Quote from: RPGPunditHowever, what Ron Edwards said was "Here's GNS; it is the SOLUTION to the "PROBLEM" with all RPGs today, and will create objectively BETTER RPGs that will be more playable and more popular than what existed before".

I would really like to know where on Earth did you read that. When I read the GNS essays, they only treated on the subject of games design, and what happens at the table. Sales were not the object of the essays, and still are not.

And once again, I don't know exactly which where Edwards' predictions on 1999, but it seems that they are coming to pass. And indie market is growing, because variety is a good thing that people enjoy.

I can't see how earning money, seeing your game published and having people playing it and be happy can be deemed as a failure.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI swear to gawd, I was totally going to list you as an example. "If  all designers were like Levi Kornelson, we wouldn't have anyone to complain about!"

*Shrug*

There's no way that I'm "Mr.Perfect" on this one.  I do my share of game-pimping.  The only edge I have in being less obnoxious is that I know quite a few traditional games, and think well of them, just as much as I know and think well of the newer types.  I have a bigger range.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut I'm mainly talking about the conversation that starts with "So I was thinking of running a superhero game.. set in space" and some guy inevitably shows up and goes "you could totally do that with DITV!!!!"

Not a chance.  For that, you should use Champions!!!!

QuoteI would really like to know where on Earth did you read that.

One could read that into:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/12/

Again, where? Where could the Pundit read that? maybe here?

Quote

• Cut back on production value (ooh! the horror, horror!), with the emphasis on good design rather than glitzy design. Include great art, but not much of it, in black-and-white, and stay away from expensive paper and those glossy covers. Think staples.
• Never mind supplements (oh my God!). Make sure the game is readable, playable, enjoyable, and that every one bought equals profit for you. And (get over it!) cut down those print runs.
• Run your own ordering service, and make sure you can meet any demand with quick, efficient service. The Internet would seem the way to go, insofar as no one has to man any phones or leave insincere messages on the machine about "being away from our desks."
• Minimize paper-advertising and convention appearances, two major money sinks aimed mostly at impressing distributors rather than actually to sell product. Advertise like a hurricane on the Net, from trading links to amateur sites to hitting chat rooms and usenets with a team of partners. Get a good web page made and keep it updated.
• Realize you will probably not make a lot of money. If you want to make a lot of money, pray to get lucky in the teen-trend sweepstakes or find something else to sell.

Don't like the New Myth? As an RPG author, adopt it or stick with the old one; it's your option. But I maintain that we have to reach the market ourselves, and that market is a small, highly specialized one. Getting rich doing this is probably just not going to happen. I also maintain that this apple-cart is not a dream or a Myth -- it already exists! The games are being written, they are being purchased, and they are being played.

Where does it says that they are going to be the kings of the market, when he's just saying that the old model does not work anymore?

The ORIGINAL GNS essays posit that gaming as it was played before the Forge was fundamentally flawed, and that ALL or nearly all gamers were basically miserable (suggesting that most of them didn't realize or wouldn't admit they were miserable). Logically, just like the proletariat would rise up when informed by the intelligentsia of how oppressed they were, if people were "shown" how GNS is superior they would shrug off the shackles of traditional gaming and embrace the new Forge manifesto in droves.

That's what's read into the text. And its not much of a "reading into"; its the fundamental position of Edward's whole argument, without which anything he has to say about GNS falls apart. For GNS to be true, it has to be universal; and the majority of gamers need only be shown "gns-designed" games to want to start playing them and stop playing the trad RPGs that they're so miserable playing. Since this hasn't happened, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. GNS if false.
2. gamers are somehow "brain damaged" to the point that they cannot accept what is best for them, and will need to somehow be forced or tricked into it by the well meaning intelligentsia who will lead us.

Its Marxist-Leninism all over again, for fuck's sake! Its the problem with "revolutionary" manifestos, they have to end up creating popular support; and if they fail in that, it means that they must turn on the supposed masses they claim to represent because those masses aren't "smart" enough to support them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts the problem with "revolutionary" manifestos, they have to end up creating popular support; and if they fail in that, it means that they must turn on the supposed masses they claim to represent because those masses aren't "smart" enough to support them.

I'll pit my revolutionary manifesto against yours any day:

http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/

You're a sad little man, nisarg.

Quote from: WhitterYou're a sad little man, nisarg.

Not nearly as sad as one who can't manage a better slam that this.

Why be such a pussy? You're anonymous! LOL UR FUKKIN FAG at least has a little bile to it.

Pundit, could you provide textual examples?

