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.

An even closer, and 100% perfect analogy would be someone defending a particular design theory without having read any of the ideology behind it, against critics of the design theory who actually have read the ideology behind it.


PS: Props to John Morrow for quoting Ron himself.  Over time it's easy to forget how bitter that twisted fuck is.

Quote from: -E.;418168................. why it's SIM and not Gamism that gets a bad rap: Nar games are generally designed to..blah, blah, yadda-yadda-yadda...............

There are no 'Nar' games...there are only gamers and pretentious crap that pretends tro be games.

QuoteTo the extent it doesn't, even Nar games aren't any fun unless you're just playing with like-minded people (a niche within a niche).

Again, there are no 'Nar' games. There are only real role-playing games and crap that's designer calls it a roleplaying game when it isn't.

QuoteGamist players are............

There are no "Gamist players" - there are people that play games - gamers.

QuoteBut Sim players don't care..................blah , blah....

Likewise there are no "Sim players" - unmless you are referred to a computer game called "THE SIMS".

QuoteSim players are disliked then,.................. blah blah

-E.

Again there are no 'Sim players' - there are gamers.

GNS is bullshit. It should've been declared dead and invalid at least 3 to 4 years ago.
 Down with the over-use of slang and terminology.
 There are good games and bad games.
 There are real role playing games and there are pieces of crap that aren't roleplaying games.


- Ed C.

There's a lot of crazy shit happening on this thread, but I'm glad I didn't miss it. I've been away for a few days, and haven't really had a chance to jump in earlier.

I think Ron Edwards' training as a natural scientist--he's a biology professor, right--actually did him a disservice in the devising and disseminating of the Forge's "Big Model" of RPG play, in that the language of "scientific" or at least scholarly neutrality used in those discussions masks the quite clearly normative (i.e., value-based) commitment to "coherent design" that the Big Model holds as an aesthetic principle. There's nothing more infuriating than having someone else's opinions held up as objective truth, as regular readers of the therpgsite are no doubt aware.

By the same token, it seems to me that Pundit's adoption of what has been called the "paranoid style" in his pronouncements on the Forge does a disservice to the more-or-less coherent* ideology of "emulation" that he and many others on the site advance. So rather than game design theory as big-s Science, it's game design theory as performance agitprop with a side order of crazy-ass hate speech.

I think there's probably room for an interesting and fruitful albeit probably two-fisted discussion between the Forge and therpgsite on the merits of their respective aesthetic commitments, but the vast differences in communication styles and game-related ideologies of play means that there's probably little chance of it happening. C'est la guerre!

*I say "more-or-less" coherent because I think there's some special pleading going on around the issue of larping-as-emulation, and the way some of you guys bounce around when someone says the word "story" is something to see, but it's not all that much worse than the Forge's conceptual aversion to "immersion."

Quote from: Bill White;418174There's a lot of crazy shit happening on this thread, but I'm glad I didn't miss it. I've been away for a few days, and haven't really had a chance to jump in earlier.

I think Ron Edwards' training as a natural scientist--he's a biology professor, right--actually did him a disservice in the devising and disseminating of the Forge's "Big Model" of RPG play, in that the language of "scientific" or at least scholarly neutrality used in those discussions masks the quite clearly normative (i.e., value-based) commitment to "coherent design" that the Big Model holds as an aesthetic principle. There's nothing more infuriating than having someone else's opinions held up as objective truth, as regular readers of the therpgsite are no doubt aware.

By the same token, it seems to me that Pundit's adoption of what has been called the "paranoid style" in his pronouncements on the Forge does a disservice to the more-or-less coherent* ideology of "emulation" that he and many others on the site advance. So rather than game design theory as big-s Science, it's game design theory as performance agitprop with a side order of crazy-ass hate speech.

I think there's probably room for an interesting and fruitful albeit probably two-fisted discussion between the Forge and therpgsite on the merits of their respective aesthetic commitments, but the vast differences in communication styles and game-related ideologies of play means that there's probably little chance of it happening. C'est la guerre!

*I say "more-or-less" coherent because I think there's some special pleading going on around the issue of larping-as-emulation, and the way some of you guys bounce around when someone says the word "story" is s omething to see, but it's not all that much worse than the Forge's conceptual aversion to "immersion."

I would agree that Edward's masking of opinion as science and the Forge's general tendency to try and develop the Unified Field Theory of RPG motivation without fully understanding two out of three motivations and having practically no clue about one, definitely obscured anything positive they did have to contribute.

Personally, my increasing aversion to story is more of a reaction to the Forge's meme infection of the hobby.  4e and WFRP3 have been heavily affected by Forge Theory, in my opinion, to the severe detriment of both game licenses.

The more I reread Ron's posts (took a little trip down memory lane after John's reminders) the less paranoid I think Pundit is, to tell you the truth.

