Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, that's a really fucking dumb rule of thumb. Experiencing something is always bound up with thinking it, including rationally analysing it, remembering other relevant facts about it, placing the experience within a greater structure and within context, and so on. The better we think something, the more deeply we experience it.

Nor would your rule of thumb, even if it's true, apply here. Participating in playing a game doesn't mean giving one's self over to the power of the game, such that one's distaste for absolute monarchies etc. must be suspended if the game has them. Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent.

He does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.

OK, obviously I've struck a nerve here with you or else you wouldn't have pulled this pseudointellectual twat routine.

Now, tell me, since you say that the better we think something then the better we experience it. Does a mentally retarded person then not experience events just as deeply as a normal person? Or does the fact that they are retarded make them somehow less human? What about education? Take two people with the same IQ and mental abilities, one has a college degree and one has only graduated high school - which one experiences life more deeply and why?

You say that Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent. What if the campaign goal of the game is to overthrow that political configuration? You know, Rebel against the Empire, like in Star Wars.

Now here's the kicker. I feel that you are a pretentious cretin whose self-aggrandizing has encompassed even the games that you play to the point that you have become the very example of what RPGPundit has called "swine".

In short, you may take your deconstruction of playing a game and shove it up your ass. There's a huge difference between analysis of a process and being actively involved in experiencing that process. In the former you are only observing and in the later you are the observed.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHe does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.

I don't agree that not wanting to play rpgs where the dominant power structure is unquestioned is in some way "more sophisticated" than, say, refusing to play an rpg unless you can be a drowlesbianstripperninja. It's simply personal taste.

Sure, lots of people have elaborate rationalisations to justify their personal tastes, but it doesn't follow that those rationalisations are in fact true. "Me not like kings, game like kings, me not like game," dress it up in fancy language if you want, talk about the dialectic of the deconstruction of the dominant hegemonic patriarchal paradigm if you want, but what it comes down to is that the guy just doesn't like kings.

If it were more than personal dislike, then he'd be willing to play games with kings and explore the individual mentality and culture of a monarchy, because, you know, know thy enemy and all that. If it were genuine politics, well then he'd understand that roleplaying in a game world is neither a moral nor an immoral act - it's unmoral, it's just a fucking game.

But hey, he wants to sound sophisticated instead, and thus the long words and elaborate rationalisations. He could just say, "I don't like kings", and who'd care? But you know, same as this, "ZOMFG rpgs r teh art!" thing, some people gotta dress up their fun and personal tastes as something fancy.

You don't like kings. Fair enough. I don't like the fucking kender. But I don't pretend it's anything other than good old irrational unreasonable unfair personal taste.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you have a look at his Discourses, which you can download in txt format here, or read online here, you'll find that he's actually very much in favour of the common person. It's simply that he says that in a state which is corrupted, it will inevitably be a principality, while a state which is uncorrupted, it'll inevitably be a republic. That is, when the people care only about wealth, and have no respect for the laws, then rule can only be by a strong individual; when the people value poverty, and respect the laws, then rule will be by the people. You see from this text that in general he favours the republican form of government, but also that he regards most of the states of his day as corrupt. Discourses, which is all about republics, is also much longer than Prince, which is a pretty telling note of where his interests and sympathies lay...

(More excellent stuff about Machiavelli snipped)

So the humanism of Machiavelli was not actually that elitist at all. You just need to read past his job application letter, and consider the context in which it was all written.

Busted!  You are right, of course--though one reason the Discourses is so long is that it is a commentary on Livy, rather than a stand-alone work.

I would still contend that Renaissance humanism is deeply elitist--that it looks to a ruling class of the urban patriciate (or, indeed, a prince) and (like most ancient theorists) sees democracy as an inferior form of government to rule by the elite. But I guess that really doesn't  have much to do with this thread, so I'll shut up about it.

Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual. Clearly, everyone who thinks hard is just pretentious.

Quote from: Koltar"RED STAR" ??

