Quote from: SettembriniYou rock, minus E!

Beware though, someone might try to give you kool aid points...

Thanks!

It's a risk I'm willing to take. I will feed on their outrage and grow stronger!

Seriously -- all I'm saying here is that if something is popular, there's a good chance it's fun for most people. And if it's not fun for someone, that's not an indication that the activity itself is broken (I'm not a fan of NASCAR, I don't think NASCAR is dysfunctional).

If I get Kool Aid points for that, I'm probably in overwhelmingly good company.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd some paprika.

And here I've been using curry. And sawdust.

Quote from: -E.Indie theory overwhelmingly chooses the 1st option: gamers are idiots who choose to flagilate themselves upon the sharp rocks of Traditonally GM games (I'm mixing metaphors or something here).

Now, y'see, this is strange, since I've never seen that as an overwhelming trend ... while there are folks who say crazy stuff, it's always struck me as a few voices in the midst of a community that generally just thinks that lots of gamers like non-indie games, and that's fine.

Of course, there's no reason for anyone to figure that either of us are objective observers.  I cetainly find it easier to ride over the things you notice, because of my faith in the community as a whole.  It's possible that you find it easier to pay attention to those same things, because of your suspicion of the community as a whole.  Awful hard for anyone to say from the outside.

I guess I just hope folks will take both of our opinions with a grain of salt.  I'd be sad to see bunches of people drawing their conclusions about how Indie theorists think from such second-hand evidence.

Quote from: TonyLBNow, y'see, this is strange, since I've never seen that as an overwhelming trend ... while there are folks who say crazy stuff, it's always struck me as a few voices in the midst of a community that generally just thinks that lots of gamers like non-indie games, and that's fine.

Of course, there's no reason for anyone to figure that either of us are objective observers.  I cetainly find it easier to ride over the things you notice, because of my faith in the community as a whole.  It's possible that you find it easier to pay attention to those same things, because of your suspicion of the community as a whole.  Awful hard for anyone to say from the outside.

I guess I just hope folks will take both of our opinions with a grain of salt.  I'd be sad to see bunches of people drawing their conclusions about how Indie theorists think from such second-hand evidence.

I agree that people should make their own decisions. I'd invite anyone who's interested to do their own survey...

But I notice you didn't present your perspective one way or the other. You're *here* -- you're (I think) something of an RPG theorist.

Here's your chance to say that you're down with the traditional games and see no systemic problem with the traditional GM role.

You could also repudiate some of the more problematic voices you referred to: I assume you *don't* agree that RPG's cause Brain Damage, as some have proposed.

As a voice of moderation and outreach I invite you to say, "RPG's don't cause Brain Damage; anyone who says otherwise is irresponsible and is damaging the RPG dialog. As a theorist, I trully regret that assertion and categorically disagree with it."

I think that would be a phenominal step toward quieting those voices and letting the (majority?) of moderate, supportive-of-traditional-play theorists be heard above the din of the extremists.

You could then point to this post, and your reply as a sterling example of a theorist taking a stand against the extremist and loonies on his side. Whenever anyone, on any board links to the Brain Damage or to the "Gamers are a Cowardly and Superstitious Lot" or to any of the other problematic posts, you could link right back to your wise and moderate words *here*

I think it's a place to start, and I sincerely hope that you'll take me up on my offier to build a bridge between factions that, if you're right, aren't so far apart after all.

Awaiting your response,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Here's your chance to say that you're down with the traditional games and see no systemic problem with the traditional GM role.

Oh, okay.  I'm down with traditional games, and I see no systemic problem with the traditional GM role.  Traditional gaming techniques do some things well and some things poorly, but that's true of every technique, and I certainly have the greatest respect for the many traditional techniques that have been refined through decades of play.

Quote from: -E.You could also repudiate some of the more problematic voices you referred to

I could, but (a) my second-hand recap of anyone else's statements is, as I've mentioned, possibly-inaccurate and certainly-irrelevant and (b) I don't buy that "repudiating" people does anyone a whole hell of a lot of good.

I'm totally down with saying, when the topic actually comes up "Hey, I don't agree with X, Y and Z."  I say that plenty.  But I think that the whole "If you don't agree with what someone says you should repudiate them as a person" meme is pretty toxic, and I'm not interested in getting tangled in it.

How's that sit with you?

