Quote from: RPGPundit;416427Its the classic Bolshevik strategy; you don't even TRY to win the majority to your side, instead all you worry about is taking over the top positions of power, and then you can get everyone else to do what you say.


RPGPundit

For the other strategy to be a winning one, it is required to have superior mass propaganda means than opposition so that the reach of your message manages to surpass whatever different messages are out there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416434They were not, and could not be publishable.  I think some of the Forgers went so far as to create their own, completely illegitimate "academic-journal" type media. At every step they tried to act like what they were doing was rigorous academic discipline when in fact it was Ron Edwards talking completely OUT OF HIS ASS, while the rest of the Forge Swine just regurgitated from him.
It wasn't science, it was scientology.

The same can be said about many academic areas, by detractors.

An easy one to bag on is "postmodernism", and the Sokal Hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_hoax

For one's own amusement, there's always the random postmodernism essay generator.

//www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Quote from: RPGPundit;416421Ah, but he does if the game obliges him to.

So your position is that people must run the game as a presented in the rulebook?

Quote from: RPGPundit;416421The Forge tried their damnedest to force EVERYONE to do what they wanted.

My point didn't address desire. It addressed capacity. Either they had it, or they didn't. I say they didn't. I'm assuming you must have been spurred into action by the believe to the otherwise.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416421And no, hardly anyone was voluntarily choosing those distributions of power I don't approve of, because you see, as usual, I'm RIGHT.

If the vast majority of people think like you do and game like you do, why do you need your silly crusade against the Forge? More importantly, why do we need your silly crusade against the Forge?

Seanchai

Quote from: Bill White;416398That's really interesting. It sounds like you're saying that table-level concerns about time constraints, pacing, and player interest level drive how you resolve in-game questions of fact. That makes sense, I just never heard anybody put it that way before--usually people say that they're striving for internal consistency and some sort of verisimilitude in the game-world.

Well maybe you should have heard it by now.

That doesn't mean I don't TRY for some consistency or plausibility at the table during a game session tho.

Oh and 'Table-Level concerns' tend to trump everything else. Thats because that when you and the players are IN THE MOMENT and then a cool thing called immersion might happen.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Bill White;416366Are there ever circumstances where what you're rolling for isn't "Is X the case?" (e.g., "Is there an armorer here?") but is instead, "Can I find X?" or "Can I find out X?" What I mean is, you can imagine that in a big city there might be plenty of armorers, but some fact about the city -- the PCs are strangers there, there's a lot of time pressure on them, and so forth -- makes you want them to roll to succeed rather than simply automatically failing or succeeding by your say-so. In those circumstances, to what extent would you incorporate character attributes into the probability calculation, such that a character with a high Charisma score or Streetwise skill (for example) would get a bonus to the roll?

Well as Ed said, there's a lot of variables, but it depends on the game.  Lets say we're playing Shadowrun and you need to find someone who can custom-build a sniper rifle to spec.  First do you have any contacts that apply and do you have the means or time to contact them, if not, then yeah, roll some streetwise and see if you can find one.  However, if you find one, it will be one I have created, a character with that specific a skillset I don't yank out of my shorts.  However I have a binder full of npcs of all different types so I can do that, if I wasn't as well-prepared, then yeah I could base the result on what the players rolled.  But in this case it's not whether one exists, but whether they can find one.  In Waterdeep, all they have to do is ask someone on the street "hey, do you know where the nearest armorer is?"

If it's a small town, I already know if there is one or not, I'm not going to make one based on the needs of the character or story.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416425The right answer is that there IS a real village, or that it absolutely needs to seem like there is, in order for the game to maintain emulation.

Okay, so you're obviously not crazy, so you know there is no real village.

What I *think* you're saying is that the only game worth playing, for you, is a game where the GM has total authority, because anything else ruins the emulation of the game world.

Not my thing, but I get that lots of people feel that way. (For me, it doesn't make a whit of difference who invents the armorer. I will happily agree to his existence, and have my character react accordingly.)

However, you cannot possibly fail to understand that such a situation is an agreement about authority. You and your players dig that style of play, so you all agree to it. It's not special, it's just what you like to do. If you say there's an armorer, and one player says "No way. Lame! There isn't!", then the game grinds to a halt. It's all just agreement among people at the table.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416433So you start from a totally alien premise: that what matters is "creating story", and not "adventuring in an emulated world".

I don't start from that premise. Adventuring in an emulated world is fun. I prefer it, in fact.