 Isn't that an OGL or D20 compatible setting book ?

 We had it on the shelves at the store for awhile - but I don't remember anyone buying it.

- Ed C.

Yeah, Anemone pointed me to that--it's an RPG based on a (1990s?) graphic novel. It's about as close to Soviet scifi as Vampire Hunter D is to Bram Stoker.

Quote from: Thanatos02Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual.

And you can paint both sides of the fence by calling them a "pseudointellectual dumbass".

!i!

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou could run something like Lem's more serious works pretty easily in a half-dozen systems. They're not "social realism" but works like Solaris definitely have a Soviet influence (the theme of the social construction of knowledge in that book, frex).

I would go for Lem's Pilot Pirx stories. They're more like Warsaw Pact scifi than crazy Communist utopia: nothing works, stuff is always badly designed and breaks down, and part of the adventure is having it in spite of your own gear.

There's this great story of Pirx, then pilot of some kind of garbage-truck starship, finally meeting an alien ship but not being able to make contact or even report or record the incident.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd you can paint both sides of the fence by calling them a "pseudointellectual dumbass".

!i!

Bit like saying "turd," isn't it?

Turd.

Quote from: Thanatos02Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual. Clearly, everyone who thinks hard is just pretentious.

No. Anyone who uses words the meaning of which they plainly do not understand (like "incoherent") is a sign of pretension. Anyone will fuck up fancy words now and then, but doing so regularly is a sign of pretension; an unpretentious person will stick to words they're sure of, and which will be everyday words for their audience. Of course, if their intended audience is a very narrow one (like, "my followers") that also can be, but is not always, a sign of pretension.

Thinking hard is not pretentious or pseudointellectual. Thinking in a muddled way and claiming it's clear and simple and anyone who doesn't understand it is just stupid absolutely is pretentious and pseudointellectual. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or crazy is.. well, it can be pretentious and pseudointellecutal, but more often it's just fucking childish.

So that's the yardstick to measure pretension to being smart -  fancy words the meaning of which they plainly don't understand. This includes words they make up and the meaning of which is kept vague. Vague words are a sure sign of vague thinking, and vague thinking is definitely not a sign of being an intellectual. Of course, vague words can also be a sign of deceit, but that's another story.

Sorry, man, but that's not really the point. I don't think Flag or Pseudophedrine (or I, as long as we're playing this game) are being pseudo-intellectual. You're claiming to call them on the table here for muddled thinking diguised by big words. Before, the general accusations were that they arn't (or Flag wasn't) enjoying gaming because he was thinking too hard.

Whatever. Fuck that, man. Come on, what is this shit?
Actually, I know. JimBob, I hate to pick on you, but you've got this obnoxious habit of finding a talking point and using it to write someone off of the conversation as a whole if you disagree with them. Do they use big words? Pseudointellectual. Otherwise? Accuse them of not gaming.
They're non-sequeters. They don't follow logically. They're talking points added to the conversation that only serve to change the topic to a percieved vice. And suddenly, we're not talking about games that are humano-centric, but rather we're debating Pseudophedrines gamer credibility (as if it mattered) or if Black Flag likes playing games or not. Or if they're... swine?

I like to think about the moral and ethical implications of rule sets and game settings. Rules tell you what you can and can't do in a game world. The setting tells you how things interact as a whole. They're the cornerstone of how I look to build characters, how I act in play, and surprisingly, I have a shit-load of fun.

Amusingly, the words you seem to be accusing of being vague - those scary, frightening, long words, are typically used because they're more specific. They're not vague. They serve to facilitate conversation. They're not 'bad'. And if I use one, I don't care if others don't get it. That's the only time the conversation becomes muddled. So far, you seem to be implying that the posters using 'big' words don't know their meanings. Are you sure that's the case?

Quote from: Thanatos02Sorry, man, but that's not really the point. I don't think Flag or Pseudophedrine (or I, as long as we're playing this game) are being pseudo-intellectual. You're claiming to call them on the table here for muddled thinking diguised by big words.

