destroying the name of a beloved game in the process, by turning a fun gonzo post-apocalyptic RPG into a game about "designing society" and an ecological morality tale.

Prosecution Exhibit G:

http://bruceb.livejournal.com/240455.html?view=1447751

Baugh planning to do the exact same thing to the Pulp genre that he did to the Post-apocalyptic genre.  Notice that he closed down the comments section, because people were disagreeing with him.

Prosecution Exhibit H:

Long since unavailable I'm afraid, since the collapse of GoO and their boards, but the efforts of the Swine to try to convince GoO to remake Amber (back when GoO was planning to re-release Amber) using the Nobilis rules, because those are so "superior" by being full of flower claptrap and pretentiousness, and don't put their own gaming to shame the way Amber does.
In other words, the Swine literally tried to wipe Amber DRPG off the face of the earth.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, since we really aren't getting anywhere here, and you've taken it to the ridiculous position of claiming I'm an elitist ... [snippy snip snip] ... I'm just going to ignore your last post and instead try to redirect

Yeah, if I were in your position I'd want to change the subject too.  You've been dodging all thread because you know that your whole Swine-argument falls to pieces when it's looked at carefully, rather than shouted in passionate outrage.

Maybe next time you should do a Pistols at Dawn thread with yourself, huh?  Get rid of that pesky other person and their unreasonable tendency to talk about things other than how much everyone you dislike sucks. :rolleyes:

I don't intend to leave you any further excuse to run down the clock with these constant weaselling dodges.  Not that it'll stop you, but let's make it as obvious as possible to everyone that it's nothing more than a rhetorical delaying tactic in the hopes of getting to the end of the thread without having to admit what you really think.  So let me make clear to you why I will never let go of this question about people bringing their enthusiasm and interests to their games, until you address it:

   The people I like to play with have certain things in common:  Not play-style, or what games they play, or anything like that.  That is all over the map.  What they have in common is that they pursue what's important and meaningful to them, with no regard for whether or not it is important or meaningful for the world as a whole.  They are, in short, not ashamed of taking silly things seriously.

These are people who will yell "THIS IS SPARTA!" just because it's fun.  If someone thinks they're a horrible loser-geek ... so what?  Between the people stomping around and yelling "TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!" and the people quietly judging them I can tell you immediately which group has more fun.  Hint:  It's the Spartans, not the prudes.

In exactly the same way, if these people think of an insight from some other field that applies to their games, they do not wonder whether it's "valid" to apply that insight, or whether people will think they're horrible loser-geeks for doing so.  They just go right ahead and apply the insight, and have fun.  And then, because they're excited about it, they talk about it to their friends.

Now there may very well be some people who talk about such insights because they're trying to bolster their dignity.  But those people aren't my friends.  My friends are deeply heedless of their own dignity.  They don't care how they come across.  They are the polar opposite of being pretentious and self-important ... and you just refuse to get that.  You've got such an inflated sense of your own self-importance that you cannot conceive of a person who wants to make their game prettier, unless it's to make it prettier than some other poor schmo's game.  You cannot conceive of a person who will think hard about their gaming, unless it's to show that they've thought about it harder than somebody else.  You refuse to accept that there are many people who just have no interest in that sort of ego-self-stroking.

You are calling "Swine" on a whole bunch of people who are about as unpretentious as human beings can get.  And, apart from it being incorrect and unproductive, it's starting to piss me off.  I'm not going to stop talking about it, so the next time you think you'd like to dodge away from the topic you can be absolutely assured that it's a waste of both our time.  If running down the clock is your goal then fine, I can't stop you.  Just know that every time you do it, you convince me a little bit more that I'm right about you.


Well look at that ... I discussed the stuff that I wanted to discuss, and it looks like there are still electrons left in the internet.  I don't have to choose between addressing my own questions and addressing yours ... and, unlike certain people I might mention, I actually want to address questions from my opposite number in the debate.  So, despite my sneaking suspicion that you'll just use my answers to try to distance yourself further from the questions I'm posing to you above, I will address your Exhibition:

   Exhibit A:  The only thing he's negative about is mediocrity.  Why would you imagine that applies to you?  If you're not wilfully mediocre then this is 100% uncut positive thinking about how happy he is to be part of something he finds cool.  It insults nobody.

Exhibit B:  He's providing catch-phrases that are useful to GMs who want to play an NPC who is an academic Marxist wanker ... you do know the difference between playing an NPC with repulsive qualities and having those qualities yourself, right?

Exhibit C:  Yep, Darren's saying that his way of playing monsters is better than other people's way of playing monsters.  He's elevating his preference into a supposedly objective truth.  What a load of baloney.

Exhibit D:  Addressed this in detail in Post #31.  You haven't asked anything new, so I think this is already covered.

Exhibit E:  Don't have the nWoD, can't speak to that.

Exhibit F:  Author tapped to put his own stamp on a remake of an old property.  Fans of the original are outraged by the changes.  Also, Transformers loyalists are appalled by how Optimus Prime looks in the new movie.  This is not news.

Exhibit G:  Wouldn't be news if he did it again, either.

Exhibit H:  Wouldn't be news if fans convinced GoO to take Amber in a new direction either.

If this is the best you've got then, man ... weak sauce.  Where are the masses and masses of Swine constantly harrassing traditional gamers?  Shouldn't you be able to dig up better stuff than this?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't intend to leave you any further excuse to run down the clock with these constant weaselling dodges.  Not that it'll stop you, but let's make it as obvious as possible to everyone that it's nothing more than a rhetorical delaying tactic in the hopes of getting to the end of the thread without having to admit what you really think.  So let me make clear to you why I will never let go of this question about people bringing their enthusiasm and interests to their games, until you address it:

   The people I like to play with have certain things in common:  Not play-style, or what games they play, or anything like that.  That is all over the map.  What they have in common is that they pursue what's important and meaningful to them, with no regard for whether or not it is important or meaningful for the world as a whole.  They are, in short, not ashamed of taking silly things seriously.

These are people who will yell "THIS IS SPARTA!" just because it's fun.  If someone thinks they're a horrible loser-geek ... so what?  Between the people stomping around and yelling "TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!" and the people quietly judging them I can tell you immediately which group has more fun.  Hint:  It's the Spartans, not the prudes.

In exactly the same way, if these people think of an insight from some other field that applies to their games, they do not wonder whether it's "valid" to apply that insight, or whether people will think they're horrible loser-geeks for doing so.  They just go right ahead and apply the insight, and have fun.  And then, because they're excited about it, they talk about it to their friends.

Now there may very well be some people who talk about such insights because they're trying to bolster their dignity.  But those people aren't my friends.  My friends are deeply heedless of their own dignity.  They don't care how they come across.  They are the polar opposite of being pretentious and self-important ... and you just refuse to get that.  You've got such an inflated sense of your own self-importance that you cannot conceive of a person who wants to make their game prettier, unless it's to make it prettier than some other poor schmo's game.  You cannot conceive of a person who will think hard about their gaming, unless it's to show that they've thought about it harder than somebody else.  You refuse to accept that there are many people who just have no interest in that sort of ego-self-stroking.

AH, but there we have it.  That's why my Exhibits are absolutely vital to showing up the CON you are trying to perpetrate. You think I don't get why you went through all this effort of a Pistols thread? You're testing out a new defence for the whole swine community!! This is to see if the whole "we're just innocent guys for whom talking about Literary Theory is no different than when you...people.. run around screaming "TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL".  Its exactly the same thing, and if you hate us for what we do, you're just as bad as us". In other words, the "I'm not the bigot you are!" defense.