Quote from: TonyLBOh, okay.  I'm down with traditional games, and I see no systemic problem with the traditional GM role.  Traditional gaming techniques do some things well and some things poorly, but that's true of every technique, and I certainly have the greatest respect for the many traditional techniques that have been refined through decades of play.

I could, but (a) my second-hand recap of anyone else's statements is, as I've mentioned, possibly-inaccurate and certainly-irrelevant and (b) I don't buy that "repudiating" people does anyone a whole hell of a lot of good.

I'm totally down with saying, when the topic actually comes up "Hey, I don't agree with X, Y and Z."  I say that plenty.  But I think that the whole "If you don't agree with what someone says you should repudiate them as a person" meme is pretty toxic, and I'm not interested in getting tangled in it.

How's that sit with you?

The first bit sits pretty well with me although I wish you'd resisted the urge to caveat. I'm glad to see you're not one of the guys who respects traditional games.

As far as the rest, I'm a bit confused: I haven't, and I never would ask anyone to repudiate a person... I'm not even sure what that means -- but it sounds inappropriate.

This is -- an always has been -- about the theory, not the people.

But your decision not to speak out against the brain damage thing is disappointing: the whole brain damage thing is marvelously offensive but also intellectually corrupt and indefensible. It's the sort of thing no one should be saying absent evidence. It's exibit A of the sort of thing that someone doing their own survey would be pointed to as an example of the worst of the theory.

And given the absolute absence of evidence it's a pretty straight-forward thing to disagree categorically with. Lots of people have done it.

But -- unfortunately -- a lot of people have declined to reject it. Instead, when it comes up, they've opted for appologism. Some of the greatest hits?

Links available upon request (but I assume you're familiar with all of these)

1) He didn't mean it; he was emotional ranting
2) He didn't mean it; it's a metaphor
3) He's doesn't know when he's being offensive
4) Etc.

None of this addresses the issue you brought up: if, in fact, there lots of moderate theorists out there their voices need to be heard over the ferral cries of the extremists.

For example: I can link to several responses to brain damage where reasonably well known folks step up and say, "I was brain damaged -- It's real."

On the other side?

I've found some posts where people express *embarassment* that the whole thing was made public, but vanishingly few insiders (I don't count Levi, J Kim, or Marco as insiders) who have said, "that's bullshit."

Until that happens people who are making their own decisions are going to find an overwhelming body of evidence that rpg theory supports the brain-damage thing (as an example) and damn little in writing by theorists who say, "Theory doesn't say that."

I'd be nice to be able to link to theorists who *buy* the theory (or at least parts of it) but *reject* -- publically -- the nonsense.

You've already stepped up and said traditional GMimg's cool.

Having a theory voice rejecting ideas like "incoherent games most likely lead to on-going powerstruggle" or "Narrativism causes brain damage in White Wolf players" would be nice -- but maybe too much to ask for at this point.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.But your decision not to speak out against the brain damage thing is disappointing: the whole brain damage thing is marvelously offensive but also intellectually corrupt and indefensible. It's the sort of thing no one should be saying absent evidence. It's exibit A of the sort of thing that someone doing their own survey would be pointed to as an example of the worst of the theory.

The number of people who talk about what Ron actually said is vanishingly small.  What people are mostly talking about is a large straw-man that has been erected in the vicinity of what he said.  I totally agree that the straw-man in question is spectacularly, magnificently offensive.  Like I said, second-hand reports of what has been said are not really helpful.

Now it turns out that I disagree with what Ron actually said, but my disagreements are of a different tenor than yours, and I suspect you would find them mealy-mouthed and unsatisfying, precisely because they don't savage the argument that you think of as the main target.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat people are mostly talking about is a large straw-man that has been erected in the vicinity of what he said.

You've got to explain that bit.  What was the real argument?

Having read the entire Brain Damage post in question, I'm truly interested in what could possibly be the 'real argument' behind the very clearly spelled out, at-least-once repeated, and later defended words that Big Ron Edwards chose.

Quote from: Christmas ApeHaving read the entire Brain Damage post in question, I'm truly interested in what could possibly be the 'real argument' behind the very clearly spelled out, at-least-once repeated, and later defended words that Big Ron Edwards chose.

A soundbite version:

"If you pretend that you're 'creating story together' by pushing the railroad as hard as you can in a pre-set way, you'll fuck up your gaming habits.  And your perception of stories in general."

