Quote from: JimBobOzThe second is that "Cheetoism" is just the jokey intro to the wiki. By the time the thing makes it do a paid-for pdf, that'll be gone, and we'll be left with Why Game Groups Fuck Up, or something like that.

I've supported Cheetoism as a tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to Forge theory but... that new development is weird.

Are there really people out there who would pay for that :confused:

Quote from: JimBobOzIn answer to the obvious question, the reason to charge for it as a pdf is so that it'll actually be read and responded to.

Devil's advocate here: Forge theories and essays are extensively read and discussed without any need to pay for it that I am aware of. In fact, that's one of the things I have to give to Ron Edwards. He started the evangelization process on the hideously dumb Gaming Outpost community and it went from there following a natural path of unhealthy worship. But always, one of the goals has been to share information freely.

That chip must get your shoulder a bit sore, Marco.

Quote from: droogThat chip must get your shoulder a bit sore, Marco.

Eh, what's this about droog. Having read Marco's post - having my own thoughs on Cheetoism - I didn't read anything dodgy in his post. Am I missing something here?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogThat chip must get your shoulder a bit sore, Marco.

There are things I like about the big model as well and a good number of people in the community I like and respect (Mike Holmes, Ralph, Rob D., Levi, Andy, ... a good number really. Troy C. Hell, I'd like to game with Ron. There are a bunch of good folks on the indie-rpgs IRC channel. I've been asked some fairly abrupt questions there--but never had any real negative conversations).

I also think very highly of DitV and at the height of the Brain Damage thing was asking Ron how to trick out my Sorcerer character (you can check the Adept Press site).

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI also think very highly of DitV

Don't sweat it. Nobody is perfect

Quote from: Consonant DudeDon't sweat it. Nobody is perfect

Maybe there's a 12-step program or something (Indie-Anonymous) around this place I can get into ...

-Marco

Marco, thanks for those comments. It's not often you get to hear in detail why someone likes something, usually the detail only comes when they hate it. I was hoping for the hating-detail, too, because that's what I'll learn the most from.

One thing, though,

Quote from: MarcoAnd where it is, Kyle owns it in a way an intelligent and articulate poster trying to tell me that his games were like a Ferari but my games were like a Toyota wasn't saying his games were better was just unable to do.

I don't know what this means.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI've supported Cheetoism as a tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to Forge theory but... that new development is weird.

Are there really people out there who would pay for that

In general, people will pay for almost anything. However, whether they'll pay for this, who knows? People have previously paid me for my writing, so obviously something thinks what I've got to say is worth paying for. Whether they'll like this specific thing, I don't know.

I'm inclined to think that practical advice about getting and keeping a game group is missing in a lot of game books, and a lot of rpg discussion. People hunger for it, they really do. For proof of that hunger, take a look at any rpg forum on any day - gamers are constantly asking for advice on this stuff. For more proof, when I sold d4-d4, the system got bugger all comment, the back third with the practical game advice stuff got lots and lots of comment. That they hunger for this kind of advice is certain. That they'll pay for my advice, we'll have to see

Quote from: Consonant DudeForge theories and essays are extensively read and discussed without any need to pay for it that I am aware of.

That's true. And lots of other things are read and discussed a lot without being paid for, such as the news every day online. However, the general pattern with things online is that people don't read, they scan. That's why so much criticism or praise of (for example) GNS is based on a shallow understanding of it. People scan over it, get a general impression, tie that general impression in with their own ideas they already have, and respond on that basis.

If you want them to read something thoroughly, charge them for it.

For example, I once wrote a piece for milleniums end dot net, called "On Killing." It was just saying, wow, lots of PCs are ruthless killers, that's not very realistic, people usually aren't like that, so here are some rules about "will to kill." It was a few pages, maybe a thousand words. In two years it had over 2,000 downloads and not one comment or email. I took it down, expanded it to a dozen pages or so, made it better in many ways, and put it up for sale as a five buck pdf on RPGNow.com and a coupe of other places. In two years it's had over 100 sales, and about 25 people have commented on it or emailed me about it.

If you charge for it, less people will put it on their computer, but more people will read it thoroughly and respond to it.

If content alone were enough to get responses, then John Kim's excellent roleplaying website would get him fifty emails a day. He can tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it does. Does he not deserve thanks for that excellent resource of information, articles and ideas? How often does he get it, or comments or responses?

How many times have you looked at a webpage made by someone, its content kept you entertained for an hour or several, and you never emailed them to comment or thank them?

