Quote from: SettembriniSeveral things. All are irrelevant at the global scale, but matter to me.

[snip]

Sure it´s all only online and irrelevant .
So am I.

I can now see why it is directly relevant to you. The people confused over GenCon will be a little disappointed when they get there!

Quote from: SettembriniSeveral things. All are irrelevant at the global scale, but matter to me.

'kay.  How should this have been handled instead?

With 20/20 hindsight, how could people have both

• (a) pursued their enthusiasm for their type of gaming, and for the careful (dare I say theoretical) examination of how to make that gaming better and
• (b) avoided the items you list above?

Maybe I'm just a raging pessimist, but I think that some things (like #6 and #7) are unavoidable by-products of talking about this stuff ... some people are going to use any discussion or terms as a way to get themselves confused.  And other things (like #1, #3 and #5) look like pretty much a complaint that they're too enthusiastic, which ... well, I get that it's annoying, but being enthusiastic is sort of a good thing, isn't it?

Is there some systematic way that the balance between their own enthusiasm and the rights of other people should have and could have been handled better?

QuoteIs there some systematic way that the balance between their own enthusiasm and the rights of other people should have and could have been handled better?

No. The whole problem of the Forger Movement is their systematic way of letting people know about their enthusiasm.

Quote from: SettembriniNo. The whole problem of the Forger Movement is their systematic way of letting people know about their enthusiasm.

So ... is the problem that they're enthusiastic?  Or is it that they're going about being enthusiastic in the wrong way?

Because, man, if what you're saying is "How dare they be enthusiastic?  That has an impact on me!" then ... uh ... you're screwed, and I don't feel much sympathy for you.  You can't demonize people for loving what they love.  I mean, obviously you CAN, but it's silly.

QuoteOr is it that they're going about being enthusiastic in the wrong way?

Yepp. That´s about it.

EDIT: Bush Jr. is enthusiastic about some stuff, too. Can´t be wrong his enthusiasm, no?

Dude, Sett ... elaborate.

With 20/20 Hindsight, how should people have pushed their enthusiasm differently?

I get that you think they did it wrong.  What would it look like if they did it right?

Why are soooo many people soooo stupid (at least when discussing some topics)?

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy are soooo many people soooo stupid (at least when discussing some topics)?

Dude, WTF? :mad:   Sett's trying to express the things that have gotten under his skin about how people talk about their games, and hopefully even give some advice on how folks could annoy him less in future ... and you come in with a whole "People are so stooooopid" snark, rather than trying to listen?  Don't be a dick!

Tony. C'mon Man...Pundy even quoted me on it.

The entire Theory Well, as I've said to Levi in the past, is now poisoned.  It's that way because, as Sett says, the "universal" theory was really just a theory about a specific, small subset of Gaming.  But it was passed off as something other than that for fucking marketing purposes.

And I quote "My guess would be simply that IPR is simply trying to differentiate themselves in the market." That ws PGiverity - who I don't know, hey what's up PG? - in this very thread!

So step 1 - limit your universality - understand that your theories are great for the type of game you want to play, but have little to offer to others.  Having said that, and I've been honest about it, the discussion about the wrongness of the theory has led to little tiny diamonds in the rough.  Problem is, the benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's why I almost, almost agree with Sett's fundamental separation - I'm just trying to figure out how to make it not so...hard...

Step 2 - Don't make the theory/market differentiation based on telling the world that the majority of gamers and the game they enjoy are broken. The "GM's suck!" quote Pundy used  is what I'm talking about. The whole thing, from what I can see in my admittedly limited experience of the last couple of years, has the feel of an attempt to break what has come before - not build it.  When you tell someone they have to tear down their house that they love becuase it's rotten at the core, rather than working with them to figure out how to remodel - well, that's going to be a problem for a lot of people.  And the "theory" seems to advocate the rotten core not the beautiful core upon which neat new things can be added. Again, I'm convinced now more than ever, this was all a way to market.

Because, see, there are people open to discussing Theory and finding out how other people play.  Hell, I've been in threads with people (I think it was you and Marco and someone I can't recall off the top of my head) who play in ways that were far far different than my experience.  And I had no problem with it and asked questions about it to try to get a better understanding and see if there's any information worth cross-polination. I'm open.  I know a lot of people here are.

But when those same people are forced to base discussion on the theory that, in it's very strucutre, belittles and has contempt for the way they play? You're fucked from the get go, my friend....

Quote from: James J SkachSo step 1 - limit your universality - understand that your theories are great for the type of game you want to play, but have little to offer to others.

...

Step 2 - Don't make the theory/market differentiation based on telling the world that the majority of gamers and the game they enjoy are broken.

James, this is fine advice ... basically "Be humble, be positive," yes?

What sort of saturation do you think you'd need, in terms of some people being humble and positive, and some people being arrogant and negative, before you reached a critical mass where the arrogant, negative people would be outweighed by the humble, positive ones?

'cause I worry about the idea that the arrogant, negative people will always piss people off ... and that those pissed off people will then read the humble, positive people in a way that they perceive as arrogant and negative (and, quite possibly, pretentious and dishonest).

Do you need 90% saturation of humble, positive folks?  99%?  100%?

Quote from: TonyLBJames, this is fine advice ... basically "Be humble, be positive," yes?

What sort of saturation do you think you'd need, in terms of some people being humble and positive, and some people being arrogant and negative, before you reached a critical mass where the arrogant, negative people would be outweighed by the humble, positive ones?

'cause I worry about the idea that the arrogant, negative people will always piss people off ... and that those pissed off people will then read the humble, positive people in a way that they perceive as arrogant and negative (and, quite possibly, pretentious and dishonest).

