Quote from: jeff37923;418087By this logic, since you have never been shot in the head with a 357 magnum revolver, you can't with absolute certainty be sure that it would kill you, until you try the experience yourself.

Ouch, and you thought my comparison(ish) between misery tourism in films and rpgs were way off

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;418089Ouch, and you thought my comparison(ish) between misery tourism in films and rpgs were way off

Thought would be past tense. Your misery tourism comparison between films and games is still way off. I don't see that changing in the future, either.

Quote from: BWA;418045I suspect that many of the people on this thread who are so filled with indignant condemnation over the games of Vincent Baker and other Forge designers have never actually played any of these games.  So your ideas about are mostly ignorant*.

You might suspect that, but you'd be wrong.

Anyway, you don't have to experience every little thing to know you don't like it. I don't need to fuck my cat to have indignant condemnation if my neighbour does it. I don't actually have to play Sorceror to know that it's depressing misanthropic crap. Nor, for that matter, do I need to have played D&D4e to know it's basically a rather complicated boardgame with fuck all roleplaying in it, and rather a lot of rules just to kill things and take their stuff. And when I played them, it turned out my first impressions were correct.

But by all means, fuck your cat if that's your thing. Just don't expect me to think you're a fine fellow for it.

I played Sorceror. It sucked. And Ron is a dick for putting his screed in the book like it's some kind of rpg bible.

Quote from: danbuter;418097I played Sorceror. It sucked. And Ron is a dick for putting his screed in the book like it's some kind of rpg bible.

I played Sorceror once. it was fun and worked really well in a hardboiled James Ellroy-style game. And I've got no idea what a screed is.

For those of you reacting to my statements about not actually having played Forge-style games ... If the only analogies you can come up with are bestiality and homicide, I might suggest that you are being a tad histrionic. And that these analogies are not particularly useful or valid.

A closer (if still imperfect) analogy for someone wildly criticizing an RPG without having played it would be someone criticizing a book without having read it, or a film without having seen it.

Yes, you can learn enough from the opinions of others to come up with things to say, and yes, you can certainly form enough of an idea to decide that it's not something that interests you.

But if you have strong negative opinions about a game you've never played, I think its safe to say that your opinions might be based more on internet nonsense than anything real.

Quote from: BWA;418101A closer (if still imperfect) analogy for someone wildly criticizing an RPG without having played it would be someone criticizing a book without having read it, or a film without having seen it.

Yes, you can learn enough from the opinions of others to come up with things to say, and yes, you can certainly form enough of an idea to decide that it's not something that interests you.

But if you have strong negative opinions about a game you've never played, I think its safe to say that your opinions might be based more on internet nonsense than anything real.

...Ummm no. That would be common sense in action...

Some games that are flawed simply shouldn't be played because well...

1) They are not well made.
2) They are not entertaining.
3) THey promote morally ambiguous goals and values.
4) They only glorify heinous activity.
5) They are not fun (i.e. misery tourism).
6) They are not really a game, instead, they are a veiled form of a competition with real stakes. (Gambling instead of playing)
7) They are boring, having insufficient challenges or puzzles.
The game is rascist or discriminatory against one race, group, or type of player.
9) The game can be specifically used to exclude or denigrate individual players at the whim of the other players or GM.

You don't have to host or play a game to accurately determine whether that game would fit into one or more of the above categories, and thus be unsuitable for play.

P.S. there is a plentitude of films and books that I would never care to expend time with or share with others for the very same reasons...

Quote from: BWA;418101For those of you reacting to my statements about not actually having played Forge-style games ... If the only analogies you can come up with are bestiality and homicide, I might suggest that you are being a tad histrionic. And that these analogies are not particularly useful or valid.

A closer (if still imperfect) analogy for someone wildly criticizing an RPG without having played it would be someone criticizing a book without having read it, or a film without having seen it.

Yes, you can learn enough from the opinions of others to come up with things to say, and yes, you can certainly form enough of an idea to decide that it's not something that interests you.

But if you have strong negative opinions about a game you've never played, I think its safe to say that your opinions might be based more on internet nonsense than anything real.

Speaking for myself, I'm not critisizing Forge-style games, I'm critisizing the Forge. It's founder is an arrogant prick, and it's co-leader or whatever apparently revels in the imaginary neck-raping of dead cabinboys. Ya'all can think we're silly or "unhip" or "childish" for making such a big deal about it, but really, that's your problem. These two guys might have said and done many useful things, but they're opinions and ideas are poisoned (no pun intended) by their public attitudes and statements. I have seen violence and misery in real life, I don't need a pirate game to show it to me, and anyone who thinks stuff like that is actually "cool" is someone I don't care to get to know better. Also, when it comes to Ron Edwards, just like Tom Cruise I think he should learn to shut the fuck up. There's a few game designers around here too, and overall they're very cool, polite, helpful folks who I am happy to support by buying and playing their games, and I do. Honestly, I might actually like some "Forge-style" games (although if they're about "creating a story" probably not), but unless they're brought up and talked about here I'll probably never know, and I think I'll survive that.

Quote from: Sigmund;418107Speaking for myself, I'm not critisizing Forge-style games, I'm critisizing the Forge. It's founder is an arrogant prick, and it's co-leader or whatever apparently revels in the imaginary neck-raping of dead cabinboys. Ya'all can think we're silly or "unhip" or "childish" for making such a big deal about it, but really, that's your problem. These two guys might have said and done many useful things, but they're opinions and ideas are poisoned (no pun intended) by their public attitudes and statements.

