Quote from: Malcolm CraigIn my loft, pretending to be a starfighter pilot, actually*.

Cheers
Malcolm

*What can I say? 'The Last Starfighter' had a big influence on me as a kid.

Yeah - I mean, we all do it. It largly what roleplaying is.

But everyone likes to feel special - so the idea has to be to attempt to reposition yourself so that Roleplaying is cool and clever, rather than stoopid.

Unfortunatly, The Indie/Trad rhetoric tries to make itself look clever by slagging off other people pretending to be wizzards, which is 1: rude and 2: always going to cause problems.

What would be better is for everyone to gang up on Martians. We are great because we are better than Martians. Fucking Martians. Go us!

I mean, some of its true. A/State falls very much in the the 'yes, yes, its very nice but what the heck do you do with it' camp, while Cold City doesn't. Thats good shit, but at the same time its nothing different from roleplaying - its just better. People have ALWAYS said that. Dream Pod Nine games were some of the worst offender. This is very nice but whats it for is the short description of Heavy Gear, while Jovian Chronicles is totally pointless for anyone who hasn't seen a lot of Gundam.

But, those arn't what people play! Vampire gets played a lot because for some strange reason people seem to be able to latch on to what its for. Call of Cthulhu is again easy to see what you do, and DnD, the King, is REALLY easy to get in to.

So what? You are standing against bad games. Thats good. EVERYONE could get behind standing against bad games. But slagging off all Traditional games - thats only gonna get you a certain type of person.

--

Incidentally, I've got Fifth Child, Joshua 'Hi, I'm Joshua Ay See Newman' Newman and Lucifer Morningstar marked down at the top of my Swine Card.

I know that some of my posts have been sounding kind of naive.  I am not quite sure why.  I guess part of it is that I feel like I am starting back at square one here and it is a smaller community, so it requires that I explain where I am coming from.

The thing is, over on rpg.net, I never really understood the anti-forge, anti-indie freakout.  I mean I get the basic idea, but the level of furor just didn't match up to what I saw as the representatives of that world.  It's such a larger community, and I saw what happened when the subject was brought up, that I never bothered trying to figure it out.

Here, at first at least, there seemed to be an even more-focused anti-Indie vibe but since it was a smaller group of people, I figured I could get some real info.  Which I have.  I am still skeptical of the negative reactions against the swine, but I see that there is definitely a history there.

As for my telling ShannonA to fuck off.  1) I have a pretty bad temper.  I am actually better behaved on the internet than in real life in that aspect, thanks to the time lag.  But he really blindsided me with that comment, especially after I had been down in TT very politely and very consistently trying to get an honest answer without having a thred closed.  2) I come from a world where telling someone to fuck off isn't a quantum leap in bad behaviour, so I don't see it as some terrible attack (not that I didn't expect to get banned) but an appropriate response to someone else's disrespectful behaviour.  I mean what's worse, besmirching someone's character to others or telling someone to fuck off to their face?

Anyways, I appreciate you guys baring with me here.  It's helped me think some things through.  I am going to try to be more positive about D20 and the  people who play it.  But I am also going to be critical of people who paint the whole Indie movement as some evil conspiracy out to attack traditional gaming.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut slagging off all Traditional games - thats only gonna get you a certain type of person.

Again, who does this?  It just seems like such a massive over generalization.  I really would like to see a quote of someone directly and generally attacking all traditional games.  There may be aspects of traditional gaming that are attacked.  Even Ron Edward's brain damage essay only attacked a very specific subset of gamers.  I'm just saying that your language and your claims are as sweeping and as bad as the people you are criticizing.

Quote from: BlissNinnyI am going to try to be more positive about D20 and the  people who play it.

Well, this right here implies you probably can't see a lot of the rudeness. Someone says FUCK D20! and you are thinking YEAH! instead of pondering how it might come across to someone who likes D20.