I have absolutely no interest in making Storygames more immersive or emulative, however, a clear intent of the Forge was an explicit denial of and implicit attack on, the traditional immersive style of play.  It was and essentially is still, a clash of ideologies.  The fact that most gamers are ignorant of the clash, doesn't mean it is not present.  Most of America doesn't get involved in the difference between Republican and Tea-Bagger, it still exists however, and the outcome can dramatically affect their lives.

Quote from: Bill White;418174C'est la guerre!

Hardly. The most vindictive froth at the mouth. The focused ignore the other side. The curious don't mind crossing the border. Many don't feel like they belong to either side. And the majority doesn't even know "a war is going on". It's just postures and hyperboles all around, no actual warfare, more like WWE. Even at the argument level it's weak sauce. The protagonists have better ideas to expose when they concentrate on games they love rather than polemics. But it's good entertainment for sure.

Quote from: Koltar;418173There are no 'Nar' games...there are only gamers and pretentious crap that pretends tro be games.

Again, there are no 'Nar' games. There are only real role-playing games and crap that's designer calls it a roleplaying game when it isn't.

There are no "Gamist players" - there are people that play games - gamers.

Likewise there are no "Sim players" - unmless you are referred to a computer game called "THE SIMS".

Again there are no 'Sim players' - there are gamers.

GNS is bullshit. It should've been declared dead and invalid at least 3 to 4 years ago.
 Down with the over-use of slang and terminology.
 There are good games and bad games.
 There are real role playing games and there are pieces of crap that aren't roleplaying games.

- Ed C.

Fair enough; agreed on all counts really.

Without the jargon, I'm just pointing out that some of the animosity the theory-folks aim at role-players who are in it enjoy the act of role-playing (not, say, story-telling or competition) comes from the fact that

1) The theory is largely designed for people who are intolerant of play styles that aren't focused on story-telling

2) The theory, therefore, advocates games that are very narrowly aligned with some specific theme, and encourages players to stick to the theme by giving them metagame rewards for sticking to the theme

3) This approach doesn't work very well for people who aren't all that motivated by metagame rewards, hence the animosity toward those folks (who they sometimes call "Sim")

Better?
-E.

So because those of us who enjoy sim play don't respond well to behavior modifying reward systems, and Ron is all into behavioral psychology, our play style is somehow "non existent" or "misguided" because we engage with the game on an unobservable level?

Quote from: GameDaddy;418104Some games that are flawed simply shouldn't be played because well...

1) They are not well made.
2) They are not entertaining.
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.

Definitely agree with all those. No point in playing a game if it's not fun, and if I want to play a boardgame (or a wargame for that matter), then I will buy one. I buy RPGs to play RPGs. Some of that, I think, comes from a naive attempt to create "new" or "unique" mechanics. That said...

Quote3) THey promote morally ambiguous goals and values.
4) They only glorify heinous activity.

These are really such abstract complaints that I'm not sure what to make of them. I mean, D&D could be said to promote "morally ambiguous goals and values", with it's reward system based on how many living creatures you murder. Shadowrun is certainly "morally ambiguous". Most games actually, outside of the superhero genre, tend to at least leave morality up to the preferences of the gaming group. And only glorifying heinous activity? I assume you're referencing games like FATAL and that Racial Holy War thing, but what about a game like Call of Cthulhu? Or Unknown Armies?

Quote9) The game can be specifically used to exclude or denigrate individual players at the whim of the other players or GM.

I have a hard time even concieving of a game like this. Any specific examples?

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.

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.

The film analogy was precisely the one I used.  Prior to the obviously-jokey catfucking thing.  Jesus.

Also: there's a difference in tone between saying "I see where you guys are getting this slant, but some of these games are different in play" and saying "I declare your opinion invalidated because you didn't play the game."

Here's a slope:
"Well, you didn't read the book, so you can't criticize it."
"You read it, but you haven't played it..."
"...you played it but you didn't play it RIGHT...

Just saying it's not a helpful slope.  Not helpful to the discussion.

Quote from: Peregrin;418193So because those of us who enjoy sim play don't respond well to behavior modifying reward systems, and Ron is all into behavioral psychology, our play style is somehow "non existent" or "misguided" because we engage with the game on an unobservable level?

Pretty much.  We engage with the game on a level Ron did not experience, in any case.

Quote from: BWA;418101But 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.

So no-one can ever say anything bad about Cyborg Commando or Rifts? Or Jackass? Or Atlas Shrugged?

Don't be a cocksmock.

You missed the part where I mentioned that I had played some of these games, and it turned out they were just as dreadful as I'd expected.

Quote from: Bill WhiteI think Ron Edwards' training as a natural scientist--he's a biology professor, right--actually did him a disservice in the devising and disseminating of the Forge's "Big Model" of RPG play

Actually, I think he was not enough of a scientist when he came to write his essays. Any analysis of how people play has to look at... how people play. Uncle Ronny said,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. [...]