The RPG "Poison'd" was written by Vincent Baker, who has had nothing to do with the running of the Forge as far as I know.  He is an indie game designer who was a regular at the Forge in the past, and now runs his own forum.  

The two founders of the Forge are Ron Edwards and Clinton Nixon.  I wouldn't argue about Ron Edwards being an arrogant prick - but, then, look at the forum we're at here.  :-)

Quote from: Sigmund;418107Honestly, I might actually like some "Forge-style" games (although if they're about "creating a story" probably not), but unless they're brought up and talked about here I'll probably never know, and I think I'll survive that.

Sure.  Saying that you might like them but you're not interested in investigating them deeply is different than making pointed criticisms of them, though.

Quote from: Peregrin;417973None of that excuses Edwards for coming off as a smug arse, or being the worst PR rep in the history of gaming.  But I think the demonization of what the Forge or GNS stand for is amusing as hell.  They're people, not demons.  They're ideas, not mandates.  It's a small community's idea of how to make something work.  You're free to take it or leave it -- think about it or ignore it.  Really, no one is judging you for playing older games.

Yeah. except for that part where they don't want you to be free to ignore it, they do want to spread their mandate across the entire internet and gaming hobby, and where they are in fact judging everyone who disagrees with them as "brain damaged sex abuse victims".  Aside from that, totally true.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418069Huh. Well, that certainly seems to be at odds with what I understood the point of most Forge theories to be. But there you are. My understanding is limited.

I'm not sure I could categorize myself thusly, nor do I think there would be much value in doing so.

So now that you've been caught out in a lie, one of the most infamous lies the Forgers like to push whenever its convenient and drop whenever it isn't, are you going to suddenly turn into a defender of categorization, or just slip away. Because somehow I'm guessing you're not going to condemn Edwards like you would all those other Evil Categorizers you were bitching about a second ago.
RPGPundit

Quote from: John Morrow;418072The key part of Ron's comments that should make you wonder is where Ron attributes the "we don't use it to classify actual gamers" as a defense against trolls rather than the actual intent of the GNS.  In other words, how much of the touchy-feely claims about being non-judgmental, objectivity, and so on was simply a matter of political posturing to deflect criticism of the theory and what it was really all about?

It ALL is.  It is Standard Operating Procedure for Forgers to LIE whenever they need to, about anything they need to, to "defend GNS".  Its a typical "religious fanatic" move.  Be a Greek to the Greeks, a Jew to the Jews, a Publican to the Publicans, etc.
Say whatever you can to get them to drink the kool-aid. Lie through your teeth about anything you suspect would be seen with disapproval by your targets. We just saw BWA engaging in it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GameDaddy;4181043) THey promote morally ambiguous goals and values.

Heh, this made me smile. If only Marcie/Black Leaf had know this.

Quote from: BWA;418101For those of you reacting to my statements about not actually having played Forge-style games ... If the only analogies you can come up with are bestiality and homicide, I might suggest that you are being a tad histrionic. And that these analogies are not particularly useful or valid.

A closer (if still imperfect) analogy for someone wildly criticizing an RPG without having played it would be someone criticizing a book without having read it, or a film without having seen it.

Yes, you can learn enough from the opinions of others to come up with things to say, and yes, you can certainly form enough of an idea to decide that it's not something that interests you.

But if you have strong negative opinions about a game you've never played, I think its safe to say that your opinions might be based more on internet nonsense than anything real.

What exact parts are you trying to claim didn't happen?
Are you trying to pretend that the neck-rape thing was a lie? Is Poisn'd in fact just a jolly pirate game and not a game that regularly deals in brutal atrocity?
Are you trying to claim that all the "misery tourism" stuff is exaggerated, and Grey Ranks is actually a fun action/adventure game?
Is We All Had Names really a comedy?

Please, motherfucker, tell us all exactly what "histrionic" thing we've heard of on the vile interwebs that isn't actually true?

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim;418114The RPG "Poison'd" was written by Vincent Baker, who has had nothing to do with the running of the Forge as far as I know.  He is an indie game designer who was a regular at the Forge in the past, and now runs his own forum.  

The two founders of the Forge are Ron Edwards and Clinton Nixon.  I wouldn't argue about Ron Edwards being an arrogant prick - but, then, look at the forum we're at here.  :-)


Sure.  Saying that you might like them but you're not interested in investigating them deeply is different than making pointed criticisms of them, though.

Ah, k. Gotcha, I had Vincent Baker confused with Clinton Nixon. Have no idea why. I don't know much about Clinton Nixon so that part of my opinion is revised anyway. I guess I prefer this flavor of arrogant over that flavor of arrogant.

Honestly, this bullshit about having to actually play a game to have any kind of opinion on it is fucking stupid. I know jumping off a cliff is probably not a good idea without actually doing it. I know dog shit probably doesn't taste good without having to taste it. I know the odds are good I'd get caught after robbing a bank without actually having to try it. Having an opinion and sticking to it when knowing nothing about a subject is silly, but one can gain some insight and form an opinion on a subject without having to immerse oneself head to toe in it.

I can criticize what I know of them, and that knowledge influences how much more I'd like to know. I'd also be surprised if I'm the only one who feels that way. I don't need games to "explore" myself, or experience "the dark side". RPGs, to me, are entertainment. I consider other mediums far more useful and effective for education purposes. People who consider graphic and gratuitous violence entertaining are people who should worry less about entertainment and more about working through their issues with mental health professionals IMO.