QuoteIndie movement

So whats the 'indie movement'. I can't see it. I just see a bunch of guys shouting FUCK D20! Can you point to specific quotes that show a so called 'Indie Movement'. Because if there is one they have changed their retoric.

In short, ask yourself why you are so receptive of a so called 'indie movement'. Is it because it sound cool? Is it because you feel yourself isolated by The Mainstream? Do you feel roleplaying is sufficiently mired to require one? If you feel so, how do you respond to people who feel this is an error, and that a so called 'indie movement' would be a mistake, or has taken a wrong turning, or is pointlessly devisive?

Frankly, who told you there was a so called 'indie movement'. Can't you think for yourself, or do you believe everything uncle Ron says?

Why call it the so called 'indie movement' instead of the rise of vanity publishing of joe blows half assed homebrew?

Whats the old chestnut about if you don't know who That Guy is...

--

For instance, is this guy new or thick:-

QuoteI see your point, but I don't think the analogy is thoroughly apt. In movies, even though American action films dominate, other approaches are still known to exist and considered valid. I can say "I prefer Hong Kong action films" or "I get more from European documentaries" without further explanation. However, in the role-playing game hobby, expansively detailed rules and settings are pretty much The Way Things Are Done, and questioning the value of that leads to, frankly, discussions like this one.

I mean, christ, we've had Rules Light for bloody ages. If you don't like detailed setting theres a whole bunch of games without them. For fucks sake, who is this pillock attacking?

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3305&page=1#Item_0

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt'll be a slaughter, Malcolm.

That's the spirit! Paheeeeeeeee.....!

Ah, finally, a real current example!

Nice work, Erik.

Yes, that guy E.T. Smith comes off as very dismissive and basically ignorant.  It's annoying.  I suspect he just figured out Story Now! and is all over-jazzed about it.  In a year, he'll probably realize that that is just one way to look at things.

But look at all the responses.  Most people are like dude, chill with your broad brush criticisms of "big-box" gaming. And they provide tons of reasons why setting books are fun and great for gaming.  Even more, they are saying the trad/indie split is an illusions.  Seems like a good discussion, actually.  That E.T. Smith guys position is basically wrong.  Personally, I like big thick settings books, if the setting interests me.  But his ignorance doesn't make me all frothy at the mouth.  I certainly don't feel attacked.  It just doesn't seem all that different from any of the other minor insults and dismissals that go on all the time on the internet.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, this right here implies you probably can't see a lot of the rudeness. Someone says FUCK D20! and you are thinking YEAH! instead of pondering how it might come across to someone who likes D20.

I suspect that when someone says "I find D20 limiting" you hear "FUCK D20!"

Quote from: Erik BoielleIn short, ask yourself why you are so receptive of a so called 'indie movement'. Is it because it sound cool? Is it because you feel yourself isolated by The Mainstream? Do you feel roleplaying is sufficiently mired to require one?

I am receptive to it because I am receptive to any innovation, any development, any new things in this hobby.  As I am receptive to new, different stuff in my other hobbies.  I am receptive to it because it has produced games like Spirit of the Century that I have bought and played and had a ton of fun with.  I am receptive to it because I have listened to discussions about very basic techniques for running games from designers of those games that have been helpful to my own GM'ing style.  I have listened to discussions from more traditional-style gamers that have also been helpful.  I don't feel isolated from the mainstream.  The people I game with and around here are a pretty old-school bunch for the most part (some of them are actually still running a The Fantasy Trip campaign).  I don't think roleplaying is mired.  I actually think this is the most exciting and energetic time in roleplaying.  Local cons and gaming events are booming.  We are getting tons of new products at every level of the industry.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIf you feel so, how do you respond to people who feel this is an error, and that a so called 'indie movement' would be a mistake, or has taken a wrong turning, or is pointlessly devisive?

To consider the so-called "indie movement" a mistake or an error is just as wrong as considering good old D&D an error.  They are all part of our hobby. They are all open to criticism, but they also all have a place.

