Quote from: James McMurrayWho cares? I'd like to bang porn stars, but that doesn't change reality. I'd like to cross my arms and blink my eyes twice to have the dishes do themselves, but that doesn't change reality. Getting overwrought about what a bunch of other dorks think about your group of dorks is, at best, hilariously entertaining to the rest of the dorks.

Now James - you're either missing the point or playing Pundit-like rhetorical games.  They'd like to change the way people think about and play RPG's. To a large extent, they would like it to be such a big "revolution" that the games many "traditional" gamers play would be relegated to the trash bin of RPG history.

I think there was a period of time - wherein the Pundit steps and decides it's a "war" - where the theory was pushing for that. The fact that people pushed back has squelched that, but it doesn't mean the attempt was meaningless, just unsuccessful.

So it's not just about dorks looking down on other dorks.  That's pretty common, as you point out about other issues.  But in those "wars" there was always a pretty common perspective about the underlying games being played. What made this different was someone coming in and saying not "You don't follow cannon for setting X," but something more fundamental - "You're not playing games correctly." That's a bit of a difference.

Quote from: James McMurrayAgain, so what? There's group think that story games aren't real games and that white wolf products are used only by goths. It doesn't change reality.

Again - those being wrong are not at issue.  I agree that any generalization of this nature is most likely wrong. What was concerning to some (and really set Pundy off, I think) is that people were giving this generalization - that traditional games were somehow broken (and really just a marketing ploy at that) was gaining traction. That people needed to forcefully defend against this particular generalization was a sign of how accepted it was becoming.

Quote from: James McMurrayAssholes act like assholes? That's not exactly a new phenomenon.

And so it should be ignored? So it shouldn't be called to the carpet for its behavior?

Quote from: James McMurrayIf people had trestred the brain damage comment like the crackpot rant it was instead of holding onto it for years as a symbolic representation of The War it would have faded away like it should have.

You'd think - but the fact that people defended it makes me doubt it would have just faded away.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou mean you're surprised that they didn't care about the indy/narr/forgie games until they found out about the indy/narr/forgie games?

No.  I mean they were perfectly content to leave forgeries to their own business until the forgeries told them they were fucked up for playing D&D.  Them's fightin' words in some circles. Not that it's important to world peace, but then people tend to become passionate when they are told the things about which they are passionate are shit.  Humans are funny that way.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course not, they were too busy fighting setting wars over Dragonlance vs. forgotten Realms. They were too busy poking fun at those giant Losers over at the board game booths. They were too busy trying to decide whether Driz'zt was God's gift to fantasy literature or a Pox upon Humanity.

Like I said, while I agree with the stupidty of fighting over such things, I thinkt there's just a degree of difference between saying "Dragon Lance Rulz! FR is the roxxorz" and "You can't tell a story cause you played D&D." Call me crazy if you want - I'm OK with that.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd most of them still are, and never stopped. Outside of the, what, 20? people railing against Indy games, nobody gives a shit.

Am I one of the 20?  I give a shit - as much as I think people are being duped by a marketing ploy that calls be defective in telling story cause I play D&D.

Quote from: Blue DevilI don't know of any group that is trying to influence the hobby.  I just know of gamers doing their own thing (The Forge doing their thing, the people over at Storygames doing their thing).

It's ok - we just see things differently.  As I've said before, when I came looking for design ideas on the web, I was almost immediately funneled to the place where theory died. It certainly seemed to me that more was going on then just people doing there own thing. It seemed to me that they were trying to change the way people thought about gaming to the extent that the object was to plant the idea that traditional gaing was somehow mistaken/broken/wrong. I happen to think, in retrospect, that it's all a marketing ploy, but that doesn't change the way it came across to me.

Quote from: Blue DevilThere are people who think things they don't like/games they don't like are wrong.  This is true for more the just rpgs.

And that makes it ok to accept/ignore?  I mean, I'm fine when someone says "D&Dis not for me." But when someone say "D&D is not for me because people who play are roll players not role players," I think it's ok to call bullshit.

Quote from: Blue DevilThe only conspiracy is going on in Pundit's head.  Just like the war is only in his head.

Well, I think I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't think it's a conspiracy.  It's a case of groupthink being taken for something real and put forth as a theory. When others called the theory bullshit cause they were having fun playing games that weren't focused on one agenda or storytelling, the defense of that theory got...well...wasn't Mr. Edwards the one who likened it to a battle with metaphors and everything?

