I don't have time to answer all your points, but:-

Quote from: John Morrow;419203Again, you are playing the post-modernism game here by defining things a tautology that can't be denied for what use, exactly?  If I acknowledge that I can tolerate a little story-technique, they why not more?  Why not run a whole game with story techniques?  That I may fall short of being perfectly naturalistic does not change the fact that naturalistic is the ideal and general idea that I'm looking for.

I am not playing any fucking postmodern game! I am just trying to talk straight, without obfuscation, and with rigorous analytical honesty.

The fact that you acknowledge you can tolerate a little story-technique does not inevitably mean that YOU should tolerate more, and certainly doesn't mean that you should tolerate LOADS. It only proves that the inclusion of some element of story technique does not necessarily destroy the immersive RPG experience. I can tolerate a little story technique. I do not want it used overwhelmingly. Are you saying my position in that particular regard is nonsensical or untenable? Or that the games I am playing, contrary to all my own experience, inevitably degenerate into pure storygames with no immersion?

Naturalistic may be the ideal YOU are looking for and that's fine. But I might be looking for an ideal which is 99% Naturalistic and 1% Storygame. Is that not a tenable position?

Quote...GMs and players often introduce story techniques to guarantee happy endings.  The point I'm trying to make is that there is value to naturalistic play (also to players looking to confront challenges) and harm caused by story techniques to certain styles of play and my own preference leans heavily toward the naturalistic.  Each GM and group needs to balance a variety of needs and perhaps even play styles but the main point I am trying to make is please don't assume that just because the GM glosses over bathroom breaks that the players are willing to swallow more intrusive story techniques, which is where insistence on accepting story techniques of any sort always seems to end up.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, except the last phrase. I don't see why the insistence on accepting one minimal story technique should ever lead to accepting a whole raft of them. In fact, on the contrary, I think that the very fact that (as you acknowledge) immersive gamers "often introduce story techniques" to produce happy endings and that the "GM glosses over bathroom breaks", yet these people are still resolutely playing immersive RPGs, entirely proves the point that immersive RPGs can tolerate limited use of techniques of story. So, yes, they can PROBABLY tolerate a limited amount more - but by no means does it follow that they can tolerate an unrestrained swamp of such techniques, nor that they should. Why on earth would you think that it's leading in that direction?

You might as well say that anyone who is willing to drink a cup of water is willing to drown. They are probably willing to tolerate two cups of water, three would be a tall order, ten would be more or less out of the question, and drown is a definite no-no. Get some sense of perspective please.

Also, when players push for challenges and fights within the RPG, they are using a technique of story, just the same as when they push for narrativistic themes and premises. They are stepping out of character to control the flow of in-game events. It's the same thing.

Blimey, two weeks away and literally nothing has changed.

Quote from: Omnifray;419256I am not playing any fucking postmodern game! I am just trying to talk straight, without obfuscation, and with rigorous analytical honesty.

I believe you are trying to talk straight but the points you keep drifting toward are the typical post-modern type of argument that nit-picks every statement so that everything turns to gray mush.  Because people are flawed, we can't have heroes because flaws undermine their heroism.  Because people who are altruistic have some reason for their altruism, there is no such thing as altruism.  Because any act can be justified, there is no such thing as good and evil.  And on and on.  Because I must get something out of the game, I can't possibly only care about the experiences of my character.

Yes, you can make these arguments round and round in circles, just like the child that keeps asking "Why?" no matter what the answer is until an adult finally just has to say, "Because I said so."  It's annoying, doesn't enlighten, and gives theory discussions a really bad reputation.

Quote from: Omnifray;419256The fact that you acknowledge you can tolerate a little story-technique does not inevitably mean that YOU should tolerate more, and certainly doesn't mean that you should tolerate LOADS. It only proves that the inclusion of some element of story technique does not necessarily destroy the immersive RPG experience.

But it does harm the immersive RPG experience for me.  I tolerate it for other reasons, but it's detrimental to thinking in character.  Similarly, I don't like broccoli but I've eaten it because it's been mixed into foods that I need to eat because the alternative is not eating (e.g., on an airplane) and I can tolerate it if I have to, but I still don't like it.  Similarly, I can eat sushi but I don't enjoy most of it.  So you can get me to agree that I tolerate a little story-technique in my games, practice a little myself for social reasons, and so on but all you are really getting me to admit is that my games are never really perfect, nor do I expect them to be, if for no other reason than the information bandwidth of a spoken narrative to describe what's happening and the imperfections of the game world physics emulated by the rules are imperfect.  When I talk about what I want, yes, I talk in ideals because I want my games to be more like that ideal, even if they aren't and can never get there.

Quote from: Omnifray;419256I can tolerate a little story technique. I do not want it used overwhelmingly. Are you saying my position in that particular regard is nonsensical or untenable? Or that the games I am playing, contrary to all my own experience, inevitably degenerate into pure storygames with no immersion?