And for the record, when I say "indie" I am referring to self-published games, but even that can get kind of fuzzy.  It doesn't have to necessarily have anything to do with the Forge.  I consider Greg Stolze to be an indie designer (and am psyched for Reign).  I guess I'd consider 1PG games to be basically indie.  I mean, hell, these people are producing games.  That's a good thing.

Quote from: walkerpIt just doesn't seem all that different from any of the other minor insults and dismissals that go on all the time on the internet.

Its taken years of hardcore reputation trashing of the hated forge to get to this point.

And the fight is not yet over: - I've given you two examples from the last couple of days. This, I assure you, goes on all the time.

Quote from: walkerpAnd for the record, when I say "indie" I am referring to self-published games, but even that can get kind of fuzzy.  It doesn't have to necessarily have anything to do with the Forge.  I consider Greg Stolze to be an indie designer (and am psyched for Reign).  I guess I'd consider 1PG games to be basically indie.  I mean, hell, these people are producing games.  That's a good thing.

Well, surely thats largely 'everyone who isn't WOTC'.

You gotta remember, Skarka isn't indie because we said so, and Palladium books isn't indie because we said so.

Go ahead. Ask Fifth Child if Palladium is indie - you'll hear the shriek from here.

Ronnies hated Fantasy Heartbreaker essay more or less excluded anyone putting out their homebrew DnD clone, which is more or less what could benefit most from vanity publishing (and it'd probably get played more than some of the forge heartbreakers - Burning Wheel is a fantasy heartbreaker with good press)

--

I was trying to get Black Industries to start calling themselves an indie publisher, simply because, like, it sounds cool and who is going to stop them?

--

I mean, maybe you don't remember just how much the so called 'indie movement' hated trad games. It was all a revolution, taking Story Games to new levels, breaking away from the catpiss men who play DnD and in to a mainstream where no one did hack and slash and roleplaying was done by cool people instead of fucking geeks. Indie gamers were the beat poets of their time, taking roleplaying to new levels of conciousness.

There was a comment on story games about how at least indie gamers arn't fat - which led to some hurt feeling when someone else pointed out an example where this wasn't entirely true. Actually, it isn't true at all - from their photos, story games crowd is as much a bunch of fat assed geeks as the rest of the hobby.

Quote from: Erik BoielleI mean, maybe you don't remember just how much the so called 'indie movement' hated trad games. It was all a revolution, taking Story Games to new levels, breaking away from the catpiss men who play DnD and in to a mainstream where no one did hack and slash and roleplaying was done by cool people instead of fucking geeks. Indie gamers were the beat poets of their time, taking roleplaying to new levels of conciousness.

I don't remember. I wasn't there.  I did read a blog where the guy compared their "movement" to the beat poets.  That was pretty sad.  

I suggest that you start forgetting, yourself.  If what you describe above is true (and I can certainly see traces of it here and there), I can see why you would feel so much bitterness about it.  But that war is over.  Those people lost.  That part of the hobby has spread out evolved into something else today, something a lot less malevolent and self-loathing. The hobby is evolving in its own complex way and none of us can see or direct the future.   I really do think there is a spectrum, which is why these labels are so difficult to pin down.

That's funny, that thread about the non-fat indie gamers.  Anybody have the link?

What for instance are the differences between Spirit of the Century and WFRP?

Both are written by several guys (I think SotC was written by three guys, one of whom was an unpaid volunteer). Both have art done by paid freelancers.

It's a stupid, nonexistant distinction.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhat for instance are the differences between Spirit of the Century and WFRP?

Both are written by several guys (I think SotC was written by three guys, one of whom was an unpaid volunteer). Both have art done by paid freelancers.

It's a stupid, nonexistant distinction.

The production of SotC was paid for by the guys who wrote it.  They also retain the rights to it.  Whereas the writers of Warhammer were paid by the company that hired them to right the book and they don't retain any of the rights.

It's just a question of production techniques and market strategies. It doesn't make one game any better than the other.  Perhaps with creator-owned games you have a better chance at direct customer service when it comes to rules questions?  I know that with SotC, the authors are extremely helpful.  