I don't agree.  But most people are arguing with something totally different.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenA soundbite version:

"If you pretend that you're 'creating story together' by pushing the railroad as hard as you can in a pre-set way, you'll fuck up your gaming habits.  And your perception of stories in general."

I don't agree.  But most people are arguing with something totally different.

I think that's nonsense, but I also think its ridiculous the way some people say he didn't mean the brain damage thing, given he was quite clear he meant it literally and posted a follow up thread expressly to say he stood by his remarks.

As for the child abuse analogy, words fail me.

But even the baseline argument, which is I think an interpretation of what he said done so as to remove the evident fuckwaddery, is IMO bollocks.  There is no innate story telling talent that gets damaged by gaming, it's an inane argument that posted by anyone else would have been soundly ridiculed.

Levi's sound-bite version is a good sound-bite.

Doing things, particularly doing things many times in an unthinking manner, patterns your perceptions and reactions.  Practice doesn't make perfect, it simply makes permanent, and everything we do is practice.

So, Ron cites a wealth of actual experience talking about story structure with many people who pride themselves on their White-Wolf story-game skills.  He perceives (rightly or wrongly) a pattern of habits and perceptions common to the group:

• They can create a complicated cast of characters and tensions, a deep and rich backstory, and political situations of complexity that would beggar the imagination.
• They have, by and large, absolutely no sense that there is anything else that goes into making a story.  They do not, for instance, know how to resolve those conflicts to the betterment of the drama ... or even realize that conflicts should be resolved.

I don't have his breadth of dealing with people on these issues, but my limited experience matches with his.  I mean ... this whole thread started off asking why people sit there and stew in their angst, rather than grabbing a conflict and making it sing, right?  Same question.  Again, maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong, but I see the pattern too (in enough people to be worth noting).

I am not boggled by the hypothesis that White Wolf gaming is not merely coincidentally linked with those habits, but actually causes them.  Those are the habits and preferences that (to me) seem clearly expressed by White Wolf's books and their metaplots.  This is the way they operate, and the way that they encourage other gamers to operate.  It's the lesson they're asking people to practice.  Some people (not all, maybe not even most, but some) are going to practice those lessons and take them to heart.

But I part ways rather sharply the moment that kind of patterning gets likened to damage.  I agree with you, Max/Balbinus, that the idea of some pristine story-telling talent which gets sullied and forever damaged is wrong.  Within the context of the stuff I'm talking about here, there is no pristine state of the human brain.  If we have good habits, it's because we've practiced them.  If we have bad habits, it's because we've practiced them.  

These bad habits may reduce a person's functioning in telling stories.  They may, further, stand in the way of their benefitting from later experiences that would help them to gain habits that would be more functional for that goal.  But that does not mean that the bad habits are some sort of scar tissue on the brain, and better habits would be like beautiful, magical medicine.  They're all just habits you've picked up, and they're totally the same kind of thing.

I have, for instance, played a lot of indie games.  They have built habits into me about player empowerment.  When I play a game now, I act (without even thinking about it) as if I have the right and responsibility to radically impact what's going on in the game, whenever I want, however I want, so long as the game and my fellow players support me.

That's a really bad habit, in terms of being functional in some games and some gaming groups.  I totally cop to that.  I've become a worse player of certain types of games.  I've become a better player of certain other types of games.  My habits have changed.

Damage?  Medicine?  Nothing so freighted as either, I'm afraid.  It's just the way I've formed my brain by taking various experiences to heart.

So I think that pretty much every one of the inflammatory labels that Ron applies comes from a place of deep and certain judgment on his part:  he thinks that human beings should be wired to tell stories in a certain way.  He thinks that state is natural.  That's not even directly about traditional games vs. indie games ... it's about something deeper in the human character, and has implications for traditional vs. indie.

I agree with him that some types of games make it less likely for people to be wired in that particular way, but I don't think it's natural, and so I don't think that the games are affecting any natural capacity.  And, since I don't think the games are affecting any natural capacity, I feel that comparing them to things that do affect natural capacities (brain damage and child abuse) is a category error.

To analogize (as risky as it is):  If you're a labor movement leader, and you think that Americans have a fundamental right to secure, high-paying jobs then it is easy for you to compare picketing the world trade organization (to secure jobs for Americans) with the Selma march.  Both are fights against the infringement of fundamental rights.

If I don't believe that Americans have any fundamental right to employment then I can easily look at those statements and say "Oh that is just so offensive!  He's deliberately comparing his money-grubbing with Martin Luther King!  How can he possibly think that's okay?"