No.  What I'm saying is that people would generally not do things that they tolerate if they had a free choice in the matter and no other concerns.  I won't normally buy broccoli or food that contains broccoli but if I'm stuck on an airplane for 15 hours and the only choice of a meal left contains broccoli, then I'm going to eat around it or even eat it.  I won't normally order sushi, but when I was out with co-workers in Japan at a suchi restaurant, I'd eat the sushi.  What I get out of immersive role-playing is primarily what goes on in my own head thinking in character.  I play with dice, rules, other participants, and even some story-techniques because it's the best way to get what I want but if you really understand what I want and how to improve it, the focus should be on what I really want, not what I tolerate or have to do.  If we were having a discussion of what kinds of movies you like, would you be happy if my focus was on movies you say you don't like but have seen and tolerated?

Quote from: Omnifray;419256Naturalistic may be the ideal YOU are looking for and that's fine. But I might be looking for an ideal which is 99% Naturalistic and 1% Storygame. Is that not a tenable position?

I'm not trying to tell you what I want.  I was talking about my own preferences.  Why are you moving the goalposts?

Quote from: Omnifray;419256I'm not disagreeing with any of that, except the last phrase. I don't see why the insistence on accepting one minimal story technique should ever lead to accepting a whole raft of them. In fact, on the contrary, I think that the very fact that (as you acknowledge) immersive gamers "often introduce story techniques" to produce happy endings and that the "GM glosses over bathroom breaks", yet these people are still resolutely playing immersive RPGs, entirely proves the point that immersive RPGs can tolerate limited use of techniques of story.

It is tolerated to the detriment of immersion and the person may not want the benefit from paying that cost.  For example, I really don't want the GM enforcing a happy ending.  I say this as a person who watched Japanese dramas in the early 1990s that ended horribly (point-of-view characters dying before the last episode, characters ending up hopelessly damaged, etc.) precisely because they were unpredictable because no character was safe.  And to be honest, I wouldn't mind some bathroom breaks being at least mentioned, either.

But what is the point of proving that "immersive RPGs can tolerate limited use of techniques of story"?  That's like proving that I'm willing to eat broccoli if I don't have a choice.  Yes, I can tolerate eating broccoli even though I don't like it.  Now what?  And does that invalidate my statement that I don't like broccoli or me saying that I want food that doesn't contain broccoli?

Quote from: Omnifray;419256So, yes, they can PROBABLY tolerate a limited amount more - but by no means does it follow that they can tolerate an unrestrained swamp of such techniques, nor that they should. Why on earth would you think that it's leading in that direction?

Because that's the direction that post-modern navel-gazing in the guise of "rigorous analytical honesty" usually winds up going.  Once you start splitting hairs as a philosophical exercise, things inevitably wind up sounding like Zeno's Paradox, where a philosophical observation (maybe even an interesting one) is made that bears no resemblance to how reality works and provides no insight into what people should do.

Quote from: Omnifray;419256Also, when players push for challenges and fights within the RPG, they are using a technique of story, just the same as when they push for narrativistic themes and premises. They are stepping out of character to control the flow of in-game events. It's the same thing.

Of course they are, which is why I don't do that myself.  In the last D&D 3.5 game I played in, I created a Fighter character who, mechanically, was a min-maxed combat monster but we rarely got into combat in that game.  Instead, my character's main focus was on wooing the local schoolteacher and getting himself promoted to command the guard group he was in, neither of which was part of the theme or the premise of the game and setting going on around him.  To the GM's credit, he didn't adjust the game to impose his narrative on us and pretty much let the players naturalistically do whatever they should do in character and let the planned events in the setting naturalistically play out around the PCs.

Seriously, and I'm speaking only for myself, I want any and all narrativistic themes and premises confined to the set-up of the characters and setting before the game starts and prefer things to play out naturalistically play out from that point, even if that means a less than storybook quality series of events and ending.

Quote from: John Morrow;419839Because that's the direction that post-modern navel-gazing in the guise of "rigorous analytical honesty" usually winds up going.  Once you start splitting hairs as a philosophical exercise, things inevitably wind up sounding like Zeno's Paradox, where a philosophical observation (maybe even an interesting one) is made that bears no resemblance to how reality works and provides no insight into what people should do.

I'm sorry that the people you have had theory discussions with have ended up disappearing up their own backsides. It doesn't follow that everyone will. I am not Zeno. I am always willing to reexamine the conclusions I have reached.

Quote from: Omnifray;420244I'm sorry that the people you have had theory discussions with have ended up disappearing up their own backsides. It doesn't follow that everyone will. I am not Zeno. I am always willing to reexamine the conclusions I have reached.

I understand that, but it doesn't stop the post-modern navel-gazing tangents from being a frustrating experience that clouds rather than improves understanding.  I'm trying to discourage you (and others) from responding to discussions about distinctions with arguments that semantically try to minimalize or erase those distinctions.

Quote from: John Morrow;420260...responding to discussions about distinctions with arguments that semantically try to minimalize or erase those distinctions.

That's never been my purpose.

Now let's see if I've got where you're coming from in my response...