Quote from: Blue DevilThere are elitist assholes in rpgs, chess, board games, wargaming, etc.  It's not as if this is only happening in our hobby.

Agreed.  Again, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be called when it happens.

Quote from: Blue DevilThere is no war. It does not exist
.
.
.
Squelched?  Not quite.  The Forge people are still putting out their games,
the games are being talked about on various forums (including the biggest of them all rpg.net).   The Forge isn't in full retreat.  Pundit just likes to lie and tell people that.  He likes to take credit for things he has nothing to do with.

These two were amusing to me as you say there's no war, and then use terms like "full retreat." Is the evidence that fogeries are still putting out games evidence that there is no war, or that they haven't lost the war?

Quote from: Blue DevilThe only people who are feeling this way are Pundit, Sett and a few others.  The majority of gamers (you know, the ones that are too busy to play to go online) don't go to game related websites and don't feel like their games are being assaulted.  They are too busy playing.

I felt that, perhaps to a lesser extent than your examples.  I'm not some wild-eyed crazed Internet warrior - I think.  Yeah, I wish I played more, but that doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion, does it?

Quote from: Blue DevilWhat's being said here, what's being said on my website/forum- doesn't matter, we are barely blips on the majority of gamers radars.

Doomed! We're all doomed!  Nothing means anyting! If you're site doesn't mean anything, why do it?

Quote from: Blue DevilThere is no assault on tradional gamers, there are simply gamers playing what they enjoy.

For the most part, I think you're right - most people are just looking for the right game.  It's the theory attempts that, even if not intended, insult or belittle the games that other people are playing and enjoying that lead to the Pundit's of the intarwebs.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd that makes it ok to accept/ignore?  I mean, I'm fine when someone says "D&Dis not for me." But when someone say "D&D is not for me because people who play are roll players not role players," I think it's ok to call bullshit.

Yes, it makes it ok.  Because what is said on rpg forums doesn't effect the majority of the hobby because the majority of the hobby doesn't go online to discuss games.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I think I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't think it's a conspiracy.  It's a case of groupthink being taken for something real and put forth as a theory. When others called the theory bullshit cause they were having fun playing games that weren't focused on one agenda or storytelling, the defense of that theory got...well...wasn't Mr. Edwards the one who likened it to a battle with metaphors and everything?

The majority of gamers don't know who The Forge are.  The majority of those games are sold online and as I said before the majority of gamers don't go online to discuss games.

You give them way too much credit

Quote from: James J SkachThese two were amusing to me as you say there's no war, and then use terms like "full retreat." Is the evidence that fogeries are still putting out games evidence that there is no war, or that they haven't lost the war?

Pundit used the term, and I am just repeating it by adding it because "The swine are not in full retreat because there is no war"

Quote from: James J SkachI felt that, perhaps to a lesser extent than your examples.  I'm not some wild-eyed crazed Internet warrior - I think.  Yeah, I wish I played more, but that doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion, does it?

Never said it does

Quote from: James J SkachDoomed! We're all doomed!  Nothing means anyting! If you're site doesn't mean anything, why do it?

I said the majority of gamers don't go online (this has been proven by industry people) so what it said online doesnt effect the majority of the hobby.

Quote from: James J SkachFor the most part, I think you're right - most people are just looking for the right game.  It's the theory attempts that, even if not intended, insult or belittle the games that other people are playing and enjoying that lead to the Pundit's of the intarwebs.

And?  Pundit belittles people and games he doesn't like.  He is no better.

Quote from: James J SkachAgain - those being wrong are not at issue.  I agree that any generalization of this nature is most likely wrong. What was concerning to some (and really set Pundy off, I think) is that people were giving this generalization - that traditional games were somehow broken (and really just a marketing ploy at that) was gaining traction. That people needed to forcefully defend against this particular generalization was a sign of how accepted it was becoming.

OK, "needed to forcefully defend" is the bit under dispute here.  Is is really necessary or useful to shout rude names at everyone who plays any White Wolf or indie games?  Would the face of role-playing actually crumble before the might of the Forge without the calling out of rude names?  Would it be sufficient -- or perhaps even more productive -- to counter instead with the positive values of traditional role-playing?  