Not bad. I must admit. But the problem is that your argument pretends that the Theory people have spent the last 7 years in an enclosed environment talking to themselves and not bothering anyone, and that the Storyteller people have spent the last 17 doing the same.  In other words, it conveniently ignores the truth: we're not condemning you for what you do in the privacy of your own head or groups or even on internet fora dedicated to that.  We're condemning you for your actions TOWARD US.
You attack us constantly.
Because when it comes down to it, you don't believe that talking Literary Theory is the same as shouting "THIS IS SPARTA!". You think it is vastly superior. You think that the gamer that shouts "TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!" is an unwashed mass who either needs to be saved from himself or needs to be taken out of your sight, depending on what particular breed of swine you are. But in either case, he is to be despised and looked down upon, because he won't join in your little game of pretending to be academics or artistes. And especially for not recognizing how incredibly serious and important what you do is.

The evidence I presented before you reminds us all of that. Reminds us that for the Swine, it is not "live and let live":  it is a direct assault on mainstream roleplaying whenever possible.

QuoteYou are calling "Swine" on a whole bunch of people who are about as unpretentious as human beings can get.  

Who? Those guys I presented in my Exhibits? If that's your definition of "unpretentious as human beings can get", I would HATE to see your definition of "slightly pretentious".

QuoteExhibit A:  The only thing he's negative about is mediocrity.  Why would you imagine that applies to you?  If you're not wilfully mediocre then this is 100% uncut positive thinking about how happy he is to be part of something he finds cool.  It insults nobody.

No, it only creates a sense of pretentious self importance that only the most utterly stubbornly loyal Forgeite could possibly not call pretentiousness.

I mean fucking hell, claiming that Ron Edwards is the modern-day Jack Kerouac?? Are you fucking serious??
You wanted pretentiousness, there it is.

QuoteExhibit B:  He's providing catch-phrases that are useful to GMs who want to play an NPC who is an academic Marxist wanker ... you do know the difference between playing an NPC with repulsive qualities and having those qualities yourself, right?

No, he's just showing off.

QuoteExhibit C:  Yep, Darren's saying that his way of playing monsters is better than other people's way of playing monsters.  He's elevating his preference into a supposedly objective truth.  What a load of baloney.

Ah, ok.. here we go. So since he's not in your "circle of friends" you're willing to sacrifice him. Perfect. So you will admit that Darren is a Swine, then?

QuoteExhibit D:  Addressed this in detail in Post #31.  You haven't asked anything new, so I think this is already covered.

No, its not. You are trying to argue that the guy who claimed normal gamers are LITERALLY BRAIN DAMAGED, and AKIN TO CHILD RAPE VICTIMS in terms of their ability to roleplay "correctly" as he sees it, is somehow not attacking mainstream gamers??
All you've proven is just how willing you are to make a blanket denial of reality if it doesn't fit your whole "we just want to be left alone" paradigm.  Ron Edwards has repeatedly attacked and condemned other groups of gamers. He was talking about "War" long before I was. His GNS theory is nothing but a sham to claim that his preferred style of roleplaying (Narrativism) is really the most sophisticated one, and to claim that RPGs that mix his style with other styles are "incoherent" and bad, so people should buy only his games or games based on his ideas.

He is the KING RAT MOTHERFUCKING SWINE.  So to just say "well, he has many layers" or whatever the fuck snakeoil you were trying to sell us there just doen't cut it, bucky.

QuoteExhibit E:  Don't have the nWoD, can't speak to that.

The quote says that Storytelling games are "roleplaying", contrary to "other games" which are only "rollplaying". But, in the spirit of the new age, it suggests that these days WW fans "shouldn't look down upon" regular gamers, and should instead try to "educate them" and show them the way toward their model of superior, WW-based gaming.

QuoteExhibit F:  Author tapped to put his own stamp on a remake of an old property.  Fans of the original are outraged by the changes.  Also, Transformers loyalists are appalled by how Optimus Prime looks in the new movie.  This is not news.

Baugh later admitted that he hated the old Gamma World. So this isn't slapping a new dash of paint on the old Optimus Prime.  This is more like if someone who despised Transformers took the movie and remade it into a story about aging baby boomers coping with the early stages of senile dementia.
In other words, he intentionally destroyed a license because he didn't like it, and (and here's the FUCKING IMPORTANT PART, so listen up) he felt justified enough in his self-righteousness to believe that if he didn't like a genre no one else should be allowed to play it, either.

QuoteExhibit G:  Wouldn't be news if he did it again, either.

See above, motherfucker.

QuoteExhibit H:  Wouldn't be news if fans convinced GoO to take Amber in a new direction either.

Yes, it would be, if those "fans" weren't in fact NON-fans, a small group of Nobilis fanatics who HATED the Amber system, and were on the Amber 2e design boards for the express purpose of making sure that not only did the ADRPG rules never see print again, but that they be replaced by the game that they thought was the "vastly superior" diceless RPG. They were trying to FORCE real Amber fans to have to be stuck playing Nobilis instead, to teach us a lesson liking an RPG that has more creative originality than absolutely anything the Swine have ever come up with, and all without having a drop of pretentious posturing. Its 100 times the game Nobilis is with 1/10th the arrogance.

Please, do go on trying to figure out how to whitewash these cases (especially Brain Damage!), the more you do so the more obvious it becomes to absolutely everyone reading that denying the Swine exist requires a heady dose of denying reality.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn other words, the "I'm not the bigot you are!" defense.

Not bad. I must admit.

Well, thanks, but I deserve very little of the credit.  Really, I only came to this by looking carefully at what you say and following it question by question to its roots.  Anybody with enough patience could have done the same.

Honestly, the architect of this particular indictment of your bullshit is none other than you.

Quote from: RPGPunditWe're condemning you for your actions TOWARD US.
You attack us constantly.

Mmmm ... no.  What you're doing is condemning everyone who has certain tastes in games based on the attacks of some people who share those tastes.

   Ron Edwards attacked mainstream gaming.
Ron Edwards frequents the Forge.
Therefore any person who frequents the Forge has attacked mainstream gaming.

Y'see how that syllogism doesn't quite hang together?

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause when it comes down to it, you don't believe that talking Literary Theory is the same as shouting "THIS IS SPARTA!". You think it is vastly superior. You think that the gamer that shouts "TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!" is an unwashed mass who either needs to be saved from himself or needs to be taken out of your sight, depending on what particular breed of swine you are.

Ohhhhh ... this is because your Theory of Swine allows you to predict what people can and cannot do, say and believe.  I'd forgotten.

Well, as inconvenient as this must be for you, I actually do like shouting "THIS IS SPARTA!"  That was my line (at the top of my lungs) every time anyone mentioned Agon at Camp Nerdly.  Oh ... lemme tell you a little bit about Camp Nerdly.  It may help you to understand where I'm coming from.

   In early May, about 100 story-gamers gathered together at a local campground for a weekend of outdoors fun and lots of gaming.  It's basically a small convention ... but since there are already plenty of conventions in hotels, people organized something a bit different (and fun!)

I rolled in with my foam boffer weaponry (gotta love some foam ass-kickin'!) and my backpack full of games, and got myself registered.  I was in Stirge Cabin, but somehow got assigned to garbage detail.  Man ... shouldn't that be the job of the folks in Otyugh cabin?  I should have ... uh ... bloodsucking detail.  Or carrying-tiny-demi-humans detail.  But I got my Owlbear camp T-Shirt, and my Owlbear poker chips (I'll post pictures, if you like!) so I suppose garbage detail was okay.  For peope who (according to you) universally hate and revile D&D we sure did seem enamored of our beloved monster-manual denizens.

