Quote from: J ArcaneIf you want to go point at one guy and give him all the credit, at least point at someone like JimBob, who people actually fucking listened to.

People listened to me? Don't be ridiculous! I got in there and debated, sure, but usually people were too busy tilting at windmills - at imaginary foes - to actually talk to whoever was there in the thread with them. And most were so keen to post something that they forgot to read anything. And if they did read something, it'd not have been me, but someone who was both eloquent and succinct - like, say, John Kim. If he weren't too smart to step into such debates.

Quote from: JimBobOzPeople listened to me? Don't be ridiculous! I got in there and debated, sure, but usually people were too busy tilting at windmills - at imaginary foes - to actually talk to whoever was there in the thread with them. And most were so keen to post something that they forgot to read anything. And if they did read something, it'd not have been me, but someone who was both eloquent and succinct - like, say, John Kim. If he weren't too smart to step into such debates.

I was thinking more about the whole Cheetoism thing.  A lot of people really seemed to grab onto that over on RPGnet before they ran you out of town.

And while I don't agree with a lot of stuff you've said over the years, the core ideas about roleplaying being all about people and compromise, and the uselessness of jargon, were pretty solid and got a lot of ear.

But then you go off into "hack vs. thesp" and nonsense like that that's come recently out of you, but the original stuff was solid, and got a lot of deserved attention.

See, now I'm going to say Pundit is an idiot. From a strictly rhetorical perspective, answering those questions the way he did just leaves too many openings. As for the substance...

Quote from: Pistols

• True or False: If Roger is Swine then he will hate the RPGSite
• True. But again, he might avoid admitting it in public areas.

Stupid. Hate is the wrong word.  Disdain? That's probably closer. Or perhaps "will feel his play is superior to those who play traditional games"?

Quote from: Pistols

• True or False: If Roger is Swine then he will not have fun playing RPGs
• Untrue. He will have fun, but the fun he gets out of RPGs is not the same kind of fun a normal roleplayer gets from it. Its the fucked-up fun of pretending that you're doing something really meaningful and important, and doing it better and more radically/rebelliously than people who play regular RPGs.

If only Pundit stopped at "He will have fun." Of course he'll have fun. Or more broadly, it will provide some sort of pleasure.  Pundit makes the mistake, and shows he is (as he's been accused of in this very forum) a Swine of his own making, by calling into question the pleasure someone takes from an RPG. As long as the person feeling they are doing something "meaningful" or "important" isn't also saying it's inherently more meaningful or important that someone playing D&D, the world is a wonderful place.

Which leads us to:

Quote from: Pistols

• True or False: If Roger is Swine then he will have at least one game X about which he believes "Playing X is inherently and objectively a more important and meaningful experience than playing D&D."
• True. He will probably have several. Again, he might repeatedly state in public that he thinks all games are equally good, "why can't we just get along", etc etc. But as in the other cases, his discussions on other occasions, "in-house" discussions on the Swine sites, and backhanded commentary will reveal his real feelings on the subject.

I think this gets closest to my (as I've said, admittedly limited in history) perspective of how I saw things. People who seemed to have a disdain for the traditional gaming.  Oh, there was plenty of "everyone having fun is cool," stuff.  But the more I read, the deeper I traveled, it seems that was all a nice veneer. And I am convinced that when pushed, there are more than a few theoristas who will say that, yes, the games they play are inherently and more objectively better/more meaningful than [insert traditional game here].

Indeed, I would postulate this as a definition of Swine: anyone who claims that any particular game is an inherently and objectively more meaningful experience than any other game.

That includes Pundit whenever he says that there's something inherently and objectively wrong with the fun people are having playing WoD.

Perhaps?

One wonders how "important" and "meaningful" some folks think their posts in this tiny little corner of the internet are.

Be clearer Jimmy - are you suggesting I think my post are important or meaningful, or moreso than anyone elses?

I sure hope not.

Quote from: J ArcaneI was thinking more about the whole Cheetoism thing.  A lot of people really seemed to grab onto that over on RPGnet before they ran you out of town.