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I think I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't think it's a conspiracy.  It's a case of groupthink being taken for something real and put forth as a theory. When others called the theory bullshit cause they were having fun playing games that weren't focused on one agenda or storytelling, the defense of that theory got...well...wasn't Mr. Edwards the one who likened it to a battle with metaphors and everything?

Well, yes, he did.  I suspect you're referring to his post "(A GNS STORY) The Liberals".  I subsequently mocked this in my post "(A GNS STORY) The Stroll".  This was at the start of December 2005, the day he closed the GNS and theory forums down.  

The thing is, I don't see much disagreement on this.  Everyone agrees that Ron is opposed to most traditional role-playing, and that Pundit is opposed to most story games.  Oh, and they both hate White Wolf in particular.  However, I don't think that the name-calling is properly called a war between the bulk of players, when most people are simply happily playing the games they enjoy (including a number of people like myself who like a variety of games).

IMO three posts in this new Swine thread is boring. Much better was Sett's hissy fit with the Pundit. Now that was a thread...it was the internet equivalent of Oleana and I was half expecting the Pundit to bash Sett's head in with a chair. Got to admit though, these kinds of threads sure bring in the tourists...with the occasional new poster going "We were a happy bunch untill one night a lone figure rode in with a bag of Forge tricks...and then everything changed...it changed...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RMuch better was Sett's hissy fit with the Pundit. Now that was a thread...

Linky? I demand to be entertained.

- Q

Quote from: Abyssal MawTony's already lost the argument. He doesn't know what the swine are, so he's setting out to disprove their existence based on a completely mistaken premise.

Hell yes. The first step should have been waiting for Pundit to define the Swine. It's not normally good debating tactics to let your opponent define the terms, but it's hard not to when the subject of the debate is a phrase coined by one of the participants.

Tony can still bring it back from the brink - his next move should be to look at Pundit's posting record (here, elsewhere, on his blog, etc) to see if it contradicts his definition of the Swine anywhere, and then calling him on that. ("Back here you said that the Swine were universally X, but that's contradicted by Y here in the debate: do you still stand by that?") - but I don't have high hopes.

40 Quatloos on the Pundit.

Quote from: David RIMO three posts in this new Swine thread is boring. Much better was Sett's hissy fit with the Pundit. Now that was a thread...it was the internet equivalent of Oleana and I was half expecting the Pundit to bash Sett's head in with a chair. Got to admit though, these kinds of threads sure bring in the tourists...with the occasional new poster going "We were a happy bunch untill one night a lone figure rode in with a bag of Forge tricks...and then everything changed...it changed...

Regards,
David R

Pundit: "if they speak up against the standard landmarks of RPG gaming,"

Define these landmarks then.  Because this seems like a catch all category for anyone that doesn't run D&D, or any game published after 1989.

Because otherwise I'd actually buy into the elitist poseur tag for swine.  
Having got my first real taste of rpgs in a vampire LARP I'm aware of the stereotype, it was the same in comics when they rebranded themselves graphic novels.  But it looks like the war on swine is the GoPlay ethos ramped up to warp factor 9 coupled with Pundy's dislike of certain games/companies.

As to WW's/the WoDs popularity in the 90's, I saw that more as a revisionist take on rpgs - wherein PC's were the monsters they'd been fighting for the previous decade in "traditional" rpgs.  Much like the work of people like Anne Rice, Nancy Collins et al offered a different POV from the norm.  That was what was key to their success, not any attempt to artsify a niche hobby.

Quote from: jhkimOK, "needed to forcefully defend" is the bit under dispute here.  Is is really necessary or useful to shout rude names at everyone who plays any White Wolf or indie games?  Would the face of role-playing actually crumble before the might of the Forge without the calling out of rude names?  Would it be sufficient -- or perhaps even more productive -- to counter instead with the positive values of traditional role-playing?

Yeah, see, I'm not defending Pundit's methods.  I don't think that's what's in dispute, is it?  I mean, sometimes to let off steam it's fun to shout.  I get it.  I get Pundit's "marketing ploy" as well - to be the anti-Forge. Sure, fine, whatever.

None of that changes the need, as I saw it, that someone needed to call the theory into question and shed some light on it.  The fact that Pundit seemed to be the most vocal (vociferous, and viscious) was simply a matter of timing and such. There are times when being nice about the disagreement isn't going to make a difference.