When Agon was announced, I did in fact lead a rousing chorus of "This is SPARTA!"  Because ... damn ... it's a Greek game.  You gotta have some Sparta shouts to get that started.  There was also a great deal of talk of Lost (wanna hear my mapping of Lost characters to roles on Gilligan's Island?), X-Men, chili recipes, LotR, Czechoslovakia, Harry Potter, etc., etc.  Man, when you get gamers together and get them started they can talk.

Spent the weekend playing games ... and y'wanna know something?  Not once did I hear anyone talking about how our games were cooler than anything else.  But damn, we did talk about how very cool they were.  Again ... for people who (according to you) can only assuage our rampant egotism by putting others down there was a remarkable focus on valuing our games for what they were, rather than comparing them to anything else.

Between and betwixt games, I kicked some serious ass at boffer fighting (my victims were determined, but the combination of years of boffer practice in college plus black-belt reflexes will, in fact, overcome a beginner's bone-deep certainty that Aragorn lives again in their heart) but picked up a dislocated thumb in the process.  I'd do it again ... bruises fade, chicks dig scars, but glory lasts forever.

Then, of course, we had dinner and a camp talent show, including filks (eh) and several very, very raunchy songs (woohoo!)  It's really quite astounding how many people there turned out to have really good singing voices.  Who knew?  It was wonderful to hear such talent being dedicated to songs like "The hedgehog has never been buggered."

And then goodbyes, hearty handshakes, dutifully clearing away the garbage (I'm tellin' you ... this should be an Otyugh job!) and back to my life.  Fun weekend!So, there's a snippet of my actual time spent with the people you label as Swine.  I spent a weekend hanging out with people who were there to have a good time, and didn't give a flying fig whether something was "mature" or as silly as possible, as long as it was fun.  Very unselfconscious, very positive.  You've told me that Swine would never, ever act in that way.  What's your explanation then?

Quote from: RPGPunditWho? Those guys I presented in my Exhibits? If that's your definition of "unpretentious as human beings can get", I would HATE to see your definition of "slightly pretentious".

No, I was more thinking about guys like Andrew Morris, Nathan Paoletta, Remy Duron, Ben Lehman, Jason Morningstar, Levi Kornelsen, Kevin Allen Jr., Vincent Baker and Mike Miller.  Y'know ... some of the many people other than your chosen minority who you constantly lump in as pretentious assholes just because they play games differently than you do.  Not the people you hold up as the justification for your wide-spread prejudice, but rather the people you unthinkingly paint with the same brush.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you will admit that Darren is a Swine, then?

I don't generally think that one post a Swine makes.  But also, I don't think he meets your criteria ... where's the claim of high art, or intellect?  I think he's a jerk for saying his way of playing monsters is better than other people's, but his way is based in folklore, not anything fancy.  Are we not allowed to bring fairy tales in as an inspiration for RPGs now?

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, its not. You are trying to argue that the guy who claimed normal gamers are LITERALLY BRAIN DAMAGED, and AKIN TO CHILD RAPE VICTIMS in terms of their ability to roleplay "correctly" as he sees it, is somehow not attacking mainstream gamers??

'course he's attacked mainstream gamers.  I've already said as much (and, may I say, more eloquently than you).

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease, do go on trying to figure out how to whitewash these cases (especially Brain Damage!)

Hey, I'll be happy to address more stuff.  You just have to provide me with new stuff (or ask questions above and beyond "WTF?  How can you say that?")

Quote from: TonyLBMmmm ... no.  What you're doing is condemning everyone who has certain tastes in games based on the attacks of some people who share those tastes.

   Ron Edwards attacked mainstream gaming.
Ron Edwards frequents the Forge.
Therefore any person who frequents the Forge has attacked mainstream gaming.

Y'see how that syllogism doesn't quite hang together?

Ron Edwards attacks mainstream gaming.
(ergo, Ron Edwards is a Swine)
Ron Edwards is the principle architect of the Forge
People who frequent the Forge and support Ron and his theories are also implicitly supporting his attacks on mainstream gaming.
(their motives for doing so are somewhat irrelevant, but my personal observation is that they do this to feel like they're part of a special "intellectual elite")
Thus, people who frequent the Forge and support Ron Edwards are participating by their collaboration with the attack on mainstream gaming, and are also Swine.

There's the real formula for you, bucky.

QuoteWell, as inconvenient as this must be for you, I actually do like shouting "THIS IS SPARTA!"  That was my line (at the top of my lungs) every time anyone mentioned Agon at Camp Nerdly.  Oh ... lemme tell you a little bit about Camp Nerdly.  It may help you to understand where I'm coming from.


(SNIPPED: a load of crap about "camp Nerdly")

Well congratulations for you. You went off to the Storygamers' version of Camp Grenada, got to revel in how "nerdy" you all are for a while, played lots of reindeer games (or would that be Magic Deer Games?) with the other Swine in the one place where more than a tiny handful of you might be found together at a time so you could feel like a real popular "revolution", and then all went home with your commemorative fake beaverpelt caps and merit badges to get back to the hard work of pissing all over the regular roleplayer.

How does your totally anecdotal and probably highly biased account of "what you did during summer vacation" in any way discount all the evidence of what the "Storygames/Theory" crowd do the rest of the time?

QuoteNo, I was more thinking about guys like Andrew Morris, Nathan Paoletta, Remy Duron, Ben Lehman, Jason Morningstar, Levi Kornelsen, Kevin Allen Jr., Vincent Baker and Mike Miller.  

Swine or collaborators all. The ones who are approachable or have anything of substance to say (guys like my acquaintance and ex-pistol-dueler Levi) are all the worse by virtue that their participation with the "movement" that they KNOW is largely dedicated to assaulting traditional gaming and wallowing in its own perceived superiority and doing nothing of value.

I do feel sorry for guys like Levi though.  Just to show how much of a Swine Edwards really is, he recently basically accused Levi of being a "troublemaker" for not towing the party line enough.  You know, sort of the way that a lot of conservatives aren't all that happy with Colin Powell for not seeming supportive enough of the more insane policies of the Bush government, and for "abandoning the sinking ship"?
So Levi takes flak from both sides; I just have to remind myself that he could finish that any time he wanted, by disavowing the Swine once and for all. I guess his current situation is the price he pays for being moderately liked by everyone.

QuoteI don't generally think that one post a Swine makes.

Ah, there you go again; Tony.  People wanted to get an idea of what "intellectual dishonesty" was? Here it is. You know this isn't the one and only time Little Darren has acted like an absolute fuckhead.  Its just the latest of countless episodes.

QuoteBut also, I don't think he meets your criteria ... where's the claim of high art, or intellect?  I think he's a jerk for saying his way of playing monsters is better than other people's, but his way is based in folklore, not anything fancy.  Are we not allowed to bring fairy tales in as an inspiration for RPGs now?

He's suggesting that the most popular RPG in the world, most enjoyed by the majority of gamers out there, is "broken" in its most basic function, because it doesn't do something it was never fucking meant to do. Of course, that's all just window dressing, like all of the Swine stuff is, for attacking the game just because he hates its popularity and wants to feel all "elite".

QuoteHey, I'll be happy to address more stuff.  You just have to provide me with new stuff

What for? So you can engage in more absurd apologism, intellectual dishonesty, and denial of reality?

No, I'll just be over here waiting for you to say something, anything of substance.

