TheRPGSite

Why is it that a disproportionate number of game designers, and gaming groups/GMs, seem to feel the need to rely on "angst" as their primary expression of emotion?

I mean, let's face it, angst is the most adolescent of all emotional states. Its what teenagers use as a substitute to real emotional expression. They've never actually DONE anything worth expressing/don't yet know how to communicate with other human beings/don't really understand what it means to be a human being yet, etc etc. so instead they react to being filled up with hormones by blowing up and showing a petty stupid rage or getting all depressed in an exagerrated melodramatic way, your kind of "woe is me" attitude.

The inability of most game designers to express real emotions or more complex concepts is what leads me to say that people who are game designers are NOT authors (not good ones, anyways), but beyond that, I'm wondering if its a geek thing here... you rarely if ever find a "Henry V" moment or an "I, Claudius" moment, or a "Farewell to Arms" moment, or even a "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" moment.  Hell, you don't even find a "cold case" moment, and that's about as cheap an emotional stunt as you can get.

Is it that these people, the writers and the gamemasters too, are simply incapable of expressing anything more profound than gore, angst, or cliches?
Or is it that they lack certain essential prerequisites to be capable of doing so? If so, what are they?
Or is it that they are capable of but don't want to? If so, why?

RPGPundit

Hey, Pundit -

The late nineties called.  They want their rant back.

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, let's face it, angst is the most adolescent of all emotional states. Its what teenagers use as a substitute to real emotional expression.

This is a hobby for teenagers.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy is it that a disproportionate number of game designers, and gaming groups/GMs, seem to feel the need to rely on "angst" as their primary expression of emotion?

I don't percieve this as happening.  There's not any more angst out there than anything else.  It's rather fallen out of fashion, these days its all about cinematic action or metagame mechanics near as I can tell.

Obryn is right, 1997 wants its rant back.  Even Vampire is noticeably less angsty these days.

Quote from: MaddmanI don't percieve this as happening.  There's not any more angst out there than anything else.  It's rather fallen out of fashion, these days its all about cinematic action or metagame mechanics near as I can tell.

Obryn is right, 1997 wants its rant back.  Even Vampire is noticeably less angsty these days.

I've got to agree here. I haven't looked at the new Vampire - the subject has no appeal for me - but the NWoD base game is surprisingly free from angst, as well as using much MUCH better mechanics, enough for me to actually like the game. OWoD was a mess.

-clash

Quote from: GabrielThis is a hobby for teenagers.

Nope. Teenagers play computer games, the RPG demographic seems to be progressively getting older. Quite a lot of old-timers and not much new recruitment. Just take a look at some internet boards, nostalgia-mongering is getting increasingly popular.

I think the reason for all that "angst" is that it resonates with a lot of the RPG protagonists. In most games you're an outsider, sometimes feared, sometimes revered. But you're not in line with most of society. Often a dark destiny shines its gloomy rays upon your face (see, I'm getting into the spirit). And compared to literary heroes, there seems to be no end in sight. You're not on one defining quest, but on one seemingly pointless adventure after another, always with death looming above you. It's rather easy to play a character that way. Either that, or cheerful abandon.

Apart from that, I blame Drizzt's monologues. Worst piece of angsty game fiction ever.

Quote from: SosthenesNope. Teenagers play computer games, the RPG demographic seems to be progressively getting older. Quite a lot of old-timers and not much new recruitment. Just take a look at some internet boards, nostalgia-mongering is getting increasingly popular.

I think the reason for all that "angst" is that it resonates with a lot of the RPG protagonists. In most games you're an outsider, sometimes feared, sometimes revered. But you're not in line with most of society. Often a dark destiny shines its gloomy rays upon your face (see, I'm getting into the spirit). And compared to literary heroes, there seems to be no end in sight. You're not on one defining quest, but on one seemingly pointless adventure after another, always with death looming above you. It's rather easy to play a character that way. Either that, or cheerful abandon.

Apart from that, I blame Drizzt's monologues. Worst piece of angsty game fiction ever.

Those are the hardcore players.

Just about everyone starts this hobby in their early teens.  Then they quit somewhere between 16 and 18.  It neatly coincides with when kids in the US can get their driver's licenses and their options for entertainment expand.  That's the bulk of the hobby, kids who start at 12, and con mom into buying a few books before they quit playing altogether at 16.

The people in their 30s (and I definitely include myself) are an aberration.  The polls which are done from time to time are very skewed toward only getting the older "lifetime" players' view of things.  Plus, there are a lot of over 30 people because that's the age lifetime players would be if they started in the age where RPGs were exponentially more popular than they are now.  We're more or less the same as people who kept on playing Pog after the bubble burst.

I started when I was 21, so I'm already an anomaly...