However, I'd say the main reason for Ron Edwards' success in having his ideas spread around is that they're so badly-expressed, and some of them are so absurd or offensive. Mad rants get you attention, just ask RPGPundit, or the Timecube guy. Long, considered discussions get you skimmed over. If I were only writing stuff to get people discussing me, then yes, I'd do short stuff with lots of long words, and make sure to insult lots of people. But I'm trying to do something more productive than that.

So, charging for it will get more people actually reading it. Whether it's worth their paying for, they'll decide for themselves. My aim, as I said, is to provide practical advice and discussion of getting a game group and keeping it. The market - individual gamers with credit cards - will decide if my words are worth a few bucks. I'm hoping to get a head start on that judgment by asking you guys first. rpg.net helped me write d4-d4 better; maybe therpgsite will help me write Why Game Groups Fuck Up better.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIn fact, that's one of the things I have to give to Ron Edwards [...] always, one of the goals has been to share information freely.

Information isn't "free" unless it flows both ways, unless it circulates. Information given out by a person or group who doesn't accept feedback isn't information, it's propaganda.

I blew my English roll there.

There was this exchange on John's blog where a poster was trying to explain how his games were like a Ferrari but traditional games were like a Toyota ... and that didn't mean his (indie) games were 'better' because a Toyota (I think--maybe it was another common car) was better for 'street driving' and if a person wants to get to work every day they sure don't want an expensive Ferrari for that ...

Whether the guy really believed what he was saying or not (i.e. that he wasn't claiming indie games were as superior to traditional games as a Ferrari is to a Yugo) he was never able to come to grips with what he was actually saying ... how it read.

Anyway, that always stuck with me as kind of an indication of how far someone can go in the conversation and still be able to straight-facedly deny what's going on ("No, see, you don't understand--think of the gas prices and the mileage that Ferrari will get!!"*)

-Marco
* not an actual quote.

Oh, right. That wasn't an English-roll failure on your part, that was just me not reading enough of these blogs

Well yeah, obviously I don't think my gaming is inherently superior to yours. Otherwise I'd be making a living writing adventure modules or novels about my characters.

Quote from: MarcoIf most RPG-theory is a fancy way of saying I-game-better-than-you then Cheetoism is, at least, saying I-theorize-better-than-you ... which is an improvement, IMO.

Cheetoism doesn't feed roll-vs-role.

-Marco

Actually IMHO Cheetoism is a way of saying "I play RPG's with a group of people, this is how you can too"

With wonderful addendums on how to get people, how to keep people, and how to feed people.

Essentially Cheetoism is "The Care and Feeding of a Gamegroup:From Birth to Cheetohs to death" with emphasis on the Cheetoh aspect (and hopefully longest part of the process.)

Quote from: JimBobOzHowever, I'd say the main reason for Ron Edwards' success in having his ideas spread around is that they're so badly-expressed, and some of them are so absurd or offensive. Mad rants get you attention, just ask RPGPundit, or the Timecube guy. Long, considered discussions get you skimmed over. If I were only writing stuff to get people discussing me, then yes, I'd do short stuff with lots of long words, and make sure to insult lots of people. But I'm trying to do something more productive than that.

So, charging for it will get more people actually reading it. Whether it's worth their paying for, they'll decide for themselves. My aim, as I said, is to provide practical advice and discussion of getting a game group and keeping it. The market - individual gamers with credit cards - will decide if my words are worth a few bucks. I'm hoping to get a head start on that judgment by asking you guys first. rpg.net helped me write d4-d4 better; maybe therpgsite will help me write Why Game Groups Fuck Up better.


Information isn't "free" unless it flows both ways, unless it circulates. Information given out by a person or group who doesn't accept feedback isn't information, it's propaganda.

I disagree with your view that Edwards' success is that his theories are absurd and offensive. There's way more than that and I think it's actually not helpful to see things black and white like that.

I really don't know if people will pay for your stuff but one thing is certain: you've been able to get people talking. I'm starting to be of the opinion that you are pulling everybody's leg after incredulously discovering people were taking Cheetoism seriously.This reminds me of Pundit's recent observations regarding Hackmaster.

Nonetheless, I'm a huge supporter of helping people have a nice gaming experience. So I wish you good luck.

Quote from: MarcoI think language usage is very important. The word-choice that a person uses when trying to convey an idea tells us, IMO, volumes about what they think.

This is why, when I read the original GNS essay, despite the various layers of spin and apologism, it wasn't surprising to me to see Brain Damage eventually come out. There was the deep, ingrained war-metaphors in that body of work ... the victimization language ... and some outright hostility.

