No, it´s when they start lying it´s that they become assholes.

Quote from: LostSoulJust because someone doesn't look at gaming the same way you do doesn't mean they are an asshole.

Elliot said lachek was "a hoot", not "an arsehole."

"I find this person amusing because of the strange things he says" is not the same as "he's an arsehole."

I realise it's a story-games and Forger tradition that if someone disagrees with you they must be a cunt, and can only possibly redeem themselves by a lengthy discussion in which out of sheer exhaustion and boredom with the topic they end up just pretending that their ideas aren't so different after all, but that's not the way discussions work in most of the world.

lachek, along with several others there, say things which are amusing because they're so ridiculous. lachek is a hoot. Likewise, our own Settembrini is also a hoot. That does not mean that I or Elliot think they are vile people, nor does it mean that upon meeting them we'll piddle on their shoes.

lachek says absurd things. If you do not wish for your buddy to be mocked for saying absurd things, then you should encourage him not to say them

LostSoul: for the record, lachek doesn't seem to be an asshole going by that thread. However, he does seem to be a dogmatist - someone who expects reality to conform to his theories (which, as always, are reinforced by a generous helping of anecdotal evidence).

...come to think of it, here's the disconnect some people in that thread appear to have with theory: they hold the opinion that there is a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between theory and reality, while in fact, it is more of a fuzzy connection... in that theories draw your attention to certain facets of reality, usually to make a point, but they don't (and shouldn't) represent the whole. Looking solely through the lens of abstraction is dogmatism. They don't see the big picture and they end up rejecting common sense - because common sense is always a fuzzy cluster of "yes buts" and "howevers". Real life is complicated, subjective and irregular.

(Oh, I do so love Google's RSS search feeds and the vanity which causes me to use it)

Hi guys! I'm glad I could provide some amusement over there on Story Games. I just thought I'd pop in and share a few words. Apparently I'm funny, so I hope nobody will mind.

To clarify, an old Forger I ain't. I've been interested in "indie games", a term I despise, for about 8 months, actively played them for maybe 4. I rarely post on the Forge. I read and think a lot about games, which I believe is a necessary evil to make something better. Maybe in time I won't be quite so abrasive in my naiveté.

Nor am I much of a "lonely, bitter gamer". I (frantically) run a website trying to build a community of roleplayers in my 600k strong Canadian city, actively play a role in matching people up with groups, and attend as many local cons as I can playing all manner of different games. I host games for two different gaming groups. We currently play GURPS, All Flesh Must Be Eaten and a bunch of "indie games", Spirit of the Century in particular.

From reading here, especially Elliot's post, I'm starting to get an inkling of the very early history of D&D, and how in very early iterations roleplaying (as defined as the process of acting - blah blah blah) was indeed a key element in many campaigns. I guess my misunderstanding was due to the fact that I can't ever recall seeing that formalized anywhere. In particular, the rules for all editions I have seen (which in all fairness comes down to only 2nd and 3e, approached mostly as a player) have been very low-key in its approach to character acting, being careful not to reward it or stress it too much, and specifically noting that character acting is entirely optional.

Some of this misunderstanding may also have been due to being raised in the Swedish rather than North American roleplaying hobby, with a potentially different set of games and assumptions about acting and "good RP". When I came here, and sought out gaming groups, all my encounters with other gamers in the area came down to "we play D&D, and our games are about killing things and taking their stuff" in various alternate phrasings. I must admit I rebelled against that, feeling that surely you could introduce deep character and epic tragedy into a game of D&D, and pushing very hard for that to happen with terrible results. Ever since then, I've been spending my time fuming at the DM and other players for being so "unsophisticated" and "shallow".

The language used at Forge and Story Games allowed me to turn that around and theorize that maybe the problem wasn't with the DM, or the other players, or the game at all - maybe the problem was with me, trying to play the game in a way which that particular game did not encourage. The other players - older and wiser than me - probably knew this intuitively and balked at my crazy notions, knowing they'd lead to misery rather than fun. Had I known then what I know now, I'd probably have enjoyed myself quite a bit, whereas at the time it was literally torture. Imagine that - Forge theory actually encouraging people to play and enjoy D&D!

It was disconcerting to me, when I thought I'd come to this great and glorious insight that would allow me to have more fun playing a game I'd discounted entirely for so long, that some would turn my notion around and again blame everything on the DM - in effect telling me that the only way I could enjoy D&D would be to keep getting burned on all these "bad" (not my term) DMs and groups until I found some reasonable folk. I may have gotten a little defensive due to this, but hey, if it made y'all laugh it wasn't completely for naught, eh?