Like I've said in this thread, it's why I think the "war," such as it was, os a moot point now.  I think it was good for game design/theory that the stuff being said over there was challenged. Sometimes the challenge had to be...forceful...to be heard.  But I think the "theory" has been called to account (and, IMHO, found wanting) - so I don't get in the huff that Pundit does.

I'd prefer it if he toned down the "cunts" and "fucktards." But that's his "style" or "personna" so I just try to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Quote from: jhkimWell, yes, he did.  I suspect you're referring to his post "(A GNS STORY) The Liberals".  I subsequently mocked this in my post "(A GNS STORY) The Stroll".  This was at the start of December 2005, the day he closed the GNS and theory forums down.

Trust me when I say I'll take your word for it.  You are far more well versed in this information than I am. I just had the memory in the back of my head that there was some writing like this from Mr. Edwards somewhere. I'm going to take a look at your response this AM when taking a break from work.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, I don't see much disagreement on this.  Everyone agrees that Ron is opposed to most traditional role-playing, and that Pundit is opposed to most story games.  Oh, and they both hate White Wolf in particular.  However, I don't think that the name-calling is properly called a war between the bulk of players, when most people are simply happily playing the games they enjoy (including a number of people like myself who like a variety of games).

No, I don't think Mr. Edwards and Pundit lobbing insults is the "war." I think any theory, whether meant as a marketing ploy or not, that calls into question the validity of other people's fun is detrimental to everyone.  It's one of the reasons I don't support Pundit's view of White Wolf/WoD.  I take the word of the people who play it (as I am not familiar enough with it's rules and history) as to whether or not the intent is to be anti this or that. I was very interested in Black Flag's detailed knowledge about the old version and how the new version changed.

I expect people who play WW products to be just as upset when Pundy calls their fun bad as I was when I was led to believe, by the Big Model, that my fun was essentially a mirage and that I couldn't tell a story.

If I knew more about WW, I'd probably defend them just as much.  Alas, I've been a D&D player my whole life, so that's what I know. Perhaps I'll just start calling Pundit on general principle. Then he'll have to James' to worry about

Quote from: James J SkachNow James - you're either missing the point or playing Pundit-like rhetorical games.  They'd like to change the way people think about and play RPG's. To a large extent, they would like it to be such a big "revolution" that the games many "traditional" gamers play would be relegated to the trash bin of RPG history.

I think I get your point: they matter because they wanted to do Bad Things to Good People. My point is that they didn't matter because motivations and desires are meaningless without ways and means. The wolf can huff and puff all he wants but he won't blow the house down. And because of that, he's no more threatening than a children's story.

QuoteI think there was a period of time - wherein the Pundit steps and decides it's a "war" - where the theory was pushing for that. The fact that people pushed back has squelched that, but it doesn't mean the attempt was meaningless, just unsuccessful.

I think we'll have to aggree to disagree on the connotations of the word meaningless.

QuoteSo it's not just about dorks looking down on other dorks.  That's pretty common, as you point out about other issues.  But in those "wars" there was always a pretty common perspective about the underlying games being played. What made this different was someone coming in and saying not "You don't follow cannon for setting X," but something more fundamental - "You're not playing games correctly." That's a bit of a difference.

You don't think "you're not following canon" equates to "you're not playing correctly?"

QuoteAnd so it should be ignored? So it shouldn't be called to the carpet for its behavior?

You can call an asshole an asshole without declaring an imaginary war.

QuoteNo.  I mean they were perfectly content to leave forgeries to their own business until the forgeries told them they were fucked up for playing D&D.  Them's fightin' words in some circles. Not that it's important to world peace, but then people tend to become passionate when they are told the things about which they are passionate are shit.  Humans are funny that way.

Yep. Humans can definitely do stupid and illogical things sometimes. I'll agree with you on that.

QuoteLike I said, while I agree with the stupidty of fighting over such things, I thinkt there's just a degree of difference between saying "Dragon Lance Rulz! FR is the roxxorz" and "You can't tell a story cause you played D&D." Call me crazy if you want - I'm OK with that.

Of course there;s a difference in those two statements, you phrased them so there;d have to be. But the people weren't saying "Dragonlance rules" and "FR rocks!" They were saying "Dragonlance is the only setting for character development and role playing. If you're in Dark Sun you're a powergaming twink." Or to use your terms, "you can't tell a story because you're playing in Athas."