See? So many of the things you pretend to be furious about are actually not even real things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416471If it's a small town, I already know if there is one or not, I'm not going to make one based on the needs of the character or story.

But if you did, it wouldn't be a problem for some people. It all comes down to how people like to play.

Maybe NOT having that armorer is fun. Oh shit, we have to go fight the giants and I have no armor! But maybe that's not important to any of us. The real adventure here is getting through the pass to stop the lich-queen. You need armor? Sure, fine, who cares, let's get on with it.

See what I'm saying? You're not wrong, not at all, for liking that style. But not everyone likes that style.  Fun is the important thing, right? What does YOUR group find fun?

Quote from: RPGPundit;416421No, there are hardly any of those. Most people game just like me; because I am on the side of the majority, and I represent the side of Good in this fight.

This shit is the best shit in the internet, bar none.

Quote from: BWA;416504But if you did, it wouldn't be a problem for some people. It all comes down to how people like to play.

I'm not a one-true-wayist, a question was asked and I answered what I do.  If you do something different, good for you.

Quote from: ggroy;416444The same can be said about many academic areas, by detractors.

An easy one to bag on is "postmodernism", and the Sokal Hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_hoax

For one's own amusement, there's always the random postmodernism essay generator.

//www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

All you've managed to prove there is that hardcore postmodernism is pseudo-academic.  Which is probably why so many Forge Swine adore it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;416455So your position is that people must run the game as a presented in the rulebook?

No, that's not my position, its the Forge's.  And they make use of a number of techniques to try to enforce these, chief among which are these:
1. They create games where strict obedience to the rules (usually in the form of mechanics that essentially castrate the GM's authority) are built into the framework of the rules that it makes it almost pointless to "houserule" around them.  Many of those games can't "houserule" around the stripping of GM authority without essentially ceasing to exist.
2. They create a culture of gaming where people who play those games EXPECT the games to be run as strictly presented in the rulebook, making it a matter of extreme pressure on the GM and other participants that it be run that way. You aren't very likely to find many people willing to play a Forge game that do not also expect it to be played in a way that puts strong limits on GM authority.

QuoteIf the vast majority of people think like you do and game like you do, why do you need your silly crusade against the Forge? More importantly, why do we need your silly crusade against the Forge?

Seanchai

The vast majority of Cubans in 1959 did NOT want a marxist-style soviet government, but that was what they got.
The reason to fight the Forge/Theory/Storygames Swine is because they know that they don't NEED to turn the majority over to their way of thinking, they just need to end up dominating the ideological field; that is what I have fought to prevent.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;416503Okay, so you're obviously not crazy, so you know there is no real village.

Well, in fact Ron Edwards literally did argue that Immersion has to either be "impossible" or a dangerous insanity, so we all know what you really think about that subject.

QuoteWhat I *think* you're saying is that the only game worth playing, for you, is a game where the GM has total authority, because anything else ruins the emulation of the game world.

What I'm saying is that the thing that matters most is Emulation (which is the conduit to Immersion), and that anything that lessens the sense of Emulation impoverishes the RPG. And the traditional division of GM-Player authority/responsibilities is the best possible system for creating Emulation.
The second any player can just "decide" that now there's an armorer there, or that now he has a +5 sword, or that now the villain turns out to be his old transvestite girlfriend, the emulation of the world is shattered. (among other issues, like playability).

QuoteHowever, you cannot possibly fail to understand that such a situation is an agreement about authority. You and your players dig that style of play, so you all agree to it. It's not special, it's just what you like to do. If you say there's an armorer, and one player says "No way. Lame! There isn't!", then the game grinds to a halt. It's all just agreement among people at the table.

The thing is that "agreement" was made long ago in this hobby. Its the way the hobby works. Its how the hobby is defined. The only people who are trying to re-negotiate that "agreement" are your Swine cohorts.  The agreement is made the second someone agrees to be a player, and no further negotiation is needed.
The very idea that you need to "renegotiate" that agreement is the creation of a brand new hobby, which is just fine, but then STOP FUCKING CALLING IT AN RPG.

QuoteI don't start from that premise. Adventuring in an emulated world is fun. I prefer it, in fact.

See? So many of the things you pretend to be furious about are actually not even real things.

What you're saying now doesn't match up with what you're arguing. That's no surprise though, since its typical Modus Operandi for Forge Swine to make up whatever lie they need to at any moment to try to win the argument.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Koltar;416356Classic case of over-analyzing stuff.