I mean, what was your fucking point in this thread? If it was really to claim that no one has ever used gaming as a means to feel superior, act superior over others, or try to change the hobby to fit their own fucked-up psychological needs, you've pretty well lost from the start.  But especially if your only tactic when presented with some of the most glaring and classic cases of this very behaviour is to bury your head in the sand all ostrichlike and pretend its not happening.

But of course, that's the only response you can really give as long as you're trying to defend that particular claim.  In retrospect, it would have been FAR wiser for you to go into this debate arguing from the position of trying to claim "its ok to be a Swine", than to make a claim as absurd as "there are no Swine ever, and anything that people have done or said that might be interpreted as Swinish behaviour is either wrong or the product of a malicious bias against us elite types"...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, what was your fucking point in this thread?

Such an excellent question it gets moved to the top of the post.

I've watched you apply your Theory of Swine for quite a while, and while I've seen you say some reasonable things, I've also seen you draw some (frankly) downright stupid conclusions.  So I came into this because I wanted to get the parts of your theory out in the open, where I can see them, and figure out what's wrong with it, and how to salvage the parts that make sense from whatever's making you say crazy shit.

In our conversation I've heard less of what you think than I'd prefer (since you spent a lot of time on dodging and the oh-so-clever attempts to avoid actual discussion) but certainly a lot more than I'd heard before.  So I'm pretty happy with that.  And what I've heard has helped me to form a better understanding of the way you're thinking.  I, in turn, am thinking pretty seriously about the stuff you've said, trying to see how you come to these foreign (to me) notions.  Occasionally, I have a thought about it that actually strikes me as an insight.  Not anything objectively great, but new to me.  As you might guess, I had one and now I'm going to share it.

   I think it's clear that you (Pundit) get angry at a lot of things that people do.  In fact, there are many, many things that other people do and say that make you absolutely furious.  You hate these things, and the people who say them.

But where you seem to have gone a little nutty is this:  You think that all these things you hate are actually one thing.  You've bunched them all together, and so you conclude that a person who does any one of them has automatically done all the rest.

This is a particular problem because while some of the things you hate are quite reasonable, some of the things you hate are just mindless prejudice.  But you don't seem able to disentangle them any more.

• Acting superior to mainstream gamers:  It's totally reasonable to hate this behavior.  I hate this behavior.
• Attacking D&D:  You love the game, of course you're going to hate it when people attack it.
• Acting pretentious:  Most people do hate this.
• Playing Story-Games:  This?  Not so reasonable to hate people for.  It's just different tastes, man.
• Participating on the Forge:  And, again ... not a good reason for a hate-on.  Folks take what they like from any forum, and leave the rest.  Ain't nothin' wrong with that.  I'm here, aren't I?
  
• Talking about art in the context of an RPG:  Also not so reasonable to hate people for.  Some people, as I've been pointing out from post #1, get good clean fun from this, without hurting anyone.

You keep arguing that the reasonable outrage that you feel about some things should justify the totally unreasonable prejudice that you have against others, because it's all one thing.  You think it's all exactly the same, all SWINERY.  But it's not.  It's lots of different things, and the more you try to draw tight connections between the far-flung corners of your Empire o' Hate, the less sense you make.  

For instance, you are forced by your own logic to say that people must be acting in ways that they can be easily observed not to be acting.  I'm supposed to think I'm too good to shout "THIS IS SPARTA"?  Well, that doesn't work too well, since it's observably not true.

So, in all seriousness, I do not have a problem with you hating things like the Brain Damage article.  As I've said, I think it's a piece of detestable superiority myself.  But you've got to pick and choose the hatreds that you indulge, man.  Some of them are legit, but some of them are just your personal vitriol boiling out.  Engage your superego, buddy.  Stop using the Swine as an excuse to be 110% bitter and hateful toward everything that tweaks you, and develop an ability to say (of some things) "Yeah, this rubs me wrong, but that's probably not a very reasonable reaction."

Quote from: RPGPunditThus, people who frequent the Forge and support Ron Edwards are participating by their collaboration with the attack on mainstream gaming, and are also Swine.

And by the same logic, people who frequent and support the RPGSite are participating by their collaboration in the defense of mainstream gaming, and are therefore Anti-Swine Warriors.  Cool ... I'm multi-classed!

Participating on a forum is a wrong thing to hate people for.  Get over it.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow does your totally anecdotal and probably highly biased account of "what you did during summer vacation" in any way discount all the evidence of what the "Storygames/Theory" crowd do the rest of the time?

I chose it as an example to show the folly of your claims that people who play Story-Games must also disdain exactly this kind of laugh-out-loud unpretentious fun.  Remember?  You were all up in my face telling me that I didn't like 300, or Tom Clancy or any of that stuff.  If you could have accepted that I was telling the truth when I said I liked all sorts of things then you never would have had to hear about my summer camp experience.

Being pretentious is a fine thing to hate, but not all people who do things you hate are necessarily pretentious.  Different hatreds.  You need, like, a filing system or something.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know this isn't the one and only time Little Darren has acted like an absolute fuckhead.

Man, I barely know who Darren is.  He's a mod over at RPG.Net, right?  That's about all I know.

I understand that you keep a big mental notebook of every time somebody says something "Swinish", and I do not doubt that because of that Darren is a celebrity in your world.  But I don't keep the notebook, and he hasn't made much of a splash in my world.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat for? So you can engage in more absurd apologism, intellectual dishonesty, and denial of reality?

Hey man, this is what you asked for.  "Please, do go on trying to figure out how to whitewash these cases" you said.  Now that I'm actually willing to address the things you want to talk about ... somehow that's pissing you off too?  You are a hard man to please.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, what was your fucking point in this thread?  If it was really to claim that no one has ever used gaming as a means to feel superior, act superior over others, or try to change the hobby to fit their own fucked-up psychological needs, you've pretty well lost from the start.

I agree.  People clearly have done this ... yourself included, of course.  I'm saying that not everyone who does anything you dislike has done all of those things.

Not everyone who talks about art in the context of RPGs is using gaming as a means to feel superior.

Not everyone who dislikes D&D is using gaming as a means to feel superior.

Not everyone who plays Story Games or WoD is using games as a means to feel superior.  

Not everyone who disagrees with you is using games as a means to feel superior.

These things that you hate so much ... they're not all part of one big thing.  Some of them are sorta-kinda linked some (but not all) of the time, and some of them are totally unrelated.  You just hate an awful lot of separate stuff, and unless you can start dealing with it as separate stuff you're going to make a fool of yourself on a regular basis.

Quote from: TonyLBSuch an excellent question it gets moved to the top of the post.

Good.

QuoteI think it's clear that you (Pundit) get angry at a lot of things that people do.  In fact, there are many, many things that other people do and say that make you absolutely furious.  You hate these things, and the people who say them.

But where you seem to have gone a little nutty is this:  You think that all these things you hate are actually one thing.  You've bunched them all together, and so you conclude that a person who does any one of them has automatically done all the rest.

Ok, at least now you've actually formulated an argument.  Excellent, it only took 80% of the thread to do it, but hey, its there. Now we can debate the argument.

QuoteThis is a particular problem because while some of the things you hate are quite reasonable, some of the things you hate are just mindless prejudice.  But you don't seem able to disentangle them any more.

Your argument hinges on the (incorrect) assertion that I assign all the qualities I've labeled under the umbrella-term "Swine" to everyone whom I describe with that term.

In other words, your beef with me seems to be that I call all of it "Swine", and not divide it into different criteria of behaviour.