Ah, rightyo. I take it that you mean, the stage of just saying "cheetoism!" in response to theory babble rather than the whole why game groups fuck up thing.

Quote from: J_ArcaneAnd while I don't agree with a lot of stuff you've said over the years, the core ideas about roleplaying being all about people and compromise, and the uselessness of jargon, were pretty solid and got a lot of ear.

But then you go off into "hack vs. thesp" and nonsense like that that's come recently out of you, but the original stuff was solid, and got a lot of deserved attention.

In presenting it as a sort of chronology, "first Cheetoism, then hack vs thesp nonsense", you've got it backwards. Hack vs thesp and that sort of thing were first described in d4-d4, in late 2004. Cheetoism and so on came later, but were based on those earlier ideas - that people are the most important part of the success of a game session. So rather than saying you liked my earlier ideas and not the later ones, it'd be more correct to say that you like some of my ideas, and not others.

In any case, none of this is commentary on this silly Swine thread. My commentary would be that it looks like RPGPundit did D&D DMing in high school, while TonyLB was on the cheer squad, and neither of them were in the debating club. It's not terribly eloquent or insightful or interesting. I'm sure we could come up with pairs of people from therpgsite who'd have more interesting debates.

Quote from: James J SkachIf only Pundit stopped at "He will have fun." Of course he'll have fun. Or more broadly, it will provide some sort of pleasure.  Pundit makes the mistake, and shows he is (as he's been accused of in this very forum) a Swine of his own making, by calling into question the pleasure someone takes from an RPG. As long as the person feeling they are doing something "meaningful" or "important" isn't also saying it's inherently more meaningful or important that someone playing D&D, the world is a wonderful place.

Except, wait, the Pundit's argument hinges on RPGs being, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and unimportant. Are you arguing that they are, or just arguing that none of them are more meaningful and important than D&D? And just how meaningful and important is D&D?

Quote from: WarthurExcept, wait, the Pundit's argument hinges on RPGs being, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and unimportant. Are you arguing that they are, or just arguing that none of them are more meaningful and important than D&D? And just how meaningful and important is D&D?

No.  I'm suggesting that anyone who thinks their game is inherently more meaningful or important is a self-important git.

Subjectively, it's going to be true.  There will be games that provide more meaning for some than others. To make a systemic statement of truth for any game being inherently better is bound to run into counter arguments/examples.

It's why, I think, people who are often defenders of theoristas are really taking small bits and pieces that help them improve the kind of game they are playing.  And that's cool.  It's when it gets broadened to "this is the right way" that things break down* and the battles begin - cause sooner or later someone is going to get offended.

* And, in a way, I get it.  Sometimes the excitement is so overwhelming that they feel the need to share.  And then someones says "Eh, not for me." And that kills the buzz.  so then they try to push, or say things like "you're just to lazy/narrow-minded to try something new." Or some other insult.  And then the fur flys. But that's in another thread.

Quote from: James J SkachNo.  I'm suggesting that anyone who thinks their game is inherently more meaningful or important is a self-important git.

Subjectively, it's going to be true.  There will be games that provide more meaning for some than others. To make a systemic statement of truth for any game being inherently better is bound to run into counter arguments/examples.

Yes, but check out the Pundit's initial definition of what the Swine are:

Quote from: The Pundit, in the Pistols threadThe Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth. This need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives. In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play".

Likewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs.

Note that for the Pundit being snobby about other people's games is merely a symptom of Swinery, not the root cause. By the Pundit's defintion, the first step on the road to Swinery isn't denigrating other people's games, it's ascribing any importance or "meaningfulness" to RPGs at all.

In other words, this isn't a subjective thing about relative importance or unimportance. If you ascribe any meaning to games whatever, you are at the very least a proto-Swine if not a full-blown Swine.

I don't necessarily agree with the Pundit's assessment here, mind, but it's one of the more striking impressions I took away from the debate.

The problem with the whole argument is that one can define Swine to mean whatever you need it to mean. If Tony walks in and says, "I don't have a clear grasp of what Swine are." and Pundit has any sense whatsoever (he does), then Pundit will win. It's trivial to just define Swine as a person he knows exists.