Do you need 90% saturation of humble, positive folks?  99%?  100%?

Well, shit, Tony; how the hell would I know? This part might be the "know it when I see it" portion.

I can tell you - I was dead afraid to make a peep in the Forge when I first came online.  Overwhelmed by the sheer requirements of reading to even be allowed to discuss.  Then, after reading and lurking, feeling definitely like the way I play was considered wrong.  So wrong that these folks felt hurt by it - emotionally. So wrong that everything in RPG's had to be questioned and destroyed so that a newer, stronger RPG landscape could emerge.

And you now what my first thought was..honestly...

Animal Farm.

And I thought "This is fucking crazy! I just wanted to see how dice probabilities affect the feel of play; or alternatives to hit points and how people liked them and why. Instead, it seems like theory says I'm either an asshole, lazy, narrow-minded or have been playing wrong for 25 years."

Now, when that feeling goes away - when the discussion is not frought with this kind of underlying assumption - I'll be the first sailor to dip a nurse and give her big kiss for the cover of Life.  Until then, I just try to glean nuggets of wisdom and call people for their own obliviousness to their insulting, contemptuous comments.

EDIT: Something that occurred to me: I once had a boss who asked me to resign.  He was and is the greatest boss I ever had, my mentor really (and I'm callig him today - been too long).  And here is asking me to resign. And you know why?  He said "Perception is often reailty."  His point was that while I had grown into the management position nicely, I had pissed off a few of our internal clients.  And no amount of me acting great and being great, no matter how good I was to how many of our internal clients, I was now damaged goods. One slip up and I'm back to where I was, and he couldn't risk that. I fear that's the problem, now.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I thought "This is fucking crazy! I just wanted to see how dice probabilities affect the feel of play; or alternatives to hit points and how people liked them and why. Instead, it seems like theory says I'm either an asshole, lazy, narrow-minded or have been playing wrong for 25 years."

Wow, that's a terrible feeling.  I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy ... if I had enemies.  I guess I wouldn't wish that on my least-dear friend, but that doesn't have the same ring to it.

Let me say that, on my side, I know that if I'd seen you post about the stuff you wanted to talk about, I'd have been eager to discuss it.  And, frankly, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people I hang out with at the Forge and places like it would similarly be eager to discuss that stuff.  That kind of discussion is where we live, y'know?

So I totally sympathize with the way you feel, but at the same time I'm stuck thinking to myself "Whuh?  But we discuss that stuff all the time.  How did we cause James to feel so excluded?  What did we do wrong?"  Y'know?

Quote from: James J SkachBut it was passed off as something other than that for fucking marketing purposes.

And I quote "My guess would be simply that IPR is simply trying to differentiate themselves in the market." That ws PGiverity - who I don't know, hey what's up PG? - in this very thread!

:hatsoff:

I think you are conflating Forge theory (which was never about marketing) with what IPR does to sell games. Certain styles of marketing emerged from the Forge which weren't necessarily original, but that was not what the theory was about.

I don't find Forge theory useful myself. It's written by people who enjoy a certain distributed power model of gaming and who have had bad gaming experiences with traditional games. It's written for people who aren't having fun playing their games, or who want to write games themselves. I don't come into either category. It attempts universality, but is very poor at dealing with gaming styles which the writers don't particularly enjoy, even though the writers have tried, half-heartedly.

It really really breaks down at the point where the model splits into three gaming styles, which appear to have been pulled out of Ron Edward's ass.

The other problem with it is that after skimming over it I wanted to prise my own eyes out with a spoon.

The good thing about it is that some of the games which have been written by some of the contributors are enjoyable. I'm an AD&D man myself, but I've enjoyed Mortal Coil (though the conflict resolution's a bit screwy), Dogs in the Vineyard (po-faced but can be a hoot) and Mountain Witch (appallingly written but a decent game). That said, I prefer Esoterrorists which hasn't come out of the Forge and has a GMcentric power model.

Quote from: TonyLBWow, that's a terrible feeling.  I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy ... if I had enemies.  I guess I wouldn't wish that on my least-dear friend, but that doesn't have the same ring to it.

Let me say that, on my side, I know that if I'd seen you post about the stuff you wanted to talk about, I'd have been eager to discuss it.  And, frankly, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people I hang out with at the Forge and places like it would similarly be eager to discuss that stuff.  That kind of discussion is where we live, y'know?

So I totally sympathize with the way you feel, but at the same time I'm stuck thinking to myself "Whuh?  But we discuss that stuff all the time.  How did we cause James to feel so excluded?  What did we do wrong?"  Y'know?

Which is why I, when the mood strikes, discuss it, or try to, here.

I wish I could go back and grab my cache from the first times I was at The Forge.  I could show you the exact threads.  That way, I could say "look here" and you could say, "but that's not what he meant," and I would say "yeah, but man that's how it came across." And then we could agree to disagree. :haw:

And ya know - about the boss thing.  I respect him more than any other single person I've met in my field.  Brilliant mind for seeing all the ramifications. And we remain friends to this day.  He even said, when I was leaving "We'll talk about it in 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.  Watch how our understanding of it, in hindsight, changes." The man is one of the wisest men I know.  The point of which is to say - don't feel bad.  It led to tough times, but it was a great thing in the end.

But I digress...

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I, when the mood strikes, discuss it, or try to, here.

Now, see, that's one of the things I value about the RPGSite.  People feel comfortable (specifically comfortable talking to me) here in ways that they wouldn't feel comfortable talking elsewhere.  The fact that I believe they'd be safe in any venue doesn't really matter to their comfort.  They feel that they're safe here.  That's cool.