And well, I guess that's fair enough, but the point is I that obviously, the Swine are more than just one type of behaviour as I've defined them.  And that does not mean (as you seem to have concluded) that I believe all Swine possess all of the qualities that fall under that umbrella-term.  

You could argue, perhaps rightfully, that it would be better to have different terms for each type of behaviour, sure.  But I don't. It doesn't mean (as some have tried to claim) that I believe that there's some vast "conspiracy" of Swine that all think alike and have the same goals.  I don't.

The term Swine is meant to cover a variety of behaviours that I consider despicable, with their unifying factors being pretentiousness, superiority, and a disdain for the way the majority prefer to play RPGs.

After that, its a fucking free-for-all. Certainly, there are groups within the Swine that work vaguely in concert.  Ron Edwards has created one fairly large group (by Swine standards) with his Theory Swine.  The White Wolf Swine are another bunch.
But clearly, these two groups hate each other at least as much as they hate us regular Roleplayers.  Eyebeamz, who is certainly one of the Swine, has attacked Ron Edwards mercilessly and often using some of the exact same arguments I use and support.  It doesn't make him "not a Swine".

QuoteYou keep arguing that the reasonable outrage that you feel about some things should justify the totally unreasonable prejudice that you have against others, because it's all one thing.  You think it's all exactly the same, all SWINERY.  

No, I hate each of them for what they are.  Eyebeamz isn't a Swine because of Ron Edward's Brain Damage quote, he's a Swine because of his own statements regarding the superiority of Story-based gaming.

QuoteBut it's not.  It's lots of different things, and the more you try to draw tight connections between the far-flung corners of your Empire o' Hate, the less sense you make.  

(indentation mine): Except I don't do that at all.

QuoteFor instance, you are forced by your own logic to say that people must be acting in ways that they can be easily observed not to be acting.  I'm supposed to think I'm too good to shout "THIS IS SPARTA"?  Well, that doesn't work too well, since it's observably not true.

If we are to make this about yourself for a moment, fine: are you willing to say right now that your way of playing RPGs is in no way superior to the way people play when they DON'T actively and "seriously" try to make their games "pretty" or "smart"?

If you agree to that statement, then why is it that so many of the things you say point directly to the contrary, and you support people and games that make that exact claim?

QuoteSo, in all seriousness, I do not have a problem with you hating things like the Brain Damage article.  As I've said, I think it's a piece of detestable superiority myself.

And yet you refuse to admit that Ron Edwards is a Swine for what he's said. Never mind that he might not do certain things on your self-made "Swine List"; as others have pointed out that's a bit like claiming that a guy who's said black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, but has also said other things unrelated to black people, is somehow not a racist.

You've consistently ignored and tried to hide from the reality of the Brain Damage statement and what it implies, and how it clearly demonstrated not only the true motives of Mr.Edwards but also of the vast majority of people that are in his "movement".  This is a guy that spent years engaging in doubletalk where he claimed that his theories were not meant to attack regular gamers and advocating "live and let live" but then making statements to the effect that the majority of roleplayers were secretly miserable people who didn't realize or wouldn't admit that their roleplaying sucked because their games were "incoherent"; who finally came out and admitted that he felt that regular roleplayers were LITERALLY Brain Damaged people who were like child-rape victims... and then had the vast majority of people on his site line up in the thread I linked to raising their hands and saying "oh yes, you're absolutely right! I was brain damaged too!!", essentially licking the guy's balls in adoration.

So come on now, you can't have it both ways: if you think its a "detestable piece of superiority", you have to also admit that Edwards is clearly the kind of Swine I've been saying he is all along.

QuoteAnd by the same logic, people who frequent and support the RPGSite are participating by their collaboration in the defense of mainstream gaming, and are therefore Anti-Swine Warriors.  Cool ... I'm multi-classed!

No. Not unless they were coming onto this site and actively supporting my own position.  There are clearly quite a few people that come onto this site with the specific intent of opposing my position, and unlike the Forge, over here its tolerated.
So the differences in policies between the two sites (and the fact that unlike Mr.Edwards, I'm not trying to lead a quasi-religious cult-revolution, I'm just a guy speaking up for the regular gamer out there) means that you can certainly come onto theRPGsite without being an anti-swine warrior.  This site is about more than propping up and lending momentum to my theories and goals; the Forge is about nothing more than propping up and lending momentum to Edward's theories and goals. There's the difference.

QuoteBeing pretentious is a fine thing to hate, but not all people who do things you hate are necessarily pretentious.

Of course not. Just the ones who are pretentious while they do it.
There are also people who could be doing things I love, pretentiously. I'm sure one could run D&D in a pretentious way.  You could be pretentious about smoking a pipe. You could be pretentious about talking about History, Oh God can you be pretentious about that...

Are you trying to tell me something I don't already know? Because if this is really how you believe I'm qualifying things, its nothing more than your own misunderstanding of me.  I'm looking at the evidence of how people say and do things, not just what they say or do.

QuoteMan, I barely know who Darren is.  He's a mod over at RPG.Net, right?  That's about all I know.

And you've never been on RPG.net? If you haven't, fine, then you might not actually know more about Darren.  If you have, this is just more intellectual dishonesty.
I mean, I honestly don't know if you've been active on RPG.net or not; but if you were, I'm sure people would find evidence, so I'd be careful what I claim if I was you.

QuoteI understand that you keep a big mental notebook of every time somebody says something "Swinish", and I do not doubt that because of that Darren is a celebrity in your world.  But I don't keep the notebook, and he hasn't made much of a splash in my world.

Well no, I just know about Darren because I frequented (and still keep up on) RPG.net.  I had assumed that like most people on here you did to.

QuoteHey man, this is what you asked for.  "Please, do go on trying to figure out how to whitewash these cases" you said.  Now that I'm actually willing to address the things you want to talk about ... somehow that's pissing you off too?  You are a hard man to please.

Wow, and you have some serious comprehension problems if my sarcasm intended to shame you into changing your ways was misinterpreted as a sincere request.

QuoteNot everyone who talks about art in the context of RPGs is using gaming as a means to feel superior.

Sure.

QuoteNot everyone who dislikes D&D is using gaming as a means to feel superior.

Of course not.

QuoteNot everyone who plays Story Games or WoD is using games as a means to feel superior.  

Not absolutely everyone, granted.

QuoteNot everyone who disagrees with you is using games as a means to feel superior.

Of course not.

QuoteThese things that you hate so much ... they're not all part of one big thing.  Some of them are sorta-kinda linked some (but not all) of the time, and some of them are totally unrelated.  You just hate an awful lot of separate stuff, and unless you can start dealing with it as separate stuff you're going to make a fool of yourself on a regular basis.

Again, your argument boils down to "you should use more than one word to describe all these different fucktards". Maybe so, but I really like Swine, and all of them have those certain qualities in common.  If some people keep trying to paint me as arguing in favour of a shadowy conspiracy even though I've repeatedly and consistently denied that, well, not much I can do about that.

Now, are you going to get around to admitting Ron Edwards is a Swine? Or do you have some other defense for him besides "he's not always acting like a total shithead"?

RPGPundit

Top of the page, and we're finally making some progress.  And ... y'know what?  I'm actually not going to write a summary.  Last page was a good page.  We actually talked to each other's arguments.  If you want to know what happened there then the best way is to flip back and read it.  Moving on.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, at least now you've actually formulated an argument.  Excellent, it only took 80% of the thread to do it, but hey, its there.

