Quote from: RPGPunditIf anything, my experience is that indie gaming is even more emotionally shut down than regular gaming, and that's saying a lot.

It's not really saying anything at all, actually, because you proudly proclaim, constantly, that you have absolutely no experience with those filthy swine games. Hearing you say "my experience (with) indie gaming" is like hearing some book-burning conservative retard say "my experience with Satanism/magic/Wicca/Kabbalah/Hinduism/Buddhism" as they protest Harry Potter's Real Magical Satanic Influence in libraries or whatever.

Or is that an unfair mischaracterization? Do you actually have any experience playing any of these games?  Or are they all based on reviews and black-cover blurbs and "what I gleamed from flipping through it"?

QuoteWhen emotion is turned into the "stake" for a fight in DiTV or the check to see if you still love your Master in My Life With Master, you're being even more of a fucking emotional automaton than anyone playing D&D. At least they aren't actually rolling to see how they feel.

"Rolling to see how they feel". In DitV or My Life with Master*... Nope, you don't have any experience with these games. You are dismissed.

QuoteIn D&D, something like Henry V's speech an Agincourt, or Claudius' speech before the senators is only a question of one roleplay away. In indie games, its impossible, because instead of a speech you'd be rolling a die or flipping a token or spinning a wheel or whatever else is the gimmick mechanic of the week with you people.

Hah!  In indie/hippie games, you'd be rolling to see if, at the end of your acted-out speech in front of the other players, if In The Game the speech worked or not.

"Meanwhile, in D&D, such a speech is one roleplay away":

Player: "...And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day"
GM: "...Whatever. Here comes the army (adjust miniatures). Roll to attack."
Player: "Cmon, don't we get a bonus to the upcoming battle or something? My speech!"
GM: "Uh, (flips through the rules)... are you a Bard? Hmmm, then no. Don't get me wrong, it was a cool speech. Iambic Pentameter and everything. Now roll your fucking attack."

...

Player: "It ill befits the dignity of the Senate that the consul designate should repeat the phrases of the consuls word for word as his opinion, and that every one else should merely say 'I approve', and that then, after leaving, the assembly should announce 'We debated'.""
GM: The senate draws swords and attacks. Roll initiative.
Player: "What?"
GM: "Yeah, I rolled right here (shows encounter chart), it says that the enemy is still "Hostile" towards you."
Player: "Uh... We're just debating here. I'm not armed or anything."
GM: "Too bad, because they are. If you run away Octavius and Lativus over here will get attacks of opportunity with their elven bows."

...

Besides, I remember dozens of D&D sessions, regular and RPGA, over the years at GenCon.  I would have shivved a man for a plastic fork to be in a game with a person who could even BS a decent improv speech. Most of the other gamers in my events were your "Lawncrappers", and when it came to "roleplaying an encounter", nervously fumbled with their dice while reciting half-lines from Braveheart or whatever.

At least with Dogs in the Vineyard, they could have gasped out a speech, nervously rolled their dice and actually accomplished something in-game without the GM making them succeed because he felt pity towards them.

-Andy

* (in MLWM, a game which I personally don't play so I can't get too in-depth, you don't roll to see if you 'love' the master. The players decide if they love, hate, are in fear of, etc the Master. You only roll to see who kills him/her in the end.)

That's the main beef I have with many of the Pundit's arguments: he hates and loathes games he hasn't played (and in many times he even hasn't read), because he seems to feel that those games (and gamers) threaten the hobby in ways he really doesn't understands, as he has not the knowledge about that games he hates so much.

And he goes on and on and on about how D&D is a true roleplaying game, proudly ignoring that in the 80's, Gary Gygax was bashing people who roleplayed their PCs, asking them to come back to the true game.

Man, this Pundit is a weirdo.

Quote from: Andy KIt's not really saying anything at all, actually, because you proudly proclaim, constantly, that you have absolutely no experience with those filthy swine games. Hearing you say "my experience (with) indie gaming" is like hearing some book-burning conservative retard say "my experience with Satanism/magic/Wicca/Kabbalah/Hinduism/Buddhism" as they protest Harry Potter's Real Magical Satanic Influence in libraries or whatever.