"I have met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely defensive and turtle-like play tactics. Ask for a character background, and he resists, or if he gives you one, he never makes use of it or responds to cues about it. Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I say nothing." "
He's carefully selected data which only supports his conclusions (let's leave aside whether his conclusions even follow from that data). He's ignoring the simple fact that most gamers have loads of fun, and are very keen to get into things in the game session.

Far from his science background hurting his study of rpg play, I think he didn't use it nearly enough. If that's the way he does his actual science, it's plain that the biological field is going to have a very poor understanding of bat penises.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;418207Far from his science background hurting his study of rpg play, I think he didn't use it nearly enough. If that's the way he does his actual science, it's plain that the biological field is going to have a very poor understanding of bat penises.

Hmm, you're on to something there.  Maybe he went into bat penises because there's no one to criticize his theories?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;418207So no-one can ever say anything bad about Cyborg Commando or Rifts? Or Jackass? Or Atlas Shrugged?

Don't be a cocksmock.

You missed the part where I mentioned that I had played some of these games, and it turned out they were just as dreadful as I'd expected.

I didn't miss that part. I was clearly speaking to those who criticize games without having any real knowledge of them. If you played 'Dogs in the Vineyard' and you hated it, then your comments are as valid as can be because they are based on actually playing the game.

Re: cocksmockery

Rifts is a great example. I have played me some Rifts. At one point, Palladium was my favorite system. So, were I to go around knocking it, I would at least be on solid ground.

However, what if someone had only criticisms of Rifts, an endless, vitriolic stream of them. And you said "Hey, dude, what gives?" and it turned out that he'd never played it. Would you give his opinion a little less credence? I sure would.

Quote from: VectorSigma;418199Also: there's a difference in tone between saying "I see where you guys are getting this slant, but some of these games are different in play" and saying "I declare your opinion invalidated because you didn't play the game."

Agreed! I lack both the motivation and the powers to declare someone's opinion invalidated.

I'm saying the -- simple, obvious -- thing. We're talking about games. They are meant to be played. That is how RPGs are experienced.

Some people wrote that they didn't need to play a game to know it wasn't fun, or entertaining, or what have you. I disagree. You actually DON'T know that a game isn't fun until you've played it.

Now, anyone can say "That game doesn't appeal to me" and that's valid. I do it myself. But that's a far cry from some of the histrionic nonsense we're seeing in this thread.

I think it's telling that there were so many indignant responses to that post. To me, that says that many posters here have an emotional investment in decrying this school of role-playing games on the internet, and when their right to do that is questioned (again, for a really simple, obvious reason), the reaction is hostile.

Quote from: jeff37923;418130If you don't like the comments here, you can always just go fuck off back to whatever basement you crawled out of.

Hey, why so cranky? Of course I like the comments here. They're mostly wrong-headed, but at least people are talking about stuff that interests me.

Besides, threads where everyone agrees don't go on for 90+ pages.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;418207Actually, I think he was not enough of a scientist when he came to write his essays. Any analysis of how people play has to look at... how people play. Uncle Ronny said,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. [...]

"I have met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely defensive and turtle-like play tactics. Ask for a character background, and he resists, or if he gives you one, he never makes use of it or responds to cues about it. Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I say nothing." "
He's carefully selected data which only supports his conclusions (let's leave aside whether his conclusions even follow from that data). He's ignoring the simple fact that most gamers have loads of fun, and are very keen to get into things in the game session.

This is horseshit sophistry that doesn't even stand up on its own merits, and willfully or obtusely misunderstands what I wrote. You can't accuse Edwards of being insufficiently empirical when he's describing what he's experienced, and expect to counter it with a glib generalization that doesn't even contradict what Edwards has described. Sure, "most gamers have loads of fun." So the fuck what? Some don't. And some make the game less fun for others. There's a whole universe of experiences of play that your little truism "most gamers have loads of fun" doesn't help to make sense of--that amounts to a callous and dismissive, "Not having fun in your game? You must be doing it wrong. Most gamers have loads of fun."

QuoteFar from his science background hurting his study of rpg play, I think he didn't use it nearly enough. If that's the way he does his actual science, it's plain that the biological field is going to have a very poor understanding of bat penises.

And this bullshit of mocking Edwards professional field of study is just that--bullshit. It's smirking Beavis-and-Butthead idiocy that relies on a casual anti-intellectualism that can't imagine there might be any value to studying anything for its own sake (but which ironically valorizes "Science" as the very model of knowledge), and that encourages the knuckle-draggers to come out and add their me-too moronicisms:

Quote from: CRKrueger;418209Hmm, you're on to something there.  Maybe he went into bat penises because there's no one to criticize his theories?

Case in point.

