Not sure you're going to convince anyone by writing an intellectual warfare guide on a public forum, Daddy Warpig.

It all seems too contrived and over the top when talking about games, you know. Like writing a Maoist manifesto about how wearing your pants down is fucking with our youth, or how to build reeducation camps for people who like anime. That's kind of how it comes off to me when I read it.

Quote from: Benoist;622629It all seems too contrived and over the top when talking about games,

That's why I explicitly said the title and metaphor were tongue-in-cheek.

The metaphor is deliberately over the top, but the ideas and methods are real and they work.

To convince designers:

1.) Talk to them.
2.) Don't be dicks.
3.) Share your opinions.

The series is an elaboration of those very simple ideas.

(Or do people want to tell me those three steps are always ineffectual?)

Quote from: Benoist;622629Not sure you're going to convince anyone by writing an intellectual warfare guide on a public forum, Daddy Warpig.

Convince who of what?

I'm opining on the problems I see in gaming, and encouraging those who agree to engage designers of their favorite games, share their opinions, and not to be dicks about it.

That's not a bad idea, even if its phrased in a somewhat over-the-top fashion.

(Secondary Idea: Engage with the unconvinced, especially on other fora. Same criteria.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622634To convince designers:

1.) Talk to them.
2.) Don't be dicks.
3.) Share your opinions.

The series is an elaboration of those very simple ideas.

See, you could have just written that and not derailed the thread into another one of your epic multi-part series which would work better as blog posts.

Quote from: Warthur;622639See, you could have just written that and not derailed the thread into another one of your epic multi-part series which would work better as blog posts.

I've said it before, and nobody paid attention.

Simple ideas are easily dismissed, even if they're true. The trick is to break past people's elide-o-matic.

Theatricality can help do that. It can catch people's attention. (I assume the persona of the Pundit, in as much as it diverges from his real-life attitudes, is a calculated exercise in such theatrics.)

By laying out the problem and explaining the solution (including detailed advice and historical context) in a theatrical manner, some people will TL;DR, some people will read and be confused or disagree, others can engage.

Even you and Benoist, by disagreeing with me have engaged the material. You listened, even if it was for but a moment. I have no control over your reactions or choices, but at least I earned a chance to be heard.

Which is, as I noted, far more than I've managed to accomplish before.

I'm not disagreeing with the end goal of having people realize we are talking about substantive differences between games and the way they affect our enjoyment of RPGs. I'm disagreeing with the form that makes it look like a manifesto, or some manual to engage in intellectual warfare. I just don't think that's the best way to convince anyone.

Quote from: Benoist;622646I'm not disagreeing with the substance. I'm disagreeing with the form that makes it look like a manifesto, or some manual to do engage in intellectual warfare, and I don't think that's the best way to convince anyone.

The manual itself won't convince people of the truths I'm espousing (roleplaying does exist, etc.). I'm speaking to those who already agree on those points.

But the techniques can be used to convince others, especially in other fora. They are effective.

(I think. So far as I've seen.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622647The manual itself won't convince people

That's basically my point. What it does is give people ammunition on the other side of the debate to point to the hypocrisy of becoming a forgist to defeat a forgist. You realize you just posted this on a public forum and that it's going to be quoted on grognards.txt, right, if that's not already been done? So the form your manual takes is relevant to convince people themselves, or turn them off from listening altogether.

Quote from: Benoist;622648So the form your manual takes is relevant to convince people themselves, or turn them off from listening altogether.

Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it was too over-the-top, or too grandiose. (Ironically grandiose and actually grandiose may be too close.)

Let me assume it was a mistake. How would you encapsulate the same ideas, in a way that breaks through people's mental inertia?

These are problems, people can do something. But no one seemed to know what. So I suggested something.

Engage, explain, be polite.

I expressed it in a way I thought would grab people's attention. Even if I expressed it grandiosely (or pompously), it's a solid plan of action. Don't let the purposeful grandiosity undermine the ideas.