Or is that an unfair mischaracterization? Do you actually have any experience playing any of these games?  Or are they all based on reviews and black-cover blurbs and "what I gleamed from flipping through it"?

Judging by what you write about D&D later on in your entry, I have at least as much if not more experience with indie games than you do with D&D.

Or at least I don't try to intentionally lie about indie games.

Maybe I'm being too hard on you, maybe you really never played with a real D&D group, your only experiences are from back when you were 14 and it was the same time your daddy was beating your or your uncle was touching you or something, so its all become jumbled up in one big bad memory you'd like to sweep away with a generalized wave of hate.  
But you see, REAL D20, and indeed most real RPGs (as opposed to "story games" or whatever the fuck you want to call "indie rpgs" ;just about anything would be more accurate and appropriate than calling them RPGs), depend on the players actually ROLEPLAYING (as opposed to rolling dice or other rules as a substitute for roleplaying, which is what most "storygames" do), and it depends on having a DM who's responsible and powerful enough to allow that roleplaying to affect the game (unlike "storygames" where the master, if he's allowed to exist at all, exists only as some kind of castrated whipping-boy who is there like some kind of abused wife to serve the player's every whim with no ability of their own to direct anything, all actual decisions being made by either the players or the rules).

RPGPundit

Quote from: ImperatorThat's the main beef I have with many of the Pundit's arguments: he hates and loathes games he hasn't played (and in many times he even hasn't read), because he seems to feel that those games (and gamers) threaten the hobby in ways he really doesn't understands, as he has not the knowledge about that games he hates so much.

And he goes on and on and on about how D&D is a true roleplaying game, proudly ignoring that in the 80's, Gary Gygax was bashing people who roleplayed their PCs, asking them to come back to the true game.

Man, this Pundit is a weirdo.

You've managed to utterly mischaracterize both me and Gary Gygax in the same entry.  I feel honoured by the company.

First, just to clear up: I have read Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vinyard, My Life with Master, and several other lesser "storygames".  There are a few out there I have yet to read, "the mountain witch" for example, or the "shab al-hiri roach"; and as such I reserve absolute judgement on them. Even so, one can get a pretty fucking good idea what these games are about, without being able to make specific personal commentary on them, from the reviews, comments on the forums, etc etc.

Your argument that I'm not entitled to comment on forge-games because I haven't read all of them is a little like if I were to claim that you should not be allowed to say anything about D&D because you never read "the Complete Bard".

Second, your comments about Gary Gygax are incorrect, out of context, and outdated by thousands of other things he's said since.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou've managed to utterly mischaracterize both me and Gary Gygax in the same entry.  I feel honoured by the company.

I'm able of much more incredible things, but I don't think I made such a big mistake.

Having read those games, I don't understand how on earth you get to such a conclusions as you frequently express around here. :confused: Sincerely. I don't think of you as an idiot, so it totally amazes me.

In Sorcerer (as in Dogs in the Vineyard) the role of the GM is quite similar to the role of the GM in more traditional games. You have this GM, that sets up this interesting NPCs and situations, ask for some rolls, and describes stuff. The differences with the traditional approach to GM are in the way he prepares the game, not in terms of authority or role. Other indie games are GM-less or distribute the role of GM between players, but I can't see how that is so bad. Is variety. I like to GM, but I also like the idea of having different ways of doing stuff.

On the Gygax comments, I'm pretty sure about the statements I'm referring to. I'll agree with you that they're outdated with other things he said after them (and I have a great deal of respect for the guy, don't get me wrong), but the point I try to make is this: when people started roleplaying (meaning inmersion in character, non powergaming, and such things that are usually called by 'roleplaying'), they did it by playing the game wrong, and against the game designers' intent. Mr. Gygax may have changed his mind since them, that's for sure, but I try to show how, if we were to be 'true roleplayers' in the most original meaning of the game, we should stop... well... roleplaying!