EDIT you mean this?:

QuoteMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

Hi, Pundit. I'm addressing two important points:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe ORIGINAL GNS essays posit that gaming as it was played before the Forge was fundamentally flawed, and that ALL or nearly all gamers were basically miserable (suggesting that most of them didn't realize or wouldn't admit they were miserable).

No, it doesn't. What it says is this (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Ron Edwards in GNS essayMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals. The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience.

Look! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming!

In the rest of the essay, he explains many concepts and vocabulary that pertains to GNS and shit. At the very start of the essay he says that the essay is not a Dogma, only what he thinks. So I don't see much of a manifesto there, though is an interesting concept.

Actually, the essay goes a long way to say that there's no "one true way" and the fun obtained in a D&D session is as good as the fun in an OtE session, being the most important thing that everybody is in the same page. Not very offensive, IMO.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor GNS to be true, it has to be universal; and the majority of gamers need only be shown "gns-designed" games to want to start playing them and stop playing the trad RPGs that they're so miserable playing.

As I've shown before, the essay states that the unfun gaming is not due to playing a trad game. Is due to a difference in what people wants from the game, which can lead to bad social dynamics. The point of GNS is that a good design of a game will help people to be on the same page, so the experience will be improved. So people don't need to stop playing traditional games, according to GNS essay.

On the other hand, Edwards uses as examples of good (or coherent) design several classic games as Pendragon, RQ, Prince Valiant or... D&D. Games that were designed without explicit knowledge of any theory, but show the advantages of having a clear design goal in mind, and the advantage of creating rules that support that goal instead of making things this or that way simply because that's just what everyone does (main examples being Vampire, or AD&D 2e, according to the essay). So, GNS can be universal (that would be another point to argue), as it refers first to the intentions of those who play.

I don't think that GNS/ Big Model is the end all-be all of RPG theory. There's a long way ahead. But I think that it has made useful contributions, and several rocking games have been designed due to it. So I'm happy.

Quote from: RPGPundit2. gamers are somehow "brain damaged" to the point that they cannot accept what is best for them, and will need to somehow be forced or tricked into it by the well meaning intelligentsia who will lead us.

The brain damage thing is not in any way in the GNS essay, pertains to a completely different topic, and well, it doesn't refer to the gamers in general, only to a subsector of gamers. By the way, I disagree with him, being a psychologist that has worked with true brain damage and that.

So, Pundit, I think that you're misrepresenting the GNS essay and the small press and indie scene. That's not flashing news, of course , but I'd be more happy for you if you didn't feel that there's a conspiracy of evil Swine game designers going after your fun. Actually, I stopped being a D&D/D20 hater after visiting the Forge, reading the essays, and starting analysing the game on its own merits (that are a lot) instead of analysing it on my own personal tastes. Now, I play D20 games and I'm happy, indie games and I'm happy, and many more. My hobby is bigger and keeps growing.

Anyway, and back on topic (sorry about the rambling): my opinion on the future of gaming (indie or not), has being beautifully explained by Levi in his blog. I support all of his points, and declare him my personal hero of the weekend.

There really is no getting through to the Pundit on this one.

He has decided that Forge/GNS is something that it is not and I don't think he will be changing his mind.

I'm not saying anyone has to like Forge style games, but clearly their are a few folks here that have gotten the wrong idea about the forge.

Quote from: McrowThere really is no getting through to the Pundit on this one.

He has decided that Forge/GNS is something that it is not and I don't think he will be changing his mind.

I'm not saying anyone has to like Forge style games, but clearly their are a few folks here that have gotten the wrong idea about the forge.

Hopefully, we've at least convinced him that Small Press /= The Forge. As much as I dislike being damned for what I am, it's definitely worse to be damned for what I am not.

-clash

Quote from: ImperatorLook! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming!

In theory yes, but both in the essays and in the halo of discussion around them there's frequently the implication that players are unhappy without realizing it, that they're deluding themselves, in denial, enacting a cycle of abuse, and so forth.

(I don't support RPGPundit's points about indie gaming in general, or even about Forge games qua games, as opposed to GNS theory, but in regards the latter I think it's undeniable that it sets up a value system for judging all games.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn theory yes, but both in the essays and in the halo of discussion around them there's frequently the implication that players are unhappy without realizing it, that they're deluding themselves, in denial, enacting a cycle of abuse, and so forth.

This has been my experience as well. I can only conclude that the aside of "oh, this really only applies if you are unhappy.."  is dishonest.

Quote from: ImperatorLook! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming!

The problem is that Edwards states that most gamers are unhappy with their gaming. People who are satisfied with their game are, in his own words, a minority.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Had he said that "some" gamers are unhappy, it'd be a different story.