QuoteI now believe that a series of things happened at once, but it mainly boils down to:
1) the largest RPG company was mismanaged and subverted.

2) People with bad ideas became influential.

And I think, my little find really is a nice little mosaic stone matching exactly that image. Especially as Nephew later bragged about his "artistry".
Swine are real, and their impact was real. Only 3rd Edition saved us.
At the time of 2nd Ed., there was not one decent game out there.
They were after our game, after all. And they nearly succeeded.

EDIT: The thread title is a reference to a Carter Family/Johnny Cash song: "Where you there, when they crucified my lord?"

Quote from: SettembriniThe rest of the thread is a totally ridiculous discussion about railroading, and now illusionism.

I won't argued the ridiculousness of a lot of the discussion - - but I saw a couple of comments that have actually been very helpful, and made me think about some things in a new way.  For me, that made it worthwhile.

I tried to sound cool and snarky, obviously, I failed.
Of course there was some insight to be gained, if not for the rather far-fetched interpretation of the word railroading in mid-thread.

Whatever words we're using for these things -- railroading, sandboxing, illusionizing, fantabulating, undiceification -- whatever we want to call them, this has been surprisingly helpful.

Quote from: StuartSo you're telling me... what...?  All rewards are equal to all people? Illusionist/story rewards are always more valued than other rewards?  As long as the player never finds out it was an illusion everything is cool? :confused:

All rewards - no.
Illusionist/story - Hell No!
As long as - maybe.

I guess I'm saying there's this tension, and it's constantly pulling between absolute application of the rules and dice, and the possibility that in some cases (for fun of the group, correcting something stupid, etc.) a slight correction might be good.

Your belief seems to be that if the latter ever takes place:

• The DM is a dishonest lying son-of-a-bitch.
• The session has become a Story Game session.
• Players who want challenge/puzzle/etc. will be become a sobbing, quivering mass of usless flesh, barely able to survive the encounter.

At least, and this is the point I'm trying to make, that how it seems to be coming across.

I believe in the application of the rules. If an occaision arises where something needs to be fudged, I have a hard time doing it - the exception being to correct an error I (as GM) made. Some people have convinced me that I might want to allow for a couple of other instances as well.

Does that make me a dishonest, lying son-of-a-bitch? Does that mean I've become a Story Game fanatic? I don't think you think so - but that's how it's coming across.

Quote from: SettembriniI tried to sound cool and snarky, obviously, I failed.
Of course there was some insight to be gained, if not for the rather far-fetched interpretation of the word railroading in mid-thread.

What one is the far fetched one?

Quote from: James J SkachYour belief seems to be that if the latter ever takes place:
The DM is a dishonest lying son-of-a-bitch.
The session has become a Story Game session.
Players who want challenge/puzzle/etc. will be become a sobbing, quivering mass of usless flesh, barely able to survive the encounter.

At least, and this is the point I'm trying to make, that how it seems to be coming across.

No.  It isn't.  

You alread asked me if it's an all or nothing thing I already cleared it up for you.  Seriously -- right here.  

If you want to interpret any dishonesty as making someone a lying son-of-a-bitch, that's your issue.  I hope your family never threw you a surprise party...

I'm not interested in the RPG vs Story Games naming war outside of double-checking everyone is referring to the same thing as part of a discussion.  Personally, I think RPG is a pretty poor name and not worth all the vitriol.  

And I said players looking for a challenge/puzzle/etc wouldn't find the illusionism as much fun, even though some other people would.  That's it -- they wouldn't find it as much fun.  Not, nervous breakdown or thrashing around on the table or anything like that.  Less fun.

Hey -- let me know if we're moving away from any last vestiges of normal conversation and moving into bizzaro accusations followed by "at least that's how it appears to me."  Yahoo!

Stuart... when you call something dishonest, that sort of strongly implies that you consider it lying and the lowest sort of scum and villany.

I've never heard anyone who has reacted to a surprise party by calling the participants dishonest, or liars.  Is there dishonesty? Sure. Is there lying? Of course. But they don't get called out.

YOU on the other hand, are calling it out, therefore you are calling them liars.


It's a subtle but important distinction.

Possibly, but sometimes words mean exactly what they say, with the perceived subtext being all in the mind of the reader. I don't know if that's what is happening here, or whether that subtext accurately reflects Stuart's belief, but he says it doesn't, and he's given no reason to disbelieve it.

Quote from: SpikeStuart... when you call something dishonest, that sort of strongly implies that you consider it lying and the lowest sort of scum and villany.

Well... you might meant that.  

And what's with calling me out for using the word "dishonest"? On THIS site???    Are you kidding?!?  

