This is NOT meant to be a discussion thread, per se. I'm simply trying to keep track of the major topics in the Pistols at Dawn thread. As far as I can tell, while there are a lot of good points coming up, there is also a lot of fluff that's being bandied about which clouds the original point that was being made. This is by no means complete, but it clears things up for me. Anyone who wants to add stuff because they feel it's actually an important point that should be tallied or because I've misrepresented something is free to do so. If you want to debate points that are here... start your own popcorn thread, dammit, or watch the show over in the parlour.

Here goes:

The Rules:

1. Say stuff that the other person will disagree with so we'll have something to talk about.

2. Answer all questions about gaming.

3. Only RPGPundit and Levi.

4. No posting outside about topics brought up in the thread.

5. Back and forth posting.

6. 100 posts, then end the thread. Pundit gets the last word.

Topics thus far

1. The encouragement of self-respect vs the expulsion of the socially repugnant.

Levi believes that "getting your hate on" only creates a cult of personality. To make gaming more attractive to more people, gamers need to be taught that there's nothing wrong with being a gamer and to be more open with gaming.

RPGPundit counters that an aggressive stance is necessary in order help the gaming hobby by driving out social rejects. He points to the public's view of the stereotypical gamer, which is - to put it mildly - a fat, smelly man living in his parents' basement with no social skills and a creepy liking for underaged girls. Despite the fact that this specimen is in the minority, their proud declaration that they are gamers hurts other gamers and the industry because no one is saying, "We don't want you - get the hell out."

There's quite a bit of discussion about the social rejects but in the end, there is something of a consensus and the topic is dropped by the end of the second page.

2. RPGs as art vs RPGs as games

RPGPundit points out that RPGs are games and any other additional qualities they might have are secondary. To push these secondary qualities to the foreground and neglect the RPG's primary quality as a game is to harm the popularity and viability of the RPG. Furthermore, calling RPGs art is an act of pretension if art is meant to denote greater value. If art has no greater value, then why bother with it?

Levi believes that RPGs are art because it is. To assume that art has additional value is pretentious but there's no reason to deny that playing in an RPG is the performance of an art.

This topic was largely dropped after the first page, probably because there wasn't much more to say.

3.Stories in RPGs

Stories happen in RPGs. RPGPundit believes that creating the story is not the goal but merely a means to an end. The play and conflict which occurs during the game is the goal of the game and putting story as a goal encourages GM railroading and removing player agency to create a better story. That is, attempting to artificially produce story leads to a loss of agency because of its artificial nature.

Levi doesn't feel that story requires railroading or removal of player agency because it doesn't require a pre-set plot. Players can have input into the story if they are given the authority to do so. He supports the idea of creating situations deliberately created to focus on and test elements of characters and allowing the situation to resolve itself however it will.

Agreeing with the idea of situation creation, RPGPundit feels that since only the beginning of a story can be imposed in an RPG (that is, the set up), RPGs are not vehicles for story creation. He is annoyed that disappointed story-seekers are trying to subvert RPGs to satisfy their "shared storytelling" needs with awkward results. Levi doesn't see a subversion at all.

While there were some points on things which emulate the feel of a story (rising action, climax, falling action, denouement), the current debate seems to be on what people expect when they try to get story out of an RPG. RPGPundit claims that worthwhile stories don't occur because you can't control enough of the adventure to make a full story out of it. That is, the heroes might find and kill the orc king in the first five minutes, leading a truncated story without all the usual elements. Story is brought up all over the place, really....

4. What the hell is an RPG?

Levi opens this up with the claim that "RPGs are a fusion." Different games provide a different kind of entertainment, be it chess or Munchkin. Upon prodding, he says that there is a fusion between game and roleplaying elements. He also points at that there are some games which claim to be innovative roleplaying games which are actually story games or some such. That is, a different kind of fusion.

RPGPundit feels that roleplaying is the game, rather than there being a "roleplaying" element and a "game" element that get put together. After a bit of debate, RPGPundit checks if Levi is supporting a roleplaying<------------->game spectrum. He also feels that Levi might be talking about rules heavy vs rules light.

Right now, they seem to be hashing out the idea of "fuzzy" rules, which RPGPundit feels are just bad rules and Levi feels moves things further towards roleplaying. Story once again rears its head in this debate....

5. Player empowerment and power struggle.

Levi feels players should be empowered to make more decisions during play, not just for their characters. He expects that people can behave like adults and work things out when it becomes lame. RPGPundit is dubious about the ability for gamers to act like adults while playing a game and feels that this will lead to a power struggle, much like the childhood game of cops and robbers where the game dissolves into an inane argument over whether or not someone really was shot.

6. GM as a specialized player role vs GM as referee

RPGPundit feels that the GM is a referee for the game and should have final authority. Players need to be denied things sometimes and this makes for a better game. Levi thinks that the GM is a specialized player and therefore authority can be shared so long as the appropriate boundaries have been set up. That is, the group is willing to use the "Rule of Lame."