The only thing that has changed is the names of the offending games/settings. The underlying "war" has been there all along.

QuoteAm I one of the 20?  I give a shit - as much as I think people are being duped by a marketing ploy that calls be defective in telling story cause I play D&D.

20 was actually a generous guesstimate on my part. I originally wanted to say 3, but didn't want to offend any of the loyal Pundies by leaving no room for them on the memorial wall. I don't know if you're part of the 20 or not.

Then again, it's not my job to categorize everyone I talk to. I'll leave that to the Brave Soldiers saving my hobby from a fate worse than TPK.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course there;s a difference in those two statements, you phrased them so there;d have to be. But the people weren't saying "Dragonlance rules" and "FR rocks!" They were saying "Dragonlance is the only setting for character development and role playing. If you're in Dark Sun you're a powergaming twink."

The only thing that has changed is the names of the offending games/settings. The underlying "war" has been there all along.

Yeah, I have to bow to your knowledge of this.  It honestly wasn't an attempt at some rhetorical trick; I just wasn't around for those "wars." So my knowledge is limited. But I think I can see a bit of a difference. But let me ask before I state something about which I know little.

Were people actually saying "Dark Sun is broken.  People who play it are not really having fun. People who play it are having their ability to tell stories damaged by playing that setting. That setting is not focused enough so you can't even develop character or role play - the setting simply doesn't allow it.  It's incoherent."

That's what I got from Theory/The Big Model. "Your play is broken and you don't even realize it. You either can't tell stories (which is why you play those silly games) or your ability to tell them is being damaged (by playing those silly games).  The real way to play RPG's is to focus on one agenda - and if you're someone who is anyone, that agenda should be Story. I mean, that's what RPG's are about, isn't it?"

So I could see there being a bit more passion about being told, "You couldn't even role-play with that system if you wanted," (Usually followed by ,"but here's this game I wrote, and you can have it for $12, and then you can become a true role-player.") than "If you play Dark Sun you're a powergammer."

But as you say, we must just have to agree to disagree.

[EDIT: for the correct use of "you're" versus "your".]

Quote from: StumpydavePundit: "if they speak up against the standard landmarks of RPG gaming,"

Define these landmarks then.  Because this seems like a catch all category for anyone that doesn't run D&D, or any game published after 1989.
.

Hate to say it, Stumpy, but I believe the 'Landmarks' are actually well defined and stickied in the craft and theory forum.  At least, they used to be stickied... not sure right now....

Hm... is it just me, or does TonyLB's overexcitation sound artifical?

Quote from: QuireLinky? I demand to be entertained.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=45616#post45616

Both have obviously been drinkng their own kool aid.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James J SkachWere people actually saying "Dark Sun is broken.  People who play it are not really having fun. People who play it are having their ability to tell stories damaged by playing that setting. That setting is not focused enough so you can't even develop character or role play - the setting simply doesn't allow it.  It's incoherent."

Not in those words. For instance, the term incoherent wasn't being applied to games. But the sentiments were the same. If you played Dark Sun you weren't telling stories because the setting was too focused on mechanics and powergaming.

I don't recall anyone saying others weren't having fun, but they were most definitely having a lesser form of badwrongfun.

QuoteThat's what I got from Theory/The Big Model. "Your play is broken and you don't even realize it. You either can't tell stories (which is why you play those silly games) or your ability to tell them is being damaged (by playing those silly games).  The real way to play RPG's is to focus on one agenda - and if you're someone who is anyone, that agenda should be Story. I mean, that's what RPG's are about, isn't it?"

That sentiment, and almost those exact words, have spilled out across the net since gamers first realized they could use it for more than just porn. The terminology wasn't as scientific, but it was every bit as intentionally offensive.

QuoteSo I could see there being a bit more passion about being told, "You couldn't even role-play with that system if you wanted," (Usually followed by ,"but here's this game I wrote, and you can have it for $12, and then you can become a true role-player.") than "If you play Dark Sun you're a powergammer."

It all depends on the tone of them saying "power gamer." The right amount of disdain in the voice bundles up all the sentiments behind brain damage, story vs. dice, challenge vs. Monty Haul, and "your system is unworkable" and crams them into a single epithet. You could also say it friendlier and just mean that the person likes a higher power level in their RPGing experience.

Maybe we were just much more efficient with our weapons of war back them.