Did I say that? Please point to where I said either Black Flag or Pseudoephedrine had muddled thinking disguised by big words. I was speaking to the general point raised by you, Thanatos02 - the general point of how you can tell if someone's being pretentious or pseudointellectual.

Quote from: Thanatos02Before, the general accusations were that they arn't (or Flag wasn't) enjoying gaming because he was thinking too hard.

So far as I can tell, no-one was saying that Black Flag wasn't enjoying gaming. That would be being a Forger, saying that a person who says they're having fun actually isn't, and most of us wouldn't do that. The guy says he enjoys games like this, but not games like that. We suggested that he broaden his view so he could enjoy a wider variety of games. I think you'd find people doing that with all sorts of issues. If we can say, "hey, don't bash d20, give it a go," why can't we say, "hey, don't bash games set in a monarchy, give it a go"?

Quote from: Thanatos02Actually, I know. JimBob, I hate to pick on you, but you've got this obnoxious habit of finding a talking point and using it to write someone off of the conversation as a whole if you disagree with them. Do they use big words? Pseudointellectual. Otherwise? Accuse them of not gaming.

Where did I say that Black Flag was pseudointellectual? Where did I say he didn't game? You are confusing different posts of mine, relating to different people, or people in general.

Quote from: Thanatos02Amusingly, the words you seem to be accusing of being vague - those scary, frightening, long words, are typically used because they're more specific. They're not vague. They serve to facilitate conversation. They're not 'bad'. And if I use one, I don't care if others don't get it.

I'm confused here. At first you say that you you're using words to facilitate meaning - to make it easier to get your meaning across. Fair enough. But then you say that you don't care if others "get it" or not. So you want people to understand you, but also you don't care if they don't understand you. That's like saying, "I'm using this chisel to make a better chair, but I don't care if it actually is a better chair." It doesn't make sense.

Do you want to communicate clearly or not? I mean, stuff you've written so far that I've read has seemed pretty clear to me, but here you're saying that actually you don't care if it is or not. So I don't know, maybe sometimes I thought I'd understood you but actually you were trying to say something else and I fucked it up.

Quote from: Thanatos02So far, you seem to be implying that the posters using 'big' words don't know their meanings. Are you sure that's the case?

In many cases, yes. In the case of you, Pseudoephedrine and Black Flag, I've not seen it. I'm talking about the more general case, Forgers and such.

It's not all about you, you know. If I wanted to criticise you in particular, I'd go ahead and do so, it's not like we have to be afraid someone will ban us or something.

Just to put my own two cents in here.

In post #104 I asked Black Flag if I was understanding his point of view. He never responded.

Now, I went off on Pseudoephedrine because my perception of his posts where that I was getting a smarmy attitude from someone who has gotten an education yet lacks experience to properly use that education. I felt like I was getting some patronizing snark from someone who hasn't fully thought through what he was posting. It pissed me off.

Now, Thanatos02, before you start going off on a tangent, understand this. My headache with the arguements presented is that while you can sit back and read about gaming or even read the rules of a game, that is still not the same as actually playing a game and getting the experience of that process (which, I feel, is an important aspect of any conversation on gaming). Now if you read about and observe gaming, without participating in a game, then you have chosen to overlook the experience you did not have, and enter a conversation on it - you are talking out of your ass.

Example, d20 Traveller personal combat and I. When I first read the rules, they looked confusing and shaky as a rule set. When I actually played them, I found that it worked pretty smoothly - but I wouldn't have known that If I had only read the rules and not used them in an actual play situation. If I had, say, written a review on T20 about that, I would have been doing my editor and audience a disservice because I hadn't done my homework.

::sighs::

Communicating over the net is so much tougher then just talking face to face, ya know? Like, I lay this shit out and it seems pretty clear, and then it's not. So then I get to go back and decide if I wanna take the time, and all that shit. Ok, then let's get something straight really quick; I'm not sitting here with a stick up my ass being all pissed off. I don't have any real issues with this, so I hope everyone's on the level. Now, let's talk about some gaming.