Consensus thus far:

1. The culture of pretension is dumb. RPGs are, indeed, games. Maybe they're art as well. That's okay.

2. Normal gamers need to show that they are not only gamers, but normal and productive members of society. The hobby is not here to camouflage the truly unrepentant socially defective, but others deserve a helping hand.

3. Effective communication between GM and players is good.

Personally, I don't get why the thread has to be just those two, exclusively. Seriously, if you want a discussion with just one other person and without any outside commentary or discussion, why the fuck not just take it to PMs or email? That's the reason it holds absolutely no interest for me whatsoever, beyond commenting on the exclusivity of it.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPersonally, I don't get why the thread has to be just those two, exclusively. Seriously, if you want a discussion with just one other person and without any outside commentary or discussion, why the fuck not just take it to PMs or email? That's the reason it holds absolutely no interest for me whatsoever, beyond commenting on the exclusivity of it.

Public record. The could of posted it later, but it would have been a bear to read then.

It's becoming a bear to read now. I love this stuff and it's putting me to sleep. Didn't expect that.

Quote from: gleichmanPublic record.

I'm just not seeing why anyone would care. No offense meant to them. I mean, Cyberzombie and I (for example) could debate something publicly, but would anyone really be all that interested in the end result just because we two were debating it? I guess maybe they have their own individual followings, but the importance of such an exclusive debate is lost on me. I mean, if, say, Gary Gygax and, oh, I dunno, Steve Jackson got into such a debate, then I'd be interested. Or Monte Cook and Gygax. Or Cook and Clark Peterson. Or any number of other game industry notables. I guess it's just the two in question aren't that recognizable to me. I'm assuming they are, or were, game designers, right?

I like the format, just two people from different sides of the ideological bridge having it out.

Forum discussions are messy and  affairs otherwise.

Quote from: PakaI like the format, just two people from different sides of the ideological bridge having it out.

Forum discussions are messy and  affairs otherwise.

Yeah, but that's how it was at the original Nutkinland, and later at Nothingland - messy. More interesting that way, I feel. But to each their own.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI'm just not seeing why anyone would care. No offense meant to them.

...

I guess it's just the two in question aren't that recognizable to me. I'm assuming they are, or were, game designers, right?

Beats me. In this era and hobby anyone can be a game designer. All they have to do is design a game. Heck I've stated that I've designed games, it just happens to be crappy unmarketable games.

So the question is have they designed a significant game (and I have a rather high standard on that). To my knowledge, no. But then I don't know either of them.

I thought it was just a nutkinland thing. Two local and rather infamous reps of different schools of thought on the subject. Thus something of local interest.

Quote from: gleichmanI thought it was just a nutkinland thing. Two local and rather infamous reps of different schools of thought on the subject. Thus something of local interest.

Well, it certainly doesn't harken back to any other iteration of Nutkinland. :shrug: I don't remember either of them from before this version of NKL.

Its to prevent people from threadcrapping until they are done and keep them on topic.  I actually like it.  Don't worry when they've reached their stated limits all comments and posts are welcome.

But before that will face squirrely wrath.

Hreidmar waves his flamthrower around menacingly.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWell, it certainly doesn't harken back to any other iteration of Nutkinland. :shrug: I don't remember either of them from before this version of NKL.

The new focus of NKL has lead to new blood, nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWell, it certainly doesn't harken back to any other iteration of Nutkinland. :shrug: I don't remember either of them from before this version of NKL.

It appears that Levi Kornelsen is a Mod at RPGNet where he has done a lot of posting. Some posting at the Forge, but not enough to have likely gotten him noticed significantly.

Make of that what you will.

It appears that RPGPundit has a somewhat well known internet persona across a number of well-visited boards. Rep matches what we seen here- D20 uber champion, flame-breather. That type of stuff and his blog can get you labeled as a target for things like this.

Either or both could have done stuff under a different handle.

The Nutkins seem like whimsical admins, and that offers a possible reason too.

Quote from: HreidmarThe new focus of NKL has lead to new blood, nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that .... as long as it isn't flowing out of me. :crap:

Quote from: gleichmanIt appears that Levi Kornelsen is a Mod at RPGNet where he has done a lot of posting. Some posting at the Forge, but not enough to have likely gotten him noticed significantly.

Make of that what you will.

That's roughly correct.

Also, for those who care - I won't be hitting the debate tonight.  This is because, frankly, I'm quite drunk.

Quote from: HreidmarThe new focus of NKL has lead to new blood, nothing wrong with that.

I know it's led to new blood, and that's a good thing, but if the site is supposed to be a new iteration of Nutkinland, some continuity is also good. There is some continuity, I won't try to say otherwise, but perhaps it's not enough for my taste. That doesn't mean this site isn't good; it's worthwhile to note, I think, that I find myself checking this site out more often than any other right now.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's roughly correct.

Also, for those who care - I won't be hitting the debate tonight.  This is because, frankly, I'm quite drunk.

What?  Late night drunken posting is a Nutkinland tradition.