Well, not really.  

But consider this statement:  Cheetoism is nonsense because it's about the Cheetos, not about the actual people.  

"Wait!", you say.  "Cheetoism actually is about the people, it's just that people isn't in its name.  You don't have to mention something in the name for it to include them."  Well, consider this from JimBobOz's thread...

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's because whether we like it or not, we're people first, and gamers second. When we game, as when we do anything, we express ourselves. If someone else doesn't like that self we've expressed, then we're in the shit.

It's why I say that the whole body of rpg theory is nonsense, because every single one, whether GNS, GDS, AGE, or whatever, doesn't mention this, what happens at the game table, how people get along. They think it's unimportant.

Which of course is stupid. However you want to categorise our game tastes, calling them "Alphaism, Betaism, Gammaism" or whatever, if we get along well, then we'll sort something out so that we can both have fun in a game session. But if someone thinks I'm a dork, then he won't want to game with me, even if we're both Betaists, both Gammaists, etc.

OK, so what the fuck is up with this?  The argument seems to be that if I have any sort of categories of games or styles, then that means that I must not care about the people and think they're unimportant.  

I'm no fan of GNS, but you're not attacking GNS here -- you're attacking all theory and, by your logic, all possible theory.  To talk about games, you think that I have to keep repeating over and over "People are important; people are important; people are important."  If I pause for a moment to talk about the game and play and their features, then you leap in screaming that I must not care about the people and think the game is more important.  

That's bullshit.  I can talk about styles of gaming and still think that people are important.

I liked 'cheetoism' when it was a post saying -- 'hey, I think people are forgetting the social aspect of gaming'.  I don't care for the Jargonized 'Cheetoism'.

Quote from: jhkimTo talk about games, you think that I have to keep repeating over and over "People are important; people are important; people are important."  If I pause for a moment to talk about the game and play and their features, then you leap in screaming that I must not care about the people and think the game is more important.  

That's bullshit.  I can talk about styles of gaming and still think that people are important.

It maybe because Cheetoism started as a reactionary post/theory/whatever against all the jargon filled, obtuse, vague posts that seemed to characterize most theory discussions.

That's the way I see it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimBut consider this statement:  Cheetoism is nonsense because it's about the Cheetos, not about the actual people.  

"Wait!", you say.  "Cheetoism actually is about the people, it's just that people isn't in its name.  You don't have to mention something in the name for it to include them."

It's named "Cheetoism" for two reasons. Firstly, to be simple and humorous, setting the tone for what follows. Secondly, as mockery of "-isms" of the roleplaying kind.

"Are you a Gamist, Narrativist or a Simulationist?"
"Mate, I'm just here to roll dice and eat cheetos."

Quote from: jhkimOK, so what the fuck is up with this?  The argument seems to be that if I have any sort of categories of games or styles, then that means that I must not care about the people and think they're unimportant.

It's usually easier if you go by what the argument actually is, than if you go by what it "seems to be."

The argument is that categories don't help if the gamers don't get along. And if they do get along, the categories still aren't much help. The argument is that whether or not the categories are a true and correct description of people's game play, focusing on the categories to the exclusion of focusing on the people will actually ruin play. And it's quite natural, when you have categories, and what you think is an elegant theory about those categories, to forget about the people involved.
 

Quote from: jhkimI'm no fan of GNS, but you're not attacking GNS here -- you're attacking all theory and, by your logic, all possible theory.

Yes, because all theory which has come up has been a laundry list of categories of play styles. The theorist focuses on refining those categories and their definitions and interplay, and ends up taking those categories from a description of what actually happens at the game table, to a prescription of what should happen. So if you say that there exists Alphaist, Betaist, and Gammaist play, then inevitably you'll end up saying that Betaist is the best ever, and Alphaist is for autistic people, and Gammaist is for childish people. Or you'll say that a game which is at the same time Alphaist and Betaist doesn't work and isn't any fun, and if people thought they were having fun they were just deluded.