-clash

Quote from: GabrielThis is a hobby for teenagers.

And yet, the games that are more directed at teenagers tend to be angst-free (granted, also emotion-free in general other than the "wow, cool, roxxors" effect of showing off the latest big monster/mecha/class/whatever); whereas the games that are supposedly for "Mature" gamers are filled with adolescent pap.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd yet, the games that are more directed at teenagers tend to be angst-free (granted, also emotion-free in general other than the "wow, cool, roxxors" effect of showing off the latest big monster/mecha/class/whatever); whereas the games that are supposedly for "Mature" gamers are filled with adolescent pap.

RPGPundit

Unfortunately, a lot of what is considered 'adult' in theme or content is actually what a teenager considers to be adult in theme or content, not what actually is. This is something that is rife in society as a whole. Adult normally equates to violence, sex & drugs; things that appeal to those who are not legally allowed to view and/or partake in such activities. The real term that is missing IMO is mature.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy is it that a disproportionate number of game designers, and gaming groups/GMs, seem to feel the need to rely on "angst" as their primary expression of emotion?

I'd wager that there's less angst in all of the RPG products published in 2005 combined, than in your average Nisarg "why do the Swine hate me so?" rant.

KoOS

Quote from: MaddmanI don't percieve this as happening.  There's not any more angst out there than anything else.  It's rather fallen out of fashion, these days its all about cinematic action or metagame mechanics near as I can tell.

Obryn is right, 1997 wants its rant back.  Even Vampire is noticeably less angsty these days.

Well, there's over-the-top gothy angst, which was very 1997. But I'm more trying to talk about the fact that it seems that other than general sort of angst, RPG designers aren't very good at expressing any other emotions through the game.

You don't see a Henry V moment, an Agincourt speech, where the virtues of fraternity and valor are presented in a meaningful and deeply impacting way.

Note that its not just game "designers"; its not really up to them, IMO, to present emotional undertones in most RPGs (but since they attempt it anyways, I will call them on it), but also most game-masters I know can't seem to present anything more complex than "woe is me" and "grr I'm angry".

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou don't see a Henry V moment, an Agincourt speech, where the virtues of fraternity and valor are presented in a meaningful and deeply impacting way.

This isn't an artifact of RPGs.  It's an artifact of modern culture.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolI'd wager that there's less angst in all of the RPG products published in 2005 combined, than in your average Nisarg "why do the Swine hate me so?" rant.

KoOS

Dude, there's never any angst in my rants.  I don't feel pity over the fact that the swine hate me, I revel in it. I don't wish that they'd stop hating me; I wish that they'd stop trying to subvert my hobby.

You can make a good argument for my rants being filled with rage, and hate; but not so really with angst.  Show me one moment where I lament being picked on, rather than gloat about it.

RPGPundit

I blame Tom Cruise, who as an actor can express two emotions: Loony and Constipated.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolThis isn't an artifact of RPGs.  It's an artifact of modern culture.

KoOS

yea, I figured someone might say that, which is why I added the "Cold Case" mention.

I mean, you don't even get that, that kind of blatant emotional heartstring-pulling bullshit... you know what I'm talking about, right? How at the end of every episode of "Cold Case"; you get a song-montage where the various characters are shown as they are now, and as they were when young, and then you see the dead/murdered person's ghost show up and nod smiling at the fact that justice has been finally done.

I mean, that's cheap as all hell, but you can't even get that kind of whistfulness in most rpgs.

When you can transmit less sophisticated emotional content than the WB, that's pretty fucking sad.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundityea, I figured someone might say that, which is why I added the "Cold Case" mention.

I mean, you don't even get that, that kind of blatant emotional heartstring-pulling bullshit... you know what I'm talking about, right? How at the end of every episode of "Cold Case"; you get a song-montage where the various characters are shown as they are now, and as they were when young, and then you see the dead/murdered person's ghost show up and nod smiling at the fact that justice has been finally done.

I mean, that's cheap as all hell, but you can't even get that kind of whistfulness in most rpgs.

I think that's because the kind of resolutions that "adventure gaming" promotes don't easily lend towards any kind of emotionalism.  And my experience leads me to believe that it would have to come from the "Swine" you deride in any case.

I'll give you an example.  In the first game played by my current group (D&D in Greyhawk), the DM ran a very interesting mystery-oriented scenario inspired by Shakespearean drama, in which the PCs were hired to investigate and resolve the kidnapping of a noble's daughter.  It was brilliant, and we managed to rescue the damsel (despite the rather messy death of one of the PCs, rent in half by a dire ape).  It was interesting and complex and lent itself to real engagement with the characters.