And I have some additional questions, based on your answer to AndyK:

• What exactly do you mean by a 'real' group of D&D? :confused: By which definition a gropu is real or a fake?
• If D20 and most 'real' RPGs (whatever that could mean) are about ROLEPLAYING stuff, and the GM letting that stuff affect the game, why on Earth should anyone spend 90$ in buying a PHB, a DMG and a monster manual? Or why spend 35$ in a corebook? If rules are so unimportant, why bother with them? If you're so against rules deciding the outcome of the stuff instead of a DM, why using them?

Quote from: ImperatorHaving read those games, I don't understand how on earth you get to such a conclusions as you frequently express around here. :confused: Sincerely. I don't think of you as an idiot, so it totally amazes me.

It's actually pretty clear to me, at least as of this morning.

Pundit is, at his core, just another fundamentalist. Except he's not even a strict legal constructionist, or a proponent of intelligent design, or a mujahideen. He's a fundamentalist about ROLE-PLAYING GAMES. I'm undecided if that's totally retarded or just really, really sad.

I don't argue with fundamentalists, man. Mud, dragging down, beating with experience, and all that.

QuotePundit is, at his core, just another fundamentalist.

Pundit is, at his core, a gonzo journalist.
And you swallowed his bait, hook, line and sinker.

Quote from: SettembriniPundit is, at his core, a gonzo journalist.
And you swallowed his bait, hook, line and sinker.

Ah, the redirect.

When he's right, it's because he's brilliant.
When he's wrong, it's because of either a) a vicious conspiracy to ruin things for his world-view, or b) because someone else has failed to see his brilliance. Seen the same thing in plenty of Baptists in my day.

I don't buy it, and he's certainly devoting a stupid amount of time and effort into yelling his opinions at anyone with the sick fascination to listen.

Besides, don't journalists usually have something of value to say?

EDIT: And on further reflection, what the sweet zombie Jesus does he have to gain by convincing people who found him a breath of fresh air in contrast to RPG.net that he's a delusional, pretentious blowhard lacking any opinions worth considering?

Quote from: Christmas ApeBesides, don't journalists usually have something of value to say?

Not to my knowledge. There appears to be no causal linkage.

-clash

QuoteWhen he's wrong, it's because of either a) a vicious conspiracy to ruin things for his world-view, or b) because someone else has failed to see his brilliance. Seen the same thing in plenty of Baptists in my day.

No. When he is wrong, he is wrong. I think he is wrong for the most parts when talking about "the" Forge`s motivations.
But his rhetorics serve a purpose, and this is a journalistical purpose, and a purpose of mental hygiene.
Someone said he`s an anti-intellectual-intellectual.
And this is valuable on a grander scale than your regular mortally offended paserby may think.
Or as Clinton R. Nixon put it, he`s fighting the self elevation-bullshit that is going on on the internet. You will get dirty when doing this. Especially as you naturally self-elevate yourself above the self-elevators. But he does so only by "right of common sense and mainstream gaming", not by claiming any superiority.

Quote from: SettembriniSomeone said he`s an anti-intellectual-intellectual.
And this is valuable on a grander scale than your regular mortally offended paserby may think.

He's yelling on a blog and a message board.

On the INTERNET.

About ROLE-PLAYING GAMES.

It's about as valuable, in any objective sense of the word, as lipstick for cows.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIt's about as valuable, in any objective sense of the word, as lipstick for cows.

You have something against a poor cow trying to make herself a bit more attractive? Speciesist! Cows need love too!

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceYou have something against a poor cow trying to make herself a bit more attractive? Speciesist! Cows need love too!

-mice

Man, you're welcome to love all the cows you want. My use for cows comes at the end of a fork or wrapped in a bun.

Who`s the greater fool?

The fool, or the poster who is lamenting about someone lamenting about something irrelevant?

EDIT: Of course anything RPG is just irrelevant. But we are in that context, otherwise you wouldn`t be here, if you didn`t like the emperor naked.

Quote from: SettembriniWho`s the greater fool?

Usually me.

-clash