I think the distinction is important simply because it is a demonstration that there are way fewer barriers to publishing in the hobby now.  This means more games and a wider range of types of games.  To me, that is a good thing.

I suspect that your railing against this distinction comes from your belief that people in the "indie" community are holding themselves up as superior and one more way of doing that is by vaunting their self-published status.  Could well be.  But you railing against only helps to further that agenda.

Here is more swinery than you can shake a stick at. Especially when you go to the comment threads. Really, I'm not even sure swine exist, but if they do, Lev should be a prime example. Intellectualising mixed with intellectual dishonesty, yay. Get him up against the wall! :pundit:

Advocates of the idea of "patriarchal DMing" will be next, just so you know.

My main problem with most of the guys doing "RPG theory" is that they're mostly pseudo-intellectuals who are intellectually dishonest and pretentious (in the true sense of the word - pretending to be something better than one really is), starting with Ron Edwards and continuing through to TonyLB and Levi.

I think you were around when I made that giant post on rpg.net last year about how the term "social contract" in RPG theory was badly chosen and used, and that it was pernicious because of that? Remember the silly and dishonest responses I got? That struck me as an exemplar of the kind of "thought" that is going on in camp of "Indie RPGs" and I despise it for that. I don't have the vicious personal hatred rising out of a sense of offense that most other folks here do though. I'm just nastily contemptuous of them and their work as RPG theorists.

Now, some of those folks aren't bad game makers, but shit, a tool and die maker isn't a Ph.D in metallurgical chemistry either.

People, it would be best if everybody grew himself some political balls, and would admit that Swine is a fighting word.

Is this so hard to get?

Sure, there´s pretentiousness in many things non-Swine do. Is their pretentiousness really in any objective way better than the pretentiousness of the Swine? Objectively, it cannot be proved. Pundit is a pretentious and arrogant snob in his own way. In his political/ideological camp. And that camp happens to be in defense of majority gaming.

See folks, this is all so crystal clear:

There´s people that smell in a special way. Their utterances have a certain tone. Their arguments have a certain pedigree. Their agendas are of a certain ilk. Many people where put off by them.
Pundit gave them a name.
That´s why the Pundit is popular.

How can we show someone the swine-stench, if he´s looking for a catalog of checkboxes to mark off?
Either you have a political mind, or not.
Is this arrogant of me to say?
Yes.
Does this make me swine?
No.
Because if Pundit would be honest about it, Swine are Swine because of ideology, their ideology. The actions of swine are not as important as theri tone, agenda and way of thinking.

There is no objective way to show the uselessness of theri thinking, that´s a moronic undertaking. It is like the term "bleeding heart liberals" or "fashion guerilla".

Do those hearts really bleed?
Aren´t there  republicans  backing up  helping the weak?
Are  people killed because of their garment choice?

No.

Are these terms meaningless?
No!

They are valuable in shorthandingly dismissing the ideological enemy. And they are in a smart way rooted in reality, harken back to exoperiences the audience has made. That´s why asking for explanation of Swine is pretty "swinish" itself. Because if you don´t get what is meant by swine, chances are high you are from a different political grouping, have a different pedigree and view of the world. most likely you are too stupid to read betweeen the lines of the Swine. It´s all about contexct, tone and between the lines, most of the time.

But: Pundit is lucky, in that there´s enough stupid Swine, that show their true colours, by taking their disgusting tone in unreflected ways to the public. "Beat poets" is the nuclear bomb of the vile stench of swinery that ever was. Either you can see why people are disgusted by it, or not. There is nothing objectively wrong with comparing those movements. But it is tasteless and soooo wannabe.
There is no way to objectively prove a certain kind of tastelessness.

But you can show it, you can highlight it, you can underline the pedigree of their thinking.
And that´s wonderfully summed up in the term swine.

The shear bloody hypocrisy about talking about creator owned and using freelance artists and sundry support staff and writing partners gets to me.