When you focus on theory, you start ignoring reality, you can't move forward. If you focus on the actual data coming in, things work better.

Quote from: jhkimThat's bullshit.  I can talk about styles of gaming and still think that people are important.

Absolutely. But if your theory doesn't talk about what happens at the game table before there's even a style of play, then it's useless to most game groups.

The best rpg theory ever, the most perfect one imaginable, would be useless to most game groups. As I've said, I think game groups are like any other kind of group, and go through stages of

• Forming, getting together and being super-polite and not rocking the boat
• Storming, sorting out how things will be done, and what we're here for, having lots of arguments about stuff
• Norming, settled down and organised, but still not achieving much
• Performing, where they have their shit together and get stuff done.

Most gamers have so much trouble getting a game group - meeting enough peope to "form" with - and keeping it - surviving the "storm" so they can "norm" - that anything after that is just irrelevant. If we did have the Best RPG Theory Ever, then it'd only be of use in helping a game group "perform." It's no use in the earlier stages.

No rpg theory tells me how to find other gamers in a new town. No rpg theory tells me how to settle arguments about who pays for pizza. No rpg theory tells me what to do about this bloke who really pisses me off, but he's been in the group longer than me, so they won't boot him out. And so on. Rpg theory just doesn't address these common, everyday problems gamers have.

And those everyday problem involve people. Relations between people, friends, mates, enemies, rivals, lovers - if you get these right, then the other stuff won't matter.

It's funny how quickly you get tired of me saying, "people matter." After just a couple of days of a Cheetoism thread, you've cracked the shits and started your own thread to complain about me mentioning "people matter."

Whereas we've had to put up with years of "but Narrativism -" or "in Immersive play -" and all this other stuff. Take this hostility you feel now, and multiply it by a few years, and then you'll know how pissed off we are about rpg theory nonsense.

I'm betting you've not gone off and read the Cheetoism wiki, have you? Any theory you like, "oh, how can you criticise it when you know it so poorly, go do the reading," anything you don't like the sound of, though, "well, the title name, I don't like that much."

So, go and read it. And tell us if it matches your experiences. If it doesn't match people's experiences, then I'll abandon or change it. Tell us if it's badly-expressed, or some things need to be fleshed out, or cut down. I don't have a Glossary to defend. And tell us if you think it's useful for people who want to get a game group and keep it.

Quote from: David RIt maybe because Cheetoism started as a reactionary post/theory/whatever against all the jargon filled, obtuse, vague posts that seemed to characterize most theory discussions.

That's the way I see it.

You see it correctly.

I'm a gaming reactionary.

Peeps, I think something's odd here.
It's gone from "Theory is valueable, those non-theory-heads gots it all wrongs." to just using Cheeotism as a target.

Not surprising. But, shit, this really isn't anything new. It's just a rehash of every theory/don't bother thread that there has ever been, pretty much anywhere.

It's quite understandable, Thanatos02. Cheetoism tells people that the years they spent on rpg theory stuff was almost a complete waste. Maybe useful for a small percentage of game groups, but useless to gamers without a group, or groups trying to find their way to a good session.

When I just said that GNS or whatever were wrong, they could handle that. "Oh but you don't understand it," or, "the evidence you give that it is wrong is actually evidence it's right!" and so on.

But I'm saying that rpg theory is irrelevant and pointless for most gamers. It's easy to deal with someone arguing against you. It's much harder to deal with someone dismissing you as irrelevant.

Years of efforts, irrelevant and wasted, that's what I'm telling them. Of course they're going to fight against that. I would, too. Whether I'm right or wrong, the idea that their efforts were pointless is a very offensive one to them.

The other reaction they have is to say, "oh but those ideas are in our theory anyway, Social Contract part of the Big Model" or whatever. jhkim's a sensible guy, though, so he doesn't try that bullshit. Instead he looks for contradictions in what I've said, which is a good way to argue. It'd just be easier for him to do so if he actually read the wiki and argue at any contradictions there, rather than contradictions supposedly in these meta-discussions.