I share your frustration with how long it took for me to get enough of a sense of your actual argument to be able to talk about it with any certainty.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour argument hinges on the (incorrect) assertion that I assign all the qualities I've labeled under the umbrella-term "Swine" to everyone whom I describe with that term.

In other words, your beef with me seems to be that I call all of it "Swine", and not divide it into different criteria of behaviour.

That is correct.  That is, in fact, what I am arguing.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd well, I guess that's fair enough, but the point is I that obviously, the Swine are more than just one type of behaviour as I've defined them. And that does not mean (as you seem to have concluded) that I believe all Swine possess all of the qualities that fall under that umbrella-term.

I don't think that using such a term inherently proves that you conflate some problems with other problems.  A person could, theoretically, keep them separate in their head.  But what I've seen in this thread makes me think that, in practice, you don't actually do so.

Can you give me a different explanation for why you so commonly make jumps from "Person X is active on the Forge" to "Person X must hate D&D" ... or "If you talk about art in an RPG then you must be insincere" ... or "Tony just talked about Eisenstein, so he must not like 300"?

There seem to be a huge number of links that you assume, but for which you never explain the reasoning.  And since some of the connections you assume are leading you into flatly incorrect conclusions, I'm hard pressed to think that the reasoning is correct, much less that it should be obvious to me (or anyone else) without being explained.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe term Swine is meant to cover a variety of behaviours that I consider despicable, with their unifying factors being pretentiousness, superiority, and a disdain for the way the majority prefer to play RPGs.

Except that many of the behaviors you label "Swinish" don't actually seem to be linked to pretentiousness, superiority or a disdain for the way the majority prefers to play RPGs.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf we are to make this about yourself for a moment, fine: are you willing to say right now that your way of playing RPGs is in no way superior to the way people play when they DON'T actively and "seriously" try to make their games "pretty" or "smart"?

You mean, certainly, to ask whether I will say that AGAIN.  I've already said so here, here, here, here, here and here.  And that's just in this thread.  So once again, for the record:  My way of playing RPGs is in no way superior to the way people play when they DON'T actively and "seriously" try to make their games "pretty" or "smart."  I pay attention to these things because I enjoy doing so, and I neither expect nor desire anything more than to have fun doing what I enjoy.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you agree to that statement, then why is it that so many of the things you say point directly to the contrary, and you support people and games that make that exact claim?

You've got an assumption buried in that question:  You assume that the things I say objectively point to the contrary.  I realize that you believe that they point directly to the contrary, but that's a different thing.  That's your perception of what I say, and it's flavored by what you believe of me.  I would expand the question:  Why is it, do you think, that when I say over and over "I don't think my way of gaming is in any way superior to anyone else's," you still perceive what I'm saying as pointing directly to the contrary?

It's quite possible that part of that is that I express myself poorly.  Certainly, the nature of this thread has pushed me to speak more about what makes my games fun for me than I would normally get into.  I can see where you could misinterpret "I think my games are really great because of X, Y and Z!" as saying "I think my games are superior to the alternative because of X, Y and Z."

But I would argue that a very large part of what makes you see a hidden subtext of pretentiousness and superiority in anything I say is simply that you're looking for that subtext, and you see it whether it's there or not.  You start looking for that subtext the moment you hear that I like Story Games ... it proves to you that I am Swine, and you know that Swine always believe that their gaming is superior so you read everything that follows in that context.  Except, of course, that I don't believe my gaming is superior, so you are consistently misreading me.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm sure one could run D&D in a pretentious way.

See, things just keep popping up that don't make sense to me.  You said the Swine all hated D&D.  Now there's the possibility for D&D-Swine?  Would they hate D&D too?

Quote from: RPGPunditAre you trying to tell me something I don't already know? Because if this is really how you believe I'm qualifying things, its nothing more than your own misunderstanding of me.  I'm looking at the evidence of how people say and do things, not just what they say or do.

You're basing this on your ability to read voice tone on the internet?  That's a dicey proposition if you're a perfectly unbiased observer ... and man, you're not.  How much of this "tone" that you're reading is real, and how much of it is your natural inclination to see pretense and superiority in everything certain people say?  And, in answering that, remember how much you have totally misinterpreted my tone.  In at least one case, you're perceiving things that aren't even remotely there.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd you've never been on RPG.net? If you haven't, fine, then you might not actually know more about Darren.  If you have, this is just more intellectual dishonesty.

'course I've been on RPG.Net.  But, as I don't regularly get into flamewars, I don't actually see very much of the mod-clique ('cept Curt, who for some reason occasionally jumps in to chat at me).  Again, I think Darren's more of a celebrity in your universe (possibly because you've incurred more moderation) than in mine.

Quote from: RPGPunditNow, are you going to get around to admitting Ron Edwards is a Swine?  Or do you have some other defense for him besides "he's not always acting like a total shithead"?

Well, if I said he was Swine then you'd conclude from that that I think he's always acting like a total shithead.  Since I don't think that ... yeah ... that's my defense.  On some subjects he's sincerely offensive and superior, and on other subjects he's sincerely tolerant and humble.

I don't see a lot of room in your Swine/Not-Swine dichotomy for that kind of grey area.  You've polarized things so thoroughly with your words that the only thing that can be expressed with them is 100% villainy or 100% heroism.  I can't translate my beliefs into that language.

Quote from: TonyLBTop of the page, and we're finally making some progress.  And ... y'know what?  I'm actually not going to write a summary.  

Wow. That is progress!

QuoteThat is correct.  That is, in fact, what I am arguing.

Well given that its never been my position in the first place, I think your argument is pretty moot.

QuoteCan you give me a different explanation for why you so commonly make jumps from "Person X is active on the Forge" to "Person X must hate D&D" ... or "If you talk about art in an RPG then you must be insincere" ... or "Tony just talked about Eisenstein, so he must not like 300"?

Its called: "looking at them what brung him".
I mean fuck, if you walked into a dance all friendly and chit-chatting with a guy in a Klansman outfit, I would "jump" as you call it (rationally surmise, I would call it) that you probably share said Klansman's positions. In particular if you go on to talk about how wonderful said Klansman is, and how his racism "isn't his main feature" to you.   I mean, most sensible people would figure you for a racist.

This is pretty much the same way. You can't hang out all buddy-buddy talking about Eisenstein with people who shit all over D&D and regular roleplayers, and then whine and complain all surprised that people would "lump you in" with the Swine.

You want to fix it? No problem. Disown the fuckers.

QuoteExcept that many of the behaviors you label "Swinish" don't actually seem to be linked to pretentiousness, superiority or a disdain for the way the majority prefers to play RPGs.

Look, you see just how long it took you to even understand what I was talking about? I mean, 40 fucking posts?!
Consider that maybe, you've been so conditioned to your own elitism that you don't even understand how so much of the stuff you subscribe to looks really offensive to the rest of us.

I know, it looks dangerously close to the brain damage comment. But its not, its just a case of "some people don't know they're assholes"; others know and don't care. I really don't know which of the two you are, and it doesn't matter to me.

QuoteSo once again, for the record:  My way of playing RPGs is in no way superior to the way people play when they DON'T actively and "seriously" try to make their games "pretty" or "smart."  I pay attention to these things because I enjoy doing so, and I neither expect nor desire anything more than to have fun doing what I enjoy.

So you don't actually believe your RPG has objectively improved since you started doing that? Its more fun for you, but it is in NO WAY better than a half-dozen 14 year old doing a high-powered dungeon crawl full of bad Monty Python references?