In any event, what I was trying to say was that as a design theory, the Big Model is probably better understood as a humanistic (i.e., normative, aesthetic, value-laden) enterprise than as a scientific (i.e., empirical, rational, fact-driven) one, and that efforts to universalize the Big Model as a description of all play rather than as a way of thinking about how to produce (i.e., design for) a particular kind of play (for those who prefer it) highlights the Big Model's weaknesses.

By the same token, folks around here who get all uptight about what a "real RPG" is are failing to highlight the strengths of an emulation-centered approach to play -- and are wrapping themselves into contortions that may actually move them further and further away from an understanding of how to get the kind of play they prefer. For example, the rabid ferocity with which some folks defend the "GM controls the world, player controls the character" model of play because it supposedly is a better emulation of "how things work"  is actually counter-productive to the goal of emulation, given that most people possess quite a lot of knowledge about the world around them, and can deploy it quite easily. Isn't it more often the case that people make confident assertions that turn out to be wrong than plead ignorance of basic social facts and arrangements? Don't people more often act on the basis of their assumptions than carefully confirm their presuppositions? And in the case of adventure-centered genre fiction particularly, aren't the heroes that are being "emulated" supposed to be confident, competent, and knowledgeable characters?

So couldn't that emulative goal thus be obtained by a circumstance in which PCs were allowed to make world-constituting statements as long as it was understood that (a) anything that contradicted an already established fact would be regarded as an attempted lie, and (b) the GM reserved the right to reveal then or later that the PC was mistaken? Arguably, this is more immersive than a situation in which everything you thought you knew about the world had to be verbally confirmed by someone else.

I throw that out as a real question, suspecting however that the knee-jerk One True Wayists here will posture and preen with their characteristic brag, bluster, and bombast. God, I love it here.

Quote from: Bill White;418235You can't accuse Edwards of being insufficiently empirical when he's describing what he's experienced, and expect to counter it with a glib generalization that doesn't even contradict what Edwards has described.

It certainly does contradict it. Edwards makes plain in that essay and many other places that when he says "many" gamers aren't having fun, he actually means "most". And even if you think you were having fun, well really you weren't. You're brain-damaged, your perceptions of "good gaming" are warped by your early bad experiences, like the perceptions of "good sex" are warped by early sexual abuse - his analogy, not mine.

QuoteSure, "most gamers have loads of fun." So the fuck what?

Because any theory of how game sessions work has to account for the good ones and bad ones both. You can't understand disease unless you understand how the healthy body functions. He specifically excludes all happy gamers from his theory, saying,

   "The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience."

That is, GNS is a theory about unhappy gaming experiences. It is thus necessarily incomplete. Incoherent, we should say.

QuoteAnd this bullshit of mocking Edwards professional field of study is just that--bullshit.

No, it's humour. Nonetheless, I was speaking to the issue at hand: if he's any good as an empirical scientist, then it's a pity he never applied his empirical science to his gaming. Instead, he committed various logical fallacies.

Bare assertion fallacy - I say most gamers are having no fun, therefore most gamers are having no fun
Fallacy of the single cause - if gamers are having no fun, it must be because they're not getting what they want of one of the three of G/N/S
False attribution - most gamers aren't having any fun, therefore -  
Cherry-picking - I have known dozens, perhaps over a hundred, tired, bitter and frustrated gamers, therefore -

And so on and so forth. He also clumsily uses the proof by verbosity, having essays so long, poorly-written and self-contradictory that it's a terrible headache to refute all the main points.

Quotethe Big Model is probably better understood as a humanistic (i.e., normative, aesthetic, value-laden) enterprise than as a scientific (i.e., empirical, rational, fact-driven) one, and that efforts to universalize the Big Model as a description of all play rather than as a way of thinking about how to produce (i.e., design for) a particular kind of play (for those who prefer it) highlights the Big Model's weaknesses.

Humanism takes account of, you know, humans and stuff. Whereas Uncle Ronny says,

   "Ask them, "Why do you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."

"Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.) "
Humans are parenthetical in GNS. Anyone who's played through or even watched a single session knows that the "wholly social" issues are of dominating importance. This player makes us laugh, that player has good tactical sense, this other player always brings beer, still another player is a bit weird and disturbing with some of the stuff they say - these are the things that make or break game groups.

I'm happy for an rpg theory to be humanistic. I'm happy for it to be scientific. GNS is neither.

Quotethe "GM controls the world, player controls the character" model of play because it supposedly is a better emulation of "how things work"  is actually counter-productive to the goal of emulation, given that most people possess quite a lot of knowledge about the world around them, and can deploy it quite easily.

That's why players are not gagged during play, and are allowed to say, "hey GM, I reckon -" Whatever people say while shaking their fists in nerdfury, in practice game sessions and what happens during them are like wikipedia articles, they are a consensus of the people who actually care and have too much time on their hands.