I agree with Mr. Kim in a certain sense: Cheetoism has been over-discussed and over-explained.  It was supposed to be a reaction to over-intellectualizing the RPG experience, wasn't it?  Isn't there an irony in doing the same kind of pseudo-academic vivisection on Cheetoism until it starts looking like the theorizing it was poking at to begin with?

To put it in geekier parlance: Cheetoism is like The Force in the first three movies.  It's powerful and mysterious, and it can set right much of the ills and conflict in the galaxy.  You start attributing The Force to midichlorians, and you've overdone it, taken away the magic.

Cheetoism is poetry--it shouldn't be reduced to dull prose expository.

Obviously I disagree. To see why, look at the wiki. I think there are some useful insights for gamers there. From what people have said so far, it doesn't have anything that is outright wrong and outside people's experience, which is a step up from rpg theory for a start.

In other words, it's gone beyond mocking the Forgers, and trying to be actually useful in its own right - discussing why game groups fuck up. If you don't think it's useful to discuss why game groups fuck up, I can only envy you your wonderful game experiences!

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm betting you've not gone off and read the Cheetoism wiki, have you? Any theory you like, "oh, how can you criticise it when you know it so poorly, go do the reading," anything you don't like the sound of, though, "well, the title name, I don't like that much."

So, go and read it. And tell us if it matches your experiences. If it doesn't match people's experiences, then I'll abandon or change it. Tell us if it's badly-expressed, or some things need to be fleshed out, or cut down. I don't have a Glossary to defend. And tell us if you think it's useful for people who want to get a game group and keep it.

Actually, I have read it.  And what do I see?

QuoteCinematic vs Realistic ...
Hack vs Thesp ...
Schtick vs Drama ...

Clearly this is bullshit, because it has nothing to do with the actual people playing the game.  Real people aren't "cinematic".  This is all just bullshit stuff about games and game style instead of real people.  

Your cheetos are just a poor substitute for the real people playing.

Mate, no offense, but that's a really lame and obviously intentional misreading.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut I'm saying that rpg theory is irrelevant and pointless for most gamers.

Finally, a theory I can support.

Quote from: jhkimClearly this is bullshit, because it has nothing to do with the actual people playing the game.  Real people aren't "cinematic".  This is all just bullshit stuff about games and game style instead of real people.  

Well, real people have preferences in the sorts of ways the game will go.

I think there's a difference between talking about that as an aside, and taking those preferences and turning them, alone, into a whole game theory, ignoring everything else.

Suppose that I had Cinematic vs Realistic, Hack vs Thesp, Schtick vs Drama, and called them Realism, Thespianism, and Dramaism, called it my RTD theory, and paid no attention to anything else, then yes, your comments saying that this is ignoring people would have validity.

However, the Cheetoism wiki has got a whole shitload of other stuff, about game groups, about annoying gamers, a recipe or two for dinner, how people settle where they're going to play, and so on.

I've drawn a whole picture of someone, and you're saying that because the foot is pictured, I'm not looking at the whole person. But I am - you're just paying no attention to the rest of the picture.

Here's the list of topics in the core part of it all,

Introduction
Getting a Game Group
Keeping a Game Group
----Minimum Standards
----Annoying Gamers
----Hosting a game
----Gaming away from homes
----Food
----Books and all that
----Game session space
----Session organisation
Stages of Group Development
----Forming
----Storming
----Norming
----Performing
----Adjournment
----Stagnation
Types of Players
Player Preferences Questionnaire
Game Circle
RPG design
----Genre and setting
--------Campaign design
--------Adventure design

One section out of 25, or one out of eight "chapters" if it were a regular book, is this Player Preferences thing, with Hack and Thesp, etc. The rest talks about people in pretty down-to-earth terms. I mean, you could take the Player Preferences thing out of it the thing, and it wouldn't change the rest a single bit. It's an aside, a footnote. The same is not true of (for example) GNS and The Big Model. GNS is the foundation of it, take that out and the rest just dissolves. Take this questionnaire away, and the rest is still valid, you'd just have to replace it with something about discussing things with your players, what sort of game play style they like.