JimBob, I started on you, but I didn't quote you. I think you have some rhetorical tricks you fall back on that arn't always on the mark. Jargon words are a good target to look at, but when you're talking to Psuedophedrine, I'm just saying that this is a guy that's always looked like he knows what the fuck he's talking about. And when I said that I don't care if people understand what I'm saying, well, I stand by that, but it's more complicated. I was irritated. To specify, if I use a jargon word, I am specifying my conversation towards people that are going to know what that word means. I know I do, and I know it means something. If someone else doesn't, and I'm having a conversation with them directly, I'll go out of my way to expound, because conversation is only useful if I'm understood. But if I'm making a general comment or making general conversation, and I feel the word is warrented, I'm not interested if everyone knows what it means. I don't feel it's my obligation to. They can look it up. (And I'm not talking about made-up jargon or uselessly interjected words. Those defeat the point of conversation, and that's not really my goal.) Sometimes using jargon is easier and more concise then typing it out.

As for Black Flag, well, I don't really know the person very well, but it seems like Flag is someone who knows their stuff, at least. I happen to agree with the premise that one ought to be able to judge a game on a political level if one wants. Flag doesn't like a game with an uncritical view of monarchy, for example. Flag has a reason for it, and states it. I think that's a viewpoint one can take without playing it; it has shit to do with rules, for the most part.

It's like having a beef with alignment in D&D, and not playing because it's integrated in the system. It's a smallish qualm, but it might easily be enough to not play Planescape, because the setting is deep with alignment as a trope. You dig?

See, that's not all about you JimBob. If I'm not pointing at you specifically, and I'm writing a post, where something you didn't say comes up, you can likely assume I'm not talking about you. If it's vague, well, I'm sorry. As for me, I'm aware it's not all about me. I don't know what you mean to say, except as a passive-aggressive "Fuck off, it's not your issue." Here's the dig, man. It is my issue. You wern't critisizing me, but I don't give a damn. You have a tendancy to shit on my internets, so I'll get in your grill about it if I think I want to.

Quote from: jeff37923Tell me if I'm grokking where you're coming from. The fun you derive from gaming lies in examining the structure of the game universe and how the rules interact with that structure and also in how the characters interact with the structure as it plays out. Am I correct? If so, it looks like the thing you enjoy most about a RPG is observing and understanding the process of one being played more than playing one.

Sorry to be so long in replying, but I just moved and was w/o Internet.

To clarify, I recently have tended to be GM more than player, so therefore I naturally take a more holistic view of character-setting interaction. As a player (of a PC), I'm mostly interested in how my character interacts within the setting. Either case involves playing the game (and also preparing to play the game, in the former case). I've never just observed other people playing. I can't imagine that would be very enjoyable.

I'm not suggesting that RPGs are an academic activity (heaven forbid). However, I do recognize that my academic background probably does influence the way I think about everyday things. But I only tend to overthink things that are enjoyable and interesting, if that makes any sense.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine...Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent....

Quote from: Thanatos02Flag doesn't like a game with an uncritical view of monarchy...

"Uncritically" is really the catchword, isn't it? I don't think I made it explicit enough, so people thought I was saying the same thing minus that word, in which case I agree that it sounds absurd. For the record, two of my favorite fantasy settings are Exalted and WFRP's Old World. Both include plenty of abhorrent political situations (the latter contains nothing but...), while neither does so uncritically. Indeed, I can safely say the vast majority of my gaming has taken place in a monarchic setting of some sort, or else some other oligarchic or elitist political structure. As I said before, utopias are no fun and strain the suspension of disbelief beyond the pale. In fact, it's the depiction of the absolute monarchy as utopia that I originally cited as being a problem from the common-man perspective. But at this stage, it's gotten beyond the bounds of this thread and should probably be discussed elsewhere if by some chance there's still anything left to say about it.