QuoteYou've got an assumption buried in that question:  You assume that the things I say objectively point to the contrary.  I realize that you believe that they point directly to the contrary, but that's a different thing.  That's your perception of what I say, and it's flavored by what you believe of me.  I would expand the question:  Why is it, do you think, that when I say over and over "I don't think my way of gaming is in any way superior to anyone else's," you still perceive what I'm saying as pointing directly to the contrary?

Because you support people who say things like this:

Quote from: Ben LehmanA tendency I've noticed amongst role-players, particularly role-players who don't have a lot of exposure to literature or any intense non-roleplaying art, is to use the structure of a role-playing game as a critical tool. In other words, when presented with a story, they parse the story as if they were watching the output of someone else's roleplaying game, and judge its success and failure in those terms. This is an astonishingly useless and often actively counter-productive critical method.

QuoteI think that a big chunk of geeks are people whose formative thematic exposures came from socially unacceptable sources (transformers, anime, final fantasy, what have you). The trouble is that they have no means to look critically at these texts, because most of the tools to do so are tied to a purposefully obscured "canon" and denied for any pop-culture stuff except in a needlessly condescending and dismissive manner...I do agree that critical analysis is something that doesn't come naturally to just anyone, and that most people need to have it modeled for them before they can apply it. If we don't see it being modeled on stories we care about, it's mostly not going to be something we do. But I think that's just as true of, say, romance novel readers as it is of geeks, so I'm not sure your argument is really geek-specific. It's just that geeks are the people whose culturally unacceptable references we're most familiar with.

and of course, to paraphrase Ron Edwards: "the average man on the street is better at telling a story than a geek", "most roleplayers are miserable", and of course  "Roleplayers are LITERALLY brain damaged".

QuoteBut I would argue that a very large part of what makes you see a hidden subtext of pretentiousness and superiority in anything I say is simply that you're looking for that subtext, and you see it whether it's there or not.  You start looking for that subtext the moment you hear that I like Story Games ... it proves to you that I am Swine, and you know that Swine always believe that their gaming is superior so you read everything that follows in that context.  Except, of course, that I don't believe my gaming is superior, so you are consistently misreading me.

Let's pretend for a moment that your above argument is correct.  All it amounts to saying is that sometimes I will wrongly call someone a Swine who isn't.
Fine, ok, I'll stipulate to that. I am human after all, and might occasionally misjudge someone.

That in no way denies the reality of the Swine, the fact that there are an awful lot of people out there who do fit the elitism and pretentiousness I'm talking about; that do express utter contempt for regular roleplayers. If I occasionally mistake some people for these other guys its only because I have a set of mental criteria that lights up the "Swine alert" in my head, after countless experiences with people who really do hold those positions and behaviours of contempt and hatred for regular roleplayers and the games I love.

QuoteSee, things just keep popping up that don't make sense to me.  You said the Swine all hated D&D.  Now there's the possibility for D&D-Swine?  Would they hate D&D too?

No, I said you can play D&D pretentiously.  I have played Vampire on several occasions, it doesn't make me a Vampire fan.  In fact, on one famous occasion I played Vampire in a way that was utterly contemptuous of what the WW-fans consider the "right" way to play a Vampire, just to annoy them (and to immunize a few newbies from the Story-based mentality).

So just because a Swine might sometimes play D&D doesn't mean he'll not hate it the way normal people play.

Likewise there might be D&D players who run their game with an entirely different kind of pretentiousness that wouldn't make them fit with the rest of the ideas of "Swine", but they might be a particular type of asshole all their own.

Quote'course I've been on RPG.Net.  But, as I don't regularly get into flamewars, I don't actually see very much of the mod-clique ('cept Curt, who for some reason occasionally jumps in to chat at me).  Again, I think Darren's more of a celebrity in your universe (possibly because you've incurred more moderation) than in mine.

I think its probably disingenuous of you or anyone to have spent as much time as you have on THIS site, much less on RPG.net itself, and pretend not to know who Darren is or the controversies that surround him as one of the worst of the RPG.net modclique.

QuoteWell, if I said he was Swine then you'd conclude from that that I think he's always acting like a total shithead.  Since I don't think that ... yeah ... that's my defense.  On some subjects he's sincerely offensive and superior, and on other subjects he's sincerely tolerant and humble.

I don't see a lot of room in your Swine/Not-Swine dichotomy for that kind of grey area.  You've polarized things so thoroughly with your words that the only thing that can be expressed with them is 100% villainy or 100% heroism.  I can't translate my beliefs into that language.

You're claiming that you can't call Ron Edwards a Swine because he's not 100% mustache-twirling "eeevil", and in the very next paragraph you're accusing me of having a "black and white" way of thinking of things? Who's projecting now?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts called: "looking at them what brung him".

....

You want to fix it? No problem. Disown the fuckers.

So if I were part of a different community, you'd be able to hear what I'm saying without assuming that I'm pretentious and superior.  But because of the people you associate me with, you can't.

That's not really an argument that you're not being prejudiced.  You're saying that you are, in fact prejudiced.  Anybody who doesn't hate Ron as much as you hate him is prejudged by you to be Swine.  Before you hear anything about what they have to say, or what they do, or how they treat people, you've decided who they are and how they think.  You'll read pretentiousness and superiority into what they say (rightly or wrongly), and then use that to justify to yourself that you were right all along.  

In short, you'll hate and judge them for who they associate with, and nothing they can do or say ... nothing about them ... will change that.

That is another in the long list of bad reasons to hate someone:  It doesn't make sense to hate someone just because they don't hate the other people you hate.  That way lies madness.  Once you hate me for not disowning Ron, how long before you hate Levi for not disowning me?  Pretty soon you've got a whole bunch of perfectly decent people who you misjudge and hate only because they've committed the heinous crime of talking with other decent people that you unreasonably hate.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you don't actually believe your RPG has objectively improved since you started doing that? Its more fun for you, but it is in NO WAY better than a half-dozen 14 year old doing a high-powered dungeon crawl full of bad Monty Python references?

Exactly.  I've worked hard to do a better job of the purely subjective task of "Play games the way Tony has fun playing them."  I've developed mad skillz at having fun in my favorite ways.  That's important to me, because it helps me have fun, but it's not important to anyone who doesn't have fun in those same ways.  Why should they care what I can do in areas they don't enjoy anyway?  They have fun in different ways.  Yay for them!

I've been saying this from the start of the thread.  I have, in fact, laid out a huge amount of personal evidence to help you come to grips with something that (frankly) I shouldn't need to prove.  I can't help but notice that you're still having trouble believing me.  Exactly how much evidence needs to accumulate on one end of the scales before it can balance out the weight you lend to the simple fact that I hang out on the Forge?  How impenetrable is your prejudice, anyway?

Quote from: RPGPunditLet's pretend for a moment that your above argument is correct.  All it amounts to saying is that sometimes I will wrongly call someone a Swine who isn't.
Fine, ok, I'll stipulate to that. I am human after all, and might occasionally misjudge someone.

"Occasionally" :rolleyes:

Let's pretend for a moment that you misjudge people a lot.  You've seen "countless" instances of people being pretentious and superior, but the vast majority of these are just in your head.  You come at someone's remarks with the intention of reading pretentiousness and superiority and, unsurprisingly, you see pretentiousness and superiority even when it isn't there.

Now even that does not mean that people never insult and belittle you and your games.  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you.  But your blithe "Oh, sure, I make a few mistakes but only because there are SO MANY SWINE" response rings awfully hollow when there aren't so many Swine.