Afterwards, the most forceful personality in the group complained that the game contained too much thinking and not enough killing, so now all of our games revolve around exploring dungeons (not literal dungeons, of course), killing monsters, and accumulating loot.  The only emotions that feature are those which derive from killing lots of monsters and, occasionally, from being killed in creatively graphic ways.  It's fun but a touch monotonous.

If this is the kind of gaming you endorse as objectively correct, you shouldn't be shocked when the result is a dearth of emotion in RPGs.

Also, I think there's a huge difference between audiences who passively consume emotional media content, and expecting those people to generate their own overtly emotional content in a group environment.

KoOS

Quote from: SosthenesApart from that, I blame Drizzt's monologues. Worst piece of angsty game fiction ever.

I'll see your Drizzt and raise you one Raistlin. :D

Quote from: Mystery ManI'll see your Drizzt and raise you one Raistlin. :D

Crom laughs at your Raistlin!

He might've been a pretty angsty character before Drizzt's time, but if seniority would count, Frodo would be the Queen of the Damned.
Raistlin is a really bad metaphor for growing up. He was an okay kid, then sudden events (*winkwink*) made some strange changes to his body, but he gained some "power" from them. But in the end he got the girl, blinded her and almost became a god. Typical growing-up story.

Drizzt got _several_ pages at the start of each friggin' chapter ranting constantly about his role in society, how he can't get along with his family. He basically just got the hots for his sister and/or father/mentor and couldn't cope with that. But why did the _reader_ have to suffer for this?

Then again, I never read any WoD fiction. Did they beat Anne Rice in the search for the supreme whine cellar?

Quote from: SosthenesCrom laughs at your Raistlin!

He might've been a pretty angsty character before Drizzt's time, but if seniority would count, Frodo would be the Queen of the Damned.
Raistlin is a really bad metaphor for growing up. He was an okay kid, then sudden events (*winkwink*) made some strange changes to his body, but he gained some "power" from them. But in the end he got the girl, blinded her and almost became a god. Typical growing-up story.

Two words: Elminster's novels. :seppuku:

Well, Greenwood's novels are certainly bad fiction, but Elminster is about as angsty as Vlad Taltos. The guy is the mightiest mage in the world and boinks goddesses, ferchrissakes!

Every time someone tries to convince me that I really oughta take up reading fantasy, someone else starts talking about what utter shit the genre supports.

Thanks, someone else!  You've spared me again!

We're not talking about fantasy, we're talking about game fiction. Which is utter digestive-end-product no matter what genre. If I remember correctly, there were Battletech novels able to destroy braincells several parsecs away. Sturgeon's law aptly describes novels set in pre-existing worlds, whether they're based on games, movies or TV shows...

Gaming had those Henry V. moments:

GDW

Twilight:2000 had all sorts of stark mature emotions, which where believable.
Survival Margin for TNE has several great speeches by leaders and important
people, in the mindset of Agincourt or the Ghettysburg Adress.

Quote from: SosthenesWe're not talking about fantasy, we're talking about game fiction. Which is utter digestive-end-product no matter what genre. If I remember correctly, there were Battletech novels able to destroy braincells several parsecs away. Sturgeon's law aptly describes novels set in pre-existing worlds, whether they're based on games, movies or TV shows...

  Those books are the literary equivalent of Avril Lavign or Coldplay.  In the pop music world you have people who are interested in having some music to listen to but are completely unwilling to exercise any critical muscles or devote any thought to what they listen to so they buy whatever they happen to hear the most often on the radio... usually from the supermarket.

  Similarly some people want to read sci-fi or fantasy but are utterly unwilling to make any effort to get to know the genres and who is good and who isn't so they buy a familiar brand.

   Obviously, as a gateway to bigger and better things these books have their part to play but there's really no excuse, as an adult, to buy that kind of shit.  Especially when a magazine or website full of informative reviews is so easy to get hold of.

   Game tie-in novels are like a co-dependent relationship.  The reader gets absolute shit but shit that he can recognise and buy without having to even think, meanwhile the writer gets to fantasise about being a real writer.

Quote from: fonkaygarryEvery time someone tries to convince me that I really oughta take up reading fantasy, someone else starts talking about what utter shit the genre supports.

Thanks, someone else!  You've spared me again!

Read Game of Thrones by George Martin. If you want to read a good fantasy story, that would qualify.

Hey, Punani – if you don't like mere angst, we have much more for you in the indie games camp. Come by and look at our wares some time. We can offer you erotica, romantic comedy, dark comedy, high-fantasy tragedy, violent judgement, the master-slave dialectic, the Faustian bargain, and much much more. Going cheap....

Meh... I wasn't convinced by a Game of Thrones.  I bought it prior to going away last Xmas as part of my attempt to leave my confort zone and try and disprove my running theory that fat fantasy is invariably shit.