I mean... just check out the first post in this thread:

* cause many a shitty game session
* story-whore system
* unplayable story fest
* blah blah blah

Hell, check out ANY of the Pundit's posts, anything about Borgstrom, the thread about Burning Wheel, etc etc

Yet if I say that leading your players to believe something that's not true is... dishonest... I've crossed the line?

For the record:  I think that people using illusionist, railroading, or dice fudging in RPGs are not nasty, wicked, false, evil, scum and villany.  I do think that those techniques are sub-optimal, and that they may result in a decreased level of enjoyment for a significant number of gamers -- and in all probability an even larger number of current non-gamers (because they don't play games like that).

Quote from: StuartWell... you might meant that.  

And what's with calling me out for using the word "dishonest"? On THIS site???    Are you kidding?!?  

*snip*

For the record:  I think that people using illusionist, railroading, or dice fudging in RPGs are not nasty, wicked, false, evil, scum and villany.  I do think that those techniques are sub-optimal, and that they may result in a decreased level of enjoyment for a significant number of gamers -- and in all probability an even larger number of current non-gamers (because they don't play games like that).

What we've got here is a failure to communicate... which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it.


See, Stu, I wasn't precisely calling you out for calling it dishonest. I'm calling you on implying by virtue of its dishonesty that it is morally wrong.

What you say at the end of your post there is very nearly in direct contradiction of what you've been arguing with people who care more than I do about it across three or four threads.  


You can claim all you like what you 'actually said' or what a word 'honestly means'.  I cry bullshit. This is communication, not math. You either fail to grasp the fundamentals of communication, or you deliberately act obtusely. Your business, really.  I just poke at it to see which.

Quote from: SpikeWhat we've got here is a failure to communicate... which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it.


See, Stu, I wasn't precisely calling you out for calling it dishonest. I'm calling you on implying by virtue of its dishonesty that it is morally wrong.

What you say at the end of your post there is very nearly in direct contradiction of what you've been arguing with people who care more than I do about it across three or four threads.  


You can claim all you like what you 'actually said' or what a word 'honestly means'.  I cry bullshit. This is communication, not math. You either fail to grasp the fundamentals of communication, or you deliberately act obtusely. Your business, really.  I just poke at it to see which.

And this is why I no longer wish to converse with him.

Over and over in this thread or others he's done exactly what James described, only to back-pedal, claim that's "not really what he said", and then go right back to doing the same thing all over again.  

There comes a point where the excuses become meaningless.  If I know a guy who tells a racist joke, but qualifies it by saying he's not really racist, but then keeps telling the same racists jokes over and over and over again, I start to disbelieve his claims of not really being a racist.

So... I think you might be being dishonest... about calling me dishonest... about my intentions for using the word dishonest. (blah)  I mean -- I think you might be trying to stir the pot.

If I had a failure to communicate, it's in underestimating the audience and the intensely sensitive feelings some people seem to have about these issues, which honestly is very surprising to me consider how not sensitive people seem to be about a lot of other things on this board.  Edwards, Borgstrom, et al. aren't offered much sensitivity in the way they're treated for example.

Please read all my posts as they are actually written.  If you think I'm implying something that's not written, please ask me before jumping to conclusions.

QuoteThere comes a point where the excuses become meaningless. If I know a guy who tells a racist joke, but qualifies it by saying he's not really racist, but then keeps telling the same racists jokes over and over and over again, I start to disbelieve his claims of not really being a racist.

I think this was JUST pointed out yesterday as some kind of standard internet debate tactic?  Implying by association that the person you disagree with is a racist / homophobic / a republican / etc?

Yes -- it was right here:  http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50787&postcount=277

Quote from: Abyssal MawHello, I'm just here for the "Forgie Playbook" update.

For those who aren't in on the fun, the basic deal is, Forgies love to drop irrelevant references to political figures or racial topics whenever they lose an argument. It's practically a flag signalling a desire to retreat.

Each reference is worth a nickel, as in "If I had a nickel every time I heard them do that..."

So let's count em' up:

"I'm Rush Thompson O'Reilly, love me, please!"

ding!

"Don't give me your bullshit talking points, O'Reilly."

ding!

"If you absolutely can't parse it, Rush..."

ding!

SO that's 15¢ right there. This adds to our previous total of 25¢ so now we have around 40¢.


Carry on.

Quote from: StuartI think this was JUST pointed out yesterday as some kind of standard internet debate tactic?  Implying by association that the person you disagree with is a racist / homophobic / a republican / etc?

Stalin always railroaded his players.

Or so I hear.