Only a handful of people are actually insulting you.  The rest of the people you're pissed off at?  You're reading insults there where none exist.  You are so ready to be insulted that you are creating your own oppressors to lash out against.  And you're using this largely fictional oppression as your justification to be a jackass yourself.

Cut that out.

Quote from: TonyLBSo if I were part of a different community, you'd be able to hear what I'm saying without assuming that I'm pretentious and superior.  But because of the people you associate me with, you can't.

That's not really an argument that you're not being prejudiced.  You're saying that you are, in fact prejudiced.  

No, its not a pre-judgement, its just a judgement.
I mean shit, if I see you hanging out all buddy-buddy with David Duke or Le Pen, that's enough to tell me that you probably don't qualify as a person I want to associate with. It also probably tells me that in all likelihood you're not Jewish; or if you were, you'd be a pretty fucked up individual.

I don't see how you have so much of a problem with this concept, bucky?!
There's a saying in spanish: "Tell me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are".

QuoteAnybody who doesn't hate Ron as much as you hate him is prejudged by you to be Swine.

:rolleyes:  No... just the ones who hang out with him and support his movement.

QuoteBefore you hear anything about what they have to say, or what they do, or how they treat people, you've decided who they are and how they think.

Wrong again, bucky. Its AFTER.  After I see what they do or DON'T DO.

QuoteExactly.  I've worked hard to do a better job of the purely subjective task of "Play games the way Tony has fun playing them."  I've developed mad skillz at having fun in my favorite ways.  That's important to me, because it helps me have fun, but it's not important to anyone who doesn't have fun in those same ways.  Why should they care what I can do in areas they don't enjoy anyway?  They have fun in different ways.  Yay for them!

Great. That's a very good first step. Now you need to go to all your little buddies who do feel that they're better than us who play D&D and like to blow things up, and get THEM to stop being such assholes.
Are you upset because you get mobbed in with all the guys you hang out with? Awww, poor bucky... here's a thought: START STANDING UP TO THEM OR STOP HANGING OUT WITH THEM.  

QuoteExactly how much evidence needs to accumulate on one end of the scales before it can balance out the weight you lend to the simple fact that I hang out on the Forge?

Actions speak louder than words.

QuoteNow even that does not mean that people never insult and belittle you and your games.  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you.  

Ah, wow, I can't believe it.. we're actually back to the FUCKING POINT of this thread!

Do I take it from this statement and your totally ignoring all the quotes I put in my last post, that you are now admitting the existence of the Swine?

Because that was what this thread was about ("the swine, myth or reality"; remember?).  That I may personally occasionally misjudge some poor guy to be a Swine just because he dresses in black and smokes clove cigarettes and licks Ron Edwards' boots but hasn't personally ever said anything the least bit pretentious and superior (just supported guys like Ron while they do so) is a distinct possibility but hardly relevant to the discussion at hand (and not really an issue I'll be losing a lot of sleep over either).

What is at issue is that YOU claimed the Swine don't exist.
And what's more, YOU have systematically over the last 40+ posts FAILED to confront or address any of the evidence of Swine behaviour I presented to you.

QuoteOnly a handful of people are actually insulting you.  

AH, ok, so you ARE admitting the existence of the Swine now? Yes or no?

And, for the record, its not about them insulting me, its about them attacking my hobby, and all the gamers in it.

How very brave of you to tell me to "cut it out". When you go say that to Ron Edwards on HIS forum, then you might actually get somewhere with that whole "convincing me you're not a Swine" sidebar you're on about. You don't seem to have any fear saying it to me here. What's the problem with going to his forum and saying it to him, to his face?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't see how you have so much of a problem with this concept, bucky?!
There's a saying in spanish: "Tell me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are".

Wow, that's a stupid saying.  Guilt by association does not work, because we associate with people for so very many reasons other than shared ideology.  You need to get a grip.  I'm not hanging out with David Duke ... I'm not even hanging out with Ron Edwards very much ... I'm hanging out with a whole crowd of people who have gathered at a community for which he happens to be a prominent figurehead.

Pretty much 100% the same as how I hang out with people here.  Doesn't mean I buy into your ideas, either.  I come for lots of people, and you're just one of 'em. I assure you that knowing who I'm with does not tell you jack shit about who I am.

Quote from: RPGPunditGreat. That's a very good first step. Now you need to go to all your little buddies who do feel that they're better than us who play D&D and like to blow things up, and get THEM to stop being such assholes.

Well, I would, except I don't have any little buddies like that.

Was the description of Camp Nerdly lost on you?  I'm not unique in feeling this way.  This whole "I enjoy my way of gaming and that's important to me, so who cares whether it's important to anyone else?" mindset ... it is absolutely rampant in the Story Games community.  Its like some sort of epidemic whose symptoms are mellow self-confidence and a positive attitude.

That is precisely why these folks play games like, for instance, Shab-al-Hiri Roach.  They aren't playing it because they think they're going to convince the wider world that playing a game about a licentious college professor with a mesopotamian insect-God up his nose is important.  Good lord!  How stupid would they have to be to think that?  No, they play it because they find it fun and that's plenty.

They care about what the games mean to them.  There really isn't a whole hell of a lot of room in that mindset to be all concerned about whether your game should mean something to other people.  I mean, I expect a person could get all het up about the subject if they set their mind to it, but the mindset tends to lead in the opposite direction, toward (as Dr. Rotwang so charmingly put it) the eloquent shrug of indifference.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat I may personally occasionally misjudge some poor guy to be a Swine just because he dresses in black and smokes clove cigarettes and licks Ron Edwards' boots but hasn't personally ever said anything the least bit pretentious and superior (just supported guys like Ron while they do so) is a distinct possibility but hardly relevant to the discussion at hand (and not really an issue I'll be losing a lot of sleep over either).

Ah, if only things were so emblematic.  Sadly, we seem to have a pitiable lack of black berets, clove cigarettes and boot-licking.  People like that would have made such handy targets for your ill-considered prejudices, too!

Instead, you've applied the term Swine willy-nilly to folks who mostly seem to show up at cons in Flaming D20 T-shirts and go seeking out the nearest/loudest game of Jungle Speed, all the while talking about and acting upon what they enjoy about gaming ... just as if it were more important to them than what Ron thinks about, well, anything.

I know a lot of these people.  They do not act the way you believe they act, and as best I can tell they do not think they way you believe they think.  I'd sorta like it if, in your continual hard-on to rant at Ron Edwards, you'd leave my friends out of it.  They really don't have anything to do with the wierd-ass images you've got in your mind of college coffee-house intellectual posers.

I understand that you read what they write, and poser-images flood your brain.  I get that.  I'm just telling you, straight out, that's your preconceptions leading you into error.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat is at issue is that YOU claimed the Swine don't exist.
And what's more, YOU have systematically over the last 40+ posts FAILED to confront or address any of the evidence of Swine behaviour I presented to you.

Ahh ... the trumped up absolutist positions are back on stage for an encore at the end of the show.  How nice!  Shall we talk about how your "admission" that not all Forge-folk are Swine undermines your absolutist claims from the start of the thread?  Nah ... ground's already been covered.

My recollection of things was that last time this went around, I suggested that we talk about the middle ground between the absolutes, and you said "Sure, let's discuss specific cases!" and I addressed every single case individually ... after which you got all huffy and changed the subject, because you didn't like my answers.

I'm guessing that you've got a different point of view (probably involving the words "whitewash," "bullshit" and of course "swine").  But, really, we've done this part of the discussion before.  For anybody who cares to wade back into the original, it starts around post #24 and concludes at post #38.  And that's about all the encore I think we need on that subject.