LostSoul, I appreciate the benefit of doubt with regards to my assholishness. "Cool people I've never met" will definitely be my new motto when considering fellow forum-goers from now on.

Game on, guys.

Quote from: lachekThe language used at Forge and Story Games allowed me to turn that around and theorize that maybe the problem wasn't with the DM, or the other players, or the game at all - maybe the problem was with me, trying to play the game in a way which that particular game did not encourage. The other players - older and wiser than me - probably knew this intuitively and balked at my crazy notions, knowing they'd lead to misery rather than fun. Had I known then what I know now, I'd probably have enjoyed myself quite a bit, whereas at the time it was literally torture. Imagine that - Forge theory actually encouraging people to play and enjoy D&D!

I'd say this is close, but the problem that leaps at me has nothing to do with the game you're playing. It seems to me that the problem is that you joined established groups and tried to get them to play your way, when they were already happy playing theirs. This can happen with pretty much any game, and any clash of game styles.

James, this has happened to me a few times, and in each case it was a group which formed as a result of fellow local gamers meeting up and trying to get a game off the ground. Otherwise, I'm sure your theory is sound.

The Gygax Roleplaying Mastery thread was never intended as a "my way is better than yours" or "D&D is teh suckz" thread. I used to think that, before I started getting involved in all this theory crap, but the more I read and think about I come to the conclusion it's not the case at all. Having that interpreted as "oh, so D&D sucks then, huh?" is disenchanting and the opposite of what I'm getting at.

But I understand we approach this from two different directions and are as likely to come to a full agreement as Israel and Palestine. Really, the reason I came here was to acknowledge that I was wrong about roleplaying not having existed before some magical post-D&D game invented it, and to deliver a set of justifications for my ignorance so you guys wouldn't think I'm a total ass. In addition to having a need to be right, I also have a need to be loved, see.

I dunno if I can help you with the love thing, lachek (you might try google), but this D&D issue is a bit different from how you've portrayed it even in your gloss of my comments.

To begin with, it might help to note that Dave Weseley was against the term "roleplaying game".

QuoteBy the way, I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal.  What kind of an animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?") And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".

One might wonder what the games were, then, if they were neither hack & slash nor amateur theater. The answer is that they were character-immersive experiences, where the overall setup was designed to allow the players to approach the internal fiction of the game from a perspective similar to that of the characters they played. "Acting" did follow on, as many people started to "get into character" of the projected imaginary personas, but the baseline of the game was a representation of the character-world interface through the GM and rules. A lot therefore did depend on the group: the game provided a substrate for roleplaying and some impetus for certain types of play (adventure! intrigue!) but it didn't do much to prevent any style. Consequently I think many people did latch onto the mechanics of combat/spells/items/levels and pursue a spiral of leveling-up-by-any-means-necessary, basically where an NPC or creature was only of interest as a source of XPs. And I think some of this worked its way back into the game as those portions became more elaborate; nevertheless at no time did D&D have a "right" way to play in such a narrow sense.

Basically, I agree with James: if you play the game with a group of friends who are compatible, and everyone is attentive to each other's interests, D&D is capable of a variety of playstyles. Personally, for general gaming I prefer something different to early D&D: more mechanical differentiation of characters, a shallower advancement curve (though starting higher), and experience mechanics which put less stress on combat & gold. But broader factors, essentially situated in the social realm (I mean things like the group's overall approach to worldbuilding and scenario-framing) can and do overcome those mechanics-based preferences.

lachek, you're fishing in dead water there. The Big Model, alas, gives you no understanding of what really matters - people. People make or break a game session. To understand how game groups fuck up, you need Cheetoism.

Thanks for the link, Kyle. It looks interesting and I'll be sure to give it a thorough read.
But there is no dichotomy - System Matters and People Matters are both true. Whether you like Ron Edwards or not. Yes, that's an assertion - if you want to debate that point, feel free to email me at lachek at gmail dot com.
That the Big Model deal with people to the same extent as Cheetoism does is obvious from even a cursory glance at its Wikipedia entry. The essence of roleplaying is both a wave and a particle. We've reached the same goal but with different conclusions based on our starting points. The only difference is how much effort it takes each of us to get there.

