Quote from: chaosvoyager[*looks*]

Hmm...

Signature. Registered Jan 2003. Only 86 posts.

Weird.

Started posting again after the rash of anti/pro GM threads that swept RPG.net. Possibly related.

Last known post was: Is GNS theory really an elitist theory?, which he/she started and never posted in again, though I could be mistaken as I didn't search all 96 pages.

Based on this and the specific wording Signature was using in their latest posts, my guess is that they're a Troll, and maybe even working against the 'Swine' by making them look bad.

I've seen discussion functionally equivalent to this (in all important and some non-important ways) on The Forge and StoryGames. I see no reason to doubt the guy's sincerity.

-Marco

What does Forge-goer status matter either way? Either he's Swine or he isn't, who he hangs out with won't alter that. It won't alter that for them either.

Quote from: MarcoI've seen discussion functionally equivalent to this (in all important and some non-important ways) on The Forge and StoryGames. I see no reason to doubt the guy's sincerity.

Yeah.  We may be missing the forest for the trees here.

Regardless of any particular case, I think anyone with familiarity with the indie scene can agree that there are cases of people being insulting of D&D and/or other traditional RPGs in general.  (I can provide plenty of links on this.)  

However, there are also some people in the indie scene who are not this way.

Are they ever going to get past the foreplay? They must be gagging for it by now. (Sorry for the very unpleasant things this may have put into your brain.) :eek:

Quote from: One Horse TownAre they ever going to get past the foreplay? They must be gagging for it by now. (Sorry for the very unpleasant things this may have put into your brain.) :eek:

So they get past the foreplay then what?  Is there any real endgame for this kind of argument or is this something that will go back and forth indefinitely?

I'm just waiting for the money shot...shots.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Blue DevilSo they get past the foreplay then what?  Is there any real endgame for this kind of argument or is this something that will go back and forth indefinitely?

You ever see a couple of guys completely unskilled in fighting, they just kind of flail at each-other, slap and do sloppy kicks, not really causing any damage, just tiring themselves out?

Same thing here. These guys definitely didn't do high school debating, let alone anything more advanced than that.

I mean, I think they're both wrong, and even I could argue their side of the debate better than they're doing it.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou ever see a couple of guys completely unskilled in fighting, they just kind of flail at each-other, slap and do sloppy kicks, not really causing any damage, just tiring themselves out?

So what you're saying is that Pundit and Tony's debate is in fact a Colin Firth and Hugh Grant dance ?

Regards,
David R

That's perfect, David! Except... in that film, one was honourable but boring, and the other was handsome but dishonourable. Which is which?

:ponder:

I guess you don't have to answer that.

Quote from: Blue DevilSo they get past the foreplay then what?  Is there any real endgame for this kind of argument or is this something that will go back and forth indefinitely?

It can't go back and forth indefinitely, because there's a post limit on the thread.

But no, there will be no conclusion. No moment of epiphany where one party says to the other, "wow, I've been wrong."

The problem is that they're both right and they're both wrong.

That's it, McMurray.

As I see it, there are certainly people who game - or at least discuss their gaming - mainly to feel superior to other gamers. There are also people whose gaming has as its main purpose not fun and fulfilment, but art, education, group therapy and so on; and they feel their aims are superior to "just fun."

But to call them Swine implies they are some kind of coherent organised group, rather than a few people just floating around, largely unconnected with each-other. You then get ideas like the Swine Conspiracy to Kill Gaming, or Conspiracy to Fuck RPG.net or whatever. Which is quite tinfoil.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's it, McMurray.

As I see it, there are certainly people who game - or at least discuss their gaming - mainly to feel superior to other gamers. There are also people whose gaming has as its main purpose not fun and fulfilment, but art, education, group therapy and so on; and they feel their aims are superior to "just fun."

In addition, there are those people who game to have fun, or game to produce/evaluate/take part in/interact with art, or as education, or as group therapy at different times, in different ways, but do not feel that any of these aims are inherantly superior either to "just fun" or the gamers that enjoy "just fun".
Pundit feels that that's irreconcilable, though. The very act or thought creates disdain for the "just fun" gamers, and is pretentious by virtue of having existed.

In an ironic twist, Pundit feels nothing but disdain for those gamers. They are ideologically inferior, and worse gamers. He feels his gaming is superior, and that gaming in the way that he does makes him a superior person. At that point, he defines himself as the Swine he rails against.

EDIT: This is kinda funny, though. Pundit wins the debate - because there is at least one Swine that is easily recognizable by the terms Pundit himself lays out. A useless victory, though, wot?

Of course. RPGundit's playing an old rhetorical trick - make up a new word, and leave its definition vague, and then you can "prove" anything by using it.

Which of course is exactly what the Forgers do. Which is yet another reason I call RPGPundit, "Mirror Ron."

Actually the funniest thing to me lately regarding the "Swine", is reading some of the recent threads about "adventure gaming" and The Dark Eye, it occured to me that what I was seeing was, basically, the German Forgies.

I mean, you've got a small minority the trashing on the mainstream game and tastes (DSA and it's players), nonsense jargon that means nothing except to create "us vs. them" categories, and relentless insulting of the mainstream taste in RPGs.  

Yet over here, they don't stand out, because the tastes involved are basically reverse in terms of which is the most popular, and which is a bunch of irrelevant Internet whiners.

It's really pretty fascinating.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou ever see a couple of guys completely unskilled in fighting, they just kind of flail at each-other, slap and do sloppy kicks, not really causing any damage, just tiring themselves out?

Same thing here. These guys definitely didn't do high school debating, let alone anything more advanced than that.

Bolded because it's the truth and well said

Quote from: JimBobOzI mean, I think they're both wrong, and even I could argue their side of the debate better than they're doing it.

Yep.  And of course Pundit's thinks he got banned from rpg.net, etc because the mods were against him.   It has nothing to do with his constant insults and his lunitic rants.