Quote from: Benoist;622648What it does is give people ammunition on the other side of the debate to point to the hypocrisy of becoming a forgist to defeat a forgist.

I would argue — accurately, but perhaps not convincingly — that what I argued for is for people to become anti-Forgists.

They dealt in contempt and abuse.

I'm arguing for engagement and comity (for lack of a better term).

The Forge was effective. It imploded, but its ideas became part of the assumed territory of RPG design.

An anti-Forge can work as well. It can succeed in countering those ideas.

Engage, explain, be polite.

That's needed, I would say.

Quote from: Benoist;622648You realize you just posted this on a public forum and that it's going to be quoted on grognards.txt, right, if that's not already been done?

That's kind of cool though, right?

Maybe I should take that thought more seriously. Maybe they'll be able to harm me in some fashion I can't appreciate.

But I don't. Viciousness in pursuit of petty ambition is pitiable.

If their crusade is what gives their lives meaning, I feel sorry for them.

I think Ben was getting at if you're going to delineate the Rules of Engagement, keep it on the down-low like the Forgists do, so no one can prove your agenda except through circumstantial evidence and deduction.  

However, when your Rules of Engagement are basically saying "Don't treat these like Rules of Engagement because we're not at war." then it might be useful as a public document.

Worrying about what awfulpurple is going to say though is kind of like the principal of a grade school wondering what the kids are saying behind his back.

Quote from: CRKrueger;622669However, when your Rules of Engagement are basically saying "Don't treat these like Rules of Engagement because we're not at war." then it might be useful as a public document.

That kind of is what I'm saying, isn't it?

"Don't take it too seriously", illustrated by taking it way too seriously.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622644I've said it before, and nobody paid attention.

Simple ideas are easily dismissed, even if they're true. The trick is to break past people's elide-o-matic.

Theatricality can help do that. It can catch people's attention. (I assume the persona of the Pundit, in as much as it diverges from his real-life attitudes, is a calculated exercise in such theatrics.)

Theatricality can also make you look immensely pretentious.

Say what you like about the Pundit, the man knows what's short and pithy enough for a forum post and what's long and involved enough to more properly be a blog post. And you don't have to read five of his posts in sequence to work out what he's on about.

Quote from: Warthur;622673And you don't have to read five of his posts in sequence to work out what he's on about.

Still, it worked. I've been saying this since I got on the site, just over a year ago, and nobody listened.

I said them today... and people listened. The format irritated people, but still they listened.

Quote from: Warthur;622673Theatricality can also make you look immensely pretentious.

But I'm not pretentious. (Though I played it on the radio.) I think people understand that, and if they don't, hey, worse things have happened.

Literally. I've had much worse things happen in my life. "Eat a frog in the morning", and all that. (Niven's addendum is especially pertinent.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622672That kind of is what I'm saying, isn't it?

"Don't take it too seriously", illustrated by taking it way too seriously.

I know that's what you were saying.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;622698I know that's what you were saying.  

You got me.

Though don't let the satire detract from the message: the tips and techniques are actually useful, and I think old school players would see some movement in their direction if they were more approachable and reached out to designers.

If it took bombast to make the point, well, I guess it got made.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622579This leads to the three biggest present-day threats to RPG's:

• The current fad for Narrativist mechanics in RPG's.
• "RPG's and Storygames are the same thing."
• "A coherent 'gamist' approach makes for a good RPG's."

These are attitudes held by designers, and combatting them requires people to engage those designers.

I think the strategy is flawed, because it is predicated that you have to attack games you don't like in order to get games you like.  I think that's pretty obviously stupid.  

You are framing this as an attack narrativist mechanics, story games, and the gamist approach.  I can't agree with you in this, because I like all of those things, and I also like traditional and/or old-school RPGs.  

I am totally behind a positive approach that says that traditional games are fun.  I argue this on Story Games all the time.  However, by framing this as an attack on styles you don't like, you've lost me and anyone like me who thinks that there can be multiple different tastes in RPGs that are good and fun.