What I find frustrating though is when people don't let someone else's argument get off the ground or even listen to it because it happens to use a word they don't like. What you should do if you don't like the word which is being used is explain why you don't like it and what it implies and offer alternative terminology. Of course no-one's perfect. I'm not saying I've always got this right myself. Sometimes you think you're making it clear that you're just saying hang on can we have this discussion using slightly different terminology, and it comes across as "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOUR WHOLE PREMISE IS WRONG FUCK OFF". I may be just as guilty of that as some others but I try very hard not to be.

The point is if someone's terminology is wrong don't stamp on their heads, try to get at what they're saying and see if common language can be found to express it. If you think someone's terminology conflates and confuses two ideas, explain exactly why. Don't imply the conflated confused sense into their terminology if you can read it with a perfectly sensible meaning, even if that meaning is analogous rather than pedantically literally correct.

In other words I'm broadly on Pundit's side of this debate, maybe closer to jibbajabba's position, I'm not on the same side of the argument as FunTyrant or BWA. But it winds me the fuck up when people like Benoist in effect Internet-Yell at people like BWA/FunTyrant for using the word "story". If that terminology is inappropriate, explain the fuck why. And don't read BWA/FunTyrant's posts in the WORST CONCEIVABLE LIGHT giving them the WORST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION as if they meant to use their terminology in exactly the same literal and pedantic sense that you attribute to it. Try to understand what they're actually saying even if it means reading the word "story" as meaning "quasi-story" or "something analogous in some loose sense to a story" and not literally a story in the pedantic way in which you understand the term. Don't go attributing ideological baggage to what may just be terminological inexactitude on their part especially when they may not really have analysed the reason why that inexactitude matters. Otherwise the whole discourse goes nowhere cos the person using inexact terminology can't see what the fuck your problem is with it. It doesn't help your cause and it doesn't help their understanding.

This is why I've Internet-Yelled at people for jumping down people's throats over words like "story" without explaining exactly why in clear terms and without explaining why the distinction matters.

Speaking of FunTyrant how about a response to my several attempts to explain the argument to him. He seems to have slunk off like a defeated skunk leaving nothing but a stink behind him. Shame really it would have been nice to see if he understood "our" position based on my explanation of it (even if that explanation isn't one that everyone will 100% concur in - I think it communicates a lot of the central gist of the elements of position that most of us immersionists share).

Quote from: Omnifray;420264In other words I'm broadly on Pundit's side of this debate, maybe closer to jibbajabba's position, I'm not on the same side of the argument as FunTyrant or BWA. But it winds me the fuck up when people like Benoist in effect Internet-Yell at people like BWA/FunTyrant for using the word "story". If that terminology is inappropriate, explain the fuck why.

Here. Try this.

It's really not my fault if people are just too fucking THICK to understand what I'm saying. I'm not the one making five-kilometers long posts of verbiage here. So fuck off. I'm being crystal clear, here.

Quote from: Omnifray;420264And don't read BWA/FunTyrant's posts in the WORST CONCEIVABLE LIGHT giving them the WORST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION as if they meant to use their terminology in exactly the same literal and pedantic sense that you attribute to it. Try to understand what they're actually saying even if it means reading the word "story" as meaning "quasi-story" or "something analogous in some loose sense to a story" and not literally a story in the pedantic way in which you understand the term. Don't go attributing ideological baggage to what may just be terminological inexactitude on their part especially when they may not really have analysed the reason why that inexactitude matters. Otherwise the whole discourse goes nowhere cos the person using inexact terminology can't see what the fuck your problem is with it. It doesn't help your cause and it doesn't help their understanding.

I'm not the one with the understanding problem it seems. It's not about the word "story" being pedantic or whatnot. It's about what words mean, and in using this instead of that word, how you end up thinking about role playing games as something they are not, and how that ends up affecting theories, schools of thought, then how adventures are built and thought of, then games as they are designed, and in the end? Games I actually care about, like D&D.

So this actually matters as far as my hobby's concerned. You bet your ass it does.

Quote from: RPGPundit;413268Of course, the larger struggles are not over, they just change.  The Swine are still out there, and if history is any indication; while individuals like Ron Edwards, and individual movements like the Forge-Theory movement can be proven to be utterly intellectually bankrupt and die out, the Swine themselves are a phenomenon that will always be with us to some degree.  They will reinvent themselves, just like they did the last time (after the WW-Swine's "story-based gaming" led to the near-collapse of the industry and was ultimately rejected).  Before it was Swine dressed up as would-be artists, then it was Swine pretending to be intellectuals.  God knows what's next.

That was prophetic, by the way. The Activist-Swine were next.

i was wondering what bumped this thread back to the front page, lol

Quote from: beeber;560078i was wondering what bumped this thread back to the front page, lol

Just connecting the dots in light of what I was just talking about. It is relevant to this thread. I just think that Pundit's paragraph there was absolutely spot on, and the events of the past few months have clearly demonstrated it.

That's a great suggestion for your next avatar, GW.

Aww, the git made him a self-portrait!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;560080

Seriously at this stage you may as well walk around waving a big "shill" flag. Except of course shills get paid, and you are just an impoverished ideologue, in every sense. The "rearranging deck chairs" comment towards the end of the Mongoose thread was well noted.