Elliot, that's really interesting. You obviously know your D&D history and have far more intelligent conclusions about early D&D and the act of roleplaying than I do. I don't find it odd that a brand new hobby with a rather poorly defined mode of play (which makes sense since it grew out of a DIY adventure gaming subculture) was misinterpreted by a bunch of 12-14 year olds, who kept playing that way and came to define the hobby over the following decades. I guess my argument would be in terms of the nature of truth - did D&D have roleplaying because that's what the creators envisioned but failed to communicate outside their own groups, or did D&D not have roleplaying because that's how many (most?) played?

If I was going to phrase an argument, that is. I'm not. I didn't come here to continue the thread "behind enemy lines" as it were. I made a mistake with regards to the origin of roleplaying, and I'm here to apologize and explain why the mistake was made. I consider it "mission accomplished".

Quote from: Kyle Aaronlachek, you're fishing in dead water there. The Big Model, alas, gives you no understanding of what really matters - people. People make or break a game session. To understand how game groups fuck up, you need Cheetoism.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic here or not, Kyle.

If you read into Cheetoism you'll find it has a much stronger emphasis on people, rather than abstract concepts, compared to the Big Model. Also, it's (largely) descriptive, rather than prescriptive, which is another difference.

The other difference is that no-one can possibly seriously call themselves a Cheetoist. That's why I kept that name, which was initially just a joke dismissing all other theories. Groups who take themselves seriously are more likely to end up saying ridiculous things, and to be nasty.

System matters to a degree, but it's the least important thing. For the success of a game session, the order of importance is,

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

A good group can have fun with a bad system; a bad group cannot have fun with a good system. It's because we have a social creative hobby. First and foremost we're dealing with people, and people don't fit into simple categories, whether Gamist or Scorpio or Intuitive or Conservative or whatever. Those sorts of categories can be a spark to the fire of a discussion about people as individuals, but they cannot be the entire fire. When we focus on the theory as a real thing, then we start trying to adjust reality to fit into the theory, and get a crap game session.

I've a friend who ran a game store up north for a few years, and he had a space for gamers to come and play. He said that he could always tell when game groups were going to implode. And it wasn't because someone had a different Creative Agenda or anything like that, it was just personality conflicts. Jim got annoyed with Bob, and once he found one thing that pissed him off about him, looked for more - and of course found them.

That's why people come first. Because it's a social creative hobby.

Snacks come next because if you're hungry or over-full or eating something distasteful it distracts you and stops you focusing on the game. And if you're sharing food and drink with friends it relaxes you and forms bonds between you all. There's a reason almost every culture in the world has traditions of hospitality, that when someone comes to your place you offer them food and drink. People bond over food and drink.

Setting comes next because the game world has to interest the players. "You wake up with no memory and no clothes in a dark room with no doors or windows."
"Oh for fuck's sakes..."
If the game world is boring to the players and GM, they'll get distracted by other more interesting things. A roleplayer cannot roleplay well when distracted by other stuff any more than a football player can catch and kick well when looking at the hot chick in the front row of the audience. Focus!

And it's the setting that players use to bounce their characters off, the setting shaping the characters and the characters shaping the setting.

Lastly we have system, which is only on the list because it's the tool we use for our characters to interact with the setting, and vice versa.

And that's the way it is for all right-thinking gamers. Of course you may think differently, but that just means you are crazy and wrong and should be hunted down and pelted with d4s until you admit your wrongness.

And I am entirely serious, like any Cheetoist.

Quote from: ErstwhileI'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic here or not, Kyle.

:cool:

Quote from: Melan* But then those forums also produce threads where posters lionise freaking Lorraine Williams. :eek:

I'm not a big D&D fan...but God some of the opinions in that thread are fucking moronic.

Indeed. Lorraine Williams was a dedicated "story-gamer"? Rocky & Bullwinkle "had a sophisticated edge"?

These guys remind me of what instructors used to say in the Army. "Don't be afraid to ask questions. There's no such thing as a stupid question. On the other hand, there are a lot of stupid answers."

Well that book was pretty important for me. (although I liked Gary's Master of the Game much more).

Those two books are what nudged me into the industry and I'll be forever grateful.

Probably wasn't so much what Gary said. But his attitude of "you can do this...." and the feeling gaming was more of a community than a business.

Something that struck a chord with me personally I suppose.

Again my comments pertain more to the companion book.