Different base-line beliefs, differents ways of perceiving the same statements.  If I grab an outside observer who understands both of our points of view and tell him "This guy says that the civil rights movement was just because blacks wanted to whine and wheedle people into giving them more money!  Repudiate his statement!" ... I mean, what's the guy supposed to do?

Quote from: BalbinusI think that's nonsense, but I also think its ridiculous the way some people say he didn't mean the brain damage thing, given he was quite clear he meant it literally and posted a follow up thread expressly to say he stood by his remarks.

As for the child abuse analogy, words fail me.

But even the baseline argument, which is I think an interpretation of what he said done so as to remove the evident fuckwaddery, is IMO bollocks.  There is no innate story telling talent that gets damaged by gaming, it's an inane argument that posted by anyone else would have been soundly ridiculed.

Word.

I think it was Vincent who said, on the topic of people over reacting that, if the original material was, indeed, offensive, the people weren't over reacting--they were just reacting. (I do not know if he meant this post to apply directly to the Brain Damage comments--but it was about the same time and it seemed relevant to me).

1. The sound-bite version is offensive. It suggests that games--Incoherent ones (or, you know, at least some Incoherent ones) are actually dangerous to the players. It calls some of these out by name.

2. It says that at least some people who got into those games damaged like people with metal shrapnel in their heads. As a result of the game. GMs who ran these games were, literally, if not intentionally, corrupting their players.

3. Taken literally, some of these game designers are unwittingly (because they do not understand GNS and its implications) facilitating this damage by making their games. They are enjoined to take a look at the damage they have (may have) done.

Now, you can argue that this is not offensive--but then you have to turn around and agree that tracts claiming that D&D will damage your immortal soul are not offenisve--no matter how preachy they get nor how vocal their proponents are in your venues.

[ I'm pretty sure someone will decide that the Jack Chick tracts aren't offensive at all--just funny. In which case it should be fine to mock Ron up and down as well? I don't think so. I think the Chick method of evangelism *is* bottom-line offensive and would prefer to speak out against it and not have to deal with it in the dialog at all. ]

I also think the idea that this hasn't been in the model all along is denial. The Impossible Thing and Incoherence are the roots of this. I think that Ron has been sitting on this theory for a long time and it's better to have it out in the open rather than dribbling out in confusing, refutable spurts.

A lot of the problems with the dialog have centered on people reading into the conversation things like (although, to be honest, usually less severe) than Brain Damage and being told they were projecting, didn't understand, etc.

It turns out that some of that analysis was right on the money.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBSo I think that pretty much every one of the inflammatory labels that Ron applies comes from a place of deep and certain judgment on his part:  he thinks that human beings should be wired to tell stories in a certain way.  He thinks that state is natural.  That's not even directly about traditional games vs. indie games ... it's about something deeper in the human character, and has implications for traditional vs. indie.

Sure, the thing is I think that is profoundly unscientific nonsense, magical thinking.  To be blunt, I view it as so far from any credible theories of cognitive development or psychology as not to merit my attention.

So moving on, on the habit bit, yeah, of course.  Playing a certain way will lead to habits linked to that which are likely to make some stuff easier and some harder, habits are shortcuts after all.

Where I diverge is when value judgements get placed on them, rather than judgements of utility.  You don't do this, and that's why I think it can meaningfully be discussed with you.  Ron did, and in doing so I think to be blunt left rational discourse behind at that point on this specific topic.

A habit may be useful or not useful, some habits are actually harmful (smoking for example) but I just don't think we're in that world here, I think we're in the world of utility.

If you want a certain kind of story in your games, and your habits get in the way of that, then you have a problem and need to unlearn those habits.  Those habits are not useful, other habits may help you more.

Thing is, I think that's true but I don't think it's very interesting.  I think once you strip the offensive bits and the pseudoscience from the argument you're left with the slightly dull statement that habits gained from one kind of game may get in the way with another, which is not I think controversial but nor is it IMO a very profound or even useful statement.

On rpg.net we tried a thread about the argument stripped of the damage and abuse comments, it went for over 90 posts without flames but there wasn't really any progress as what was left with that stuff gone just didn't seem to say anything that helpful to anyone.

Quote from: TonyLBI mean, what's the guy supposed to do?

In this case?

1. Point at Unca Ron.

2. Say to anyone who can hear: "This man is batshit insane."

3. ??

4. PROFIT.