Quote from: MarcoThe dialog of GNS (and therefore present RPG-theory in general) is usually very careful never to ask for community on the part of its readers. A single failure here is in the begining of the GNS essay (and to my knowledge it was never repeated) where it says it has actual goals to provide a language and common perspective for gamers to improve their games/communication.

Quote from: MarcoI submit there's a reason that GNS and related dialog is as popular as it is and that's the same reason role-vs-roll was as popular as it 'was' (and still is, I bet: if you go to 10 college campuses, I bet you could find 8 of them with groups of snooty RPGers who think the campus gaming group is just "roll-playing").

If most RPG-theory is a fancy way of saying I-game-better-than-you then Cheetoism is, at least, saying I-theorize-better-than-you ... which is an improvement, IMO.

Um, "and therefore present RPG-theory in general"?!?  Eh?  Why is it that everyone outside the Forge drinks exactly the same Kool-Aid as the people they complain about?  

(Stereotypical Forge booster that people hate) goes "The Forge is the center of everything.  Ron Edwards is the only person to have ever thought about RPGs.  GNS is great!"

(Stereotypical Forge hater) goes "The Forge is the center of everything.  Ron Edwards is the only person to have ever thought about RPGs.  GNS sucks!"


Marco, so your entire thing is complaining about GNS theory, and then praising Cheetoism for not being it.  News flash -- there are an awful lot of not-GNS's around.  

While I agree with many of your criticisms of the GNS essay, the real problem isn't Ron's writings -- it's people who think that he's the only thing in the universe, and that he must speak for everyone, and that you don't need to bother with any other RPG theory if you've read GNS because obviously that's all there is.

Hi John,
So far as I am aware I'm on every major theory-related gaming board. I have a stack of RPG-related blogs in my RSS feed. I read, if not post, to the threads marked [Theory] in most places.

I think I'm moderately well informed.

So here's my analysis wrt to this topic: AGE, GDS, and various other models (Was it Josh's model with clock and counter-clock circles showing how each element of an RPG supported or guided or whatever-ed play) are not central to the RPG Theory dialog.

This is not the same thing as saying they don't exist. And it surely isn't the same thing as saying I haven't read them.

What it is saying is that when people are discussing RPG Theory or, even, Craft, a huge amount of that discussion is either informed by the concepts and prejudices laid out by TBM/GNS or outright structured by it using jargon (like jargonized System) that makes other people have a hard time following it.

Any time someone talks about "how system matters" they are (and will be to an audience that reads this, the blogosphere, or Story-Games, or Levi's board ... or whatever) speaking in some kind of code. If they mean "mechanics" by 'system' half the audience will find their analysis incomplete. If they mean "how decisions get made at the table" then half the audience will be baffled.

Denying this is true would be hiding your head in the sand. I can point to threads.

Like it or not, TBM/GNS--which is not even really codified in a useful form--is, IMO, the major theoritical terrain feature in the dialog.

[ also note: while there are competeing "RPG Theories" aplenty, and I like those too--I liked Mike's 3D model--I think there is a distinguishing feature of Cheetoism in that its reactionary origins are, in context of an already conflict ridden RPG-Theory dialog interesting and maybe influential in a way that, alas, AGE won't be and Levi's Manifold isn't yet. Nothing gets people's attention like calling them brain damaged and coming back with a theory-name based on snack food seems to have some of the same traction. ]

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoSo here's my analysis wrt to this topic: AGE, GDS, and various other models (Was it Josh's model with clock and counter-clock circles showing how each element of an RPG supported or guided or whatever-ed play) are not central to the RPG Theory dialog.

This is not the same thing as saying they don't exist. And it surely isn't the same thing as saying I haven't read them.

What it is saying is that when people are discussing RPG Theory or, even, Craft, a huge amount of that discussion is either informed by the concepts and prejudices laid out by TBM/GNS or outright structured by it using jargon (like jargonized System) that makes other people have a hard time following it.

I'm not denying that GNS is central to many discussions.  Indeed, that's exactly what I'm complaining about.  Even the people who dislike GNS only talk about that and ignore other parts of RPG theory.

Quote from: jhkimI'm not denying that GNS is central to many discussions.  Indeed, that's exactly what I'm complaining about.  Even the people who dislike GNS only talk about that and ignore other parts of RPG theory.

Well, right. Nothing gets people's attention like saying they're brain damaged. I think that where Levi's Manifold starts to set some standards for being a reasonable discourse, Cheetoism comes from the other direction as sort of a counter-approach to RPG discussion.

Rather than being nonsense, I think it, as a manifesto for a certain kind of craft has a place in the discussion.

-Marco