Note also that I say in it that the categories are entirely arbitrary, anyone could come up with many more, they're just a list for inspiration. Unlike (for example) AGE or GDS, it's not claiming to be a definitive list, true for all times, games and places.

You're reaching a bit far with this one, jhkim. One section out of twenty-five.

Quote from: JimBobOzSuppose that I had Cinematic vs Realistic, Hack vs Thesp, Schtick vs Drama, and called them Realism, Thespianism, and Dramaism, called it my RTD theory, and paid no attention to anything else, then yes, your comments saying that this is ignoring people would have validity.

However, the Cheetoism wiki has got a whole shitload of other stuff, about game groups, about annoying gamers, a recipe or two for dinner, how people settle where they're going to play, and so on.

Gasp!!  Why, you're right, JimBobOz.  There is more on there than just those categories on your Wiki.  Why, that's great!!!

And now that you've opened my eyes to these amazing possibilities, it's like a sudden breath of fresh air.  Suddenly I'm seeing stuff beside those categories everywhere.  

Just look on this RPG Theory Page.  Now, I used to think that the only thing there was essays about GNS categories by Ron Edwards.  But now that you've lifted the blinders from my eyes, I can see that there are all sorts of articles about other topics.  

Wow!!!  I'm so glad you're here, JimBobOz, because without you in theory, no one ever would have seen anything in RPG theory except for stupid "isms".

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this, mate, beyond, "jimboboz is a cunt."

Are you trying to say that people other than me say useful things about roleplaying? I agree heartily. All my best ideas I took from someone else. As I said on my LJ, I'm a compiler, not an innovator.

I'm saying, "rpg theory sucks, here's something better." You're stuck on the first part. Remember when RPGPundit was saying that in this forum, rather than just dissing other ideas, he'd like it if we came up with our own ideas? That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to put together into one wiki or book the best ideas.

You've got your list of links, and many of them have fine ideas in them. But they're a bunch of different people with different articles written at different times. They address one small aspect each, and sometimes it's hard to see how they fit with each-other. I'm trying to see if I can bring the different threads together into some kind of whole cloth.

Or put another way, a lot of the stuff you've got listed under "theory" is commonly called "craft."  "How to encourage roleplaying," "Gender Disparity in RPGs", and so on. The distinction being between trying to understand how something works - theory - and trying to make it work better - craft. It's true that there's a lot of overlap, but Forger-style discussion swings too far to the theory side for people to get much use out of it in their game sessions, and most game books don't discuss crafty stuff much at all.

You can just come out and say I'm a cunt, you know, that's allowed on this forum, and I won't care. Your own contributions, by listing different rpgs, different articles about roleplaying, and not least your own rpg articles, have been very great, long-admired, and quite deservedly so. You've made some fine bricks. I'm trying to see if I can build a little house out of them. As I said, I'm a compiler, not an innovator.

I'd be very interested to see you discuss or attack what I've said, rather than just the way I've said it. A person with your depth and breadth of knowledge will have a lot of things to teach me.

The core of the thing is that people matter more than anything else you can come up with. I've tried bringing in the "stages of group development" thing to see if that gives us some useful insights. If you'd like to talk about that, I'll be very interested to hear what you say. Continue calling me a cunt, by all means. Okay, you think I'm a cunt. But what do you think of what I've actually said?

See now, this is one difference between me and (say) Ron Edwards. Him, he gets attacked for what he says, and the way he says it; me, people just bitch about the way I say it. Does that mean what I've said is entirely true? Surely not. Surely they're just being lazy, there must be heaps to criticise there.

Stop being lazy, jhkim. You can argue much better than this, and deal with the substance rather than the style.