So, Pundit wins. The much harder victory is to prove that he's right for labelling people so harshly for the label he defined. He defined it as someone who views their games as having meaning. Which is going to be lots of people. I'm sure it'll get cleared up, but I know that puts me solidly in Swine territory as it is. My games have lots of meaning to me, a lot of the time. I've gotten a big emotional kick out of it, feel like I walked away from the table with a new experiance under my belt.

Of course, I don't think that's what Pundit means, but I don't totally agree that games don't have a greater meaning. I just feel that they really don't have to to be totally worth playing. (Because 'just' entertainment is a value which is not just worthwhile, but probably needed.) I won't put words into his mouth, though.

EDIT: I'll let it stand for the record, but I think I initially read Pundit wrong. It seems so hard to get a concrete definition of Swine, though. Like, it's a "I'll know it when I see it." kind of thing...

Quote from: James J SkachIf only Pundit stopped at "He will have fun." Of course he'll have fun. Or more broadly, it will provide some sort of pleasure.  Pundit makes the mistake, and shows he is (as he's been accused of in this very forum) a Swine of his own making, by calling into question the pleasure someone takes from an RPG. As long as the person feeling they are doing something "meaningful" or "important" isn't also saying it's inherently more meaningful or important that someone playing D&D, the world is a wonderful place.

Yep, I agree with you.

In that very posting Pundit admits he is what he hates the most.

Pundit is a Swine, an elitist swine.

I find this funny considering there was a post by the Pundit where he said that he runs games "smarter and funner then most gamers out there"

Pundit has revealed himself for what he is, a swine

Quote from: WarthurExcept, wait, the Pundit's argument hinges on RPGs being, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and unimportant. Are you arguing that they are, or just arguing that none of them are more meaningful and important than D&D? And just how meaningful and important is D&D?

I don't speak for James, only myself.

RPGS only purpose is to have fun.  Not make you feel smarter, not make you feel like you played a better game then anyone else.

So no, rpgs are not meaningless if you consider having fun important.

Quote from: Thanatos02The problem with the whole argument is that one can define Swine to mean whatever you need it to mean. If Tony walks in and says, "I don't have a clear grasp of what Swine are." and Pundit has any sense whatsoever (he does), then Pundit will win. It's trivial to just define Swine as a person he knows exists.

Right.  The thing is Swine/Assholes/Etc whatever you want to call them are in all hobbies.  So this is not unsual

Quote from: Thanatos02So, Pundit wins. The much harder victory is to prove that he's right for labelling people so harshly for the label he defined. He defined it as someone who views their games as having meaning. Which is going to be lots of people. I'm sure it'll get cleared up, but I know that puts me solidly in Swine territory as it is. My games have lots of meaning to me, a lot of the time. I've gotten a big emotional kick out of it, feel like I walked away from the table with a new experiance under my belt.

Well, Pundit wins because the person who challanged him really didn't come to the table prepared.  While I agree there may be swine/assholes in this hobby there isn't some big conspiracy to take over the hobby.  That is all in the Pundit's head

Quote from: Thanatos02Of course, I don't think that's what Pundit means, but I don't totally agree that games don't have a greater meaning. I just feel that they really don't have to to be totally worth playing. (Because 'just' entertainment is a value which is not just worthwhile, but probably needed.) I won't put words into his mouth, though.

I play RPGS just for Entertainment/to have fun.   I get no other meaning out of rpgs.   Not to say others do not.

Quote from: James J SkachBe clearer Jimmy - are you suggesting I think my post are important or meaningful, or moreso than anyone elses?

I sure hope not.

Not at all. I was trying to draw a parallel between the RPG Swinery of "my RPG is meaningful" and the Internet Swinery of "my post/website/blog/youtube video/whatever" is meaningful. Not being RPG Swine because you (general you, not specific) realize that games are just games doesn't prevent you from being blinded by your own ego and becoming swine in another aspect of life.

Slow down, everyone, you'll run out of lube.