Because thinking about things is bad. Duh. Bad brain.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416421Ah, but he does if the game obliges him to.  And the Forge Swine wanted to make ALL games oblige him to.

Do game books speak to you at night and order you to do stuff? Do you feel compelled by them?

QuoteWhich is why the Forge Swine were HUGE promoters of this "anti-houserule" movement, trying to change gaming culture so that rather than something encouraged, houseruling would be seen as something taboo, a sign of "bad gaming".  

Yeah, that is why half of the threads in Story-Games.com are about hacking and houseruling games. Because they hate it.

QuoteThe Forge tried their damnedest to force EVERYONE to do what they wanted. Yes, they've failed, thanks to people like me.

Or because people have free will. Who would have thought of it. Specially when it stands to reason that most gamers don't know shit about the Forge, or about you.
 

QuoteNo, there are hardly any of those. Most people game just like me; because I am on the side of the majority, and I represent the side of Good in this fight.

RPGPundit

Dude, that argument is very old. You know, Britney Spears being the best musician ever and whatnot.

Oh, also, according to your argument, D&D 4e is the best iteration of the game ever. Abyssal Maw is going to be so happy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416514I'm not a one-true-wayist, a question was asked and I answered what I do.  If you do something different, good for you.

Fair enough! Sorry if I swept you in with the other nonsense. My apologies.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416520What you're saying now doesn't match up with what you're arguing.

I cannot fairly be held accountable for your comprehension failures.

I think that your tendency to assume that someone holds all sorts of opinions they may or may not actually hold, based solely on the fact that they don't agree with your tendentious nonsense, is a major fault.

To be honest, you are a terrible arguer. You seem inapable of rational trains of thought. Almost every pronouncement you make rests on your own assertions, backed up by nothing in particular. In your diatribe above, almost every statement is merely one of personal preference.

Like saying that breakfast is eggs and hash browns, and that's the way it is. And someone says, oh, I had a quesadilla for breakfast, and you say Whatever, that wasn't breakfast. It was Something Else.

However! You are an absolutely first-rate entertainer, and your blog posts and forum posts are gems. I am a fan.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416517No, that's not my position...

Right. You believe people can play games how they choose, ignoring rules, altering them, creating new ones, etc.. Even if the rules or the designer tell them not to do so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;4165171. They create games where strict obedience to the rules (usually in the form of mechanics that essentially castrate the GM's authority) are built into the framework of the rules that it makes it almost pointless to "houserule" around them.  Many of those games can't "houserule" around the stripping of GM authority without essentially ceasing to exist.

Give us an example. Owning and having played indie games, I can't think of one. I can't think of any mechanic to which I couldn't add the rider: "Unless I, as GM, don't like it."

Quote from: RPGPundit;4165172. They create a culture of gaming where people who play those games EXPECT the games to be run as strictly presented in the rulebook...

Welcome to gaming for the last decade. Longer even. This has nothing to do with the Forge, it's ideology, or its adherents. This is how people expect non-Forge games to be played, too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416517The vast majority of Cubans in 1959 did NOT want a marxist-style soviet government, but that was what they got.

Through a peaceful election, right? No, wait, I think guns were involved.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416517The reason to fight the Forge/Theory/Storygames Swine is because they know that they don't NEED to turn the majority over to their way of thinking, they just need to end up dominating the ideological field; that is what I have fought to prevent.

How could they possibly dominate the ideological field if they and their adherents are a tiny majority? Moreover, what would it matter if they dominated the ideological field if the vast majority wouldn't accept their ideology?

What you're suggesting is that we need to march on Flat Earth headquarters in case the idea of a flat Earth comes to prominence and people somehow throw away all their ideals, everything they've been taught, and suddenly start to believe that the Earth is flat.

It's ridiculous. In both cases.

Let me put this out there. You said basically almost everyone thinks like you do. Yet you also say there's a danger that people can be converted to the Forge's ideology, thus you need to tilt at your windmills.

However, when you were confronted with the Forge and its ideals, you vehemently rejected them. If you're right that the majority thinks like you do, then they, too will vehemently reject the Forge.

But if that's the case, there's no need for your crusade. You're preaching to the choir, so to speak. The Forge will fail on its own.

The only way I can see that you and your crusade are remotely needed is if the Forge's ideals might actually find root, if people don't actually think like you do and might find some merit in what they have to say.

So, which is it, the Forge's ideals have merit or they don't? People think like you or they don't?

Seanchai