I chose a Game of Thrones not because of its popularity within the gaming community but because people like Gary Wolfe had really rated it and said it was all about plotting and politics and intrigue.

What I actually discovered though was about 900 pages of sprawling world building where really not very much happens at all and just when things start getting interesting it turns out to be part of a series... of 7 books.

NO story a human can devise could possibly warrant 6300 pages-worth of text.  No tale is going to be interesting enough to make me want to crawl through that much text in order to find out what happens.

There is some good fantasy kicking around (China Mieville and Terry Pratchett most notably) but fat fantasy can fuck right off... RA Salvatore's books might be shit but at least they're 300 pages and not 6300.  Even the lord of the rings is three books of 300 or so pages.

As a general rule of thumb never read fantasy that's longer than 400 pages.  Once you do it ceases to be about plot and characterisation and starts to be about the self-indulgent wankery that is world-building with the maps and the other words for days of the week and the stupid names with a'postr'rophes in them.

Yep, there's a lot of damn good fantasy fiction out there. Gaming fiction, not so much.

I'm going with the poster who said the angst thing is an artifact of our culture as a whole.

Popular culture idolizes youth, along with all of the impulsivity, ambiguity and plain ol' pissing and moaning that goes along with it.

Anyone who seems to have their shit together and is generally happy - or products that tend to espouse this viewpoint - are generally considered shallow.

The only way anyone can be taken seriously as "deep" is to be "deeply troubled."

I'm an unapologetic adventure gaming enthusiast, myself - I love roleplaying, but I cut the navel-gazing crybaby stuff out a long time ago.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalMeh... I wasn't convinced by a Game of Thrones.  I bought it prior to going away last Xmas as part of my attempt to leave my confort zone and try and disprove my running theory that fat fantasy is invariably shit.

I chose a Game of Thrones not because of its popularity within the gaming community but because people like Gary Wolfe had really rated it and said it was all about plotting and politics and intrigue.

What I actually discovered though was about 900 pages of sprawling world building where really not very much happens at all and just when things start getting interesting it turns out to be part of a series... of 7 books.

NO story a human can devise could possibly warrant 6300 pages-worth of text.  No tale is going to be interesting enough to make me want to crawl through that much text in order to find out what happens.

There is some good fantasy kicking around (China Mieville and Terry Pratchett most notably) but fat fantasy can fuck right off... RA Salvatore's books might be shit but at least they're 300 pages and not 6300.  Even the lord of the rings is three books of 300 or so pages.

As a general rule of thumb never read fantasy that's longer than 400 pages.  Once you do it ceases to be about plot and characterisation and starts to be about the self-indulgent wankery that is world-building with the maps and the other words for days of the week and the stupid names with a'postr'rophes in them.

Read any Robert E. Howard? He's a dead fella, but his work might appeal to you.

Also, I've had a lot of luck with Poul Anderson's fantasy stuff, but he's another one of those who have gone to join the celestial chorus.

Finally, if you stretch your definition of "fantasy" you might enjoy Jeff VanderMeer's work. Particularly if you enjoy China Mieville.

Exactly... angst is characterisation for people who don't know how to write.  Instead of spending time thinking about the relationships between the characters and how they unfold you just have people who are generically unhappy and who brood a lot.

It gives the characters something to do when they're not fighting.

Actually I edited out a few names of people who I'd class as good fantasy.

Robert E. Howard (less so the phenomenally racist Solomon Kane books), Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, Roger Zelazny and Poul Anderson.

Actually Poul Anderson's my silver bullett in this debate because he was a contemporary of Tolkien's and his Broken Sword came out, I think, the same year as the first full edition of the Lord of the Rings.

While Tolkien gave hundreds of idiots an excuse to come up with alternate names for days of the week and months, Broken Sword's world is minimalist with the onus being less on the backdrops and more on the characters and the action.  Broken Sword has troll-blooded Viking Berserks butchering people... LotR has maps.

It is to my eternal torment that Broken Sword didn't sell more than LotR.  That period was a cross-road for fantasy and Tolkien's success effectively killed the pulp fantasy tradition that gave us Leiber and Howard and replaced it with arseholes like Robert Jordan.

Edit: Mieville's great if lazy and Vandermeer's okay if you like that whole New Weird thing ditto Diana Wynn Jones who is a bit more traditional but hardly trad fantasy.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalRobert E. Howard (less so the phenomenally racist Solomon Kane books), Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, Roger Zelazny and Poul Anderson.

Sadly in the minority as far as modern fantasy goes. Zelazny is just phenomenal both in terms of sci-fi and fantasy. Highly underappreciated author that directly inspired Neil Gaiman to write Sandman.

(noob) Hey, Sojourner, how do I post my tables to your charts o' plenty project?
I have a bunch of stuff I want to share.
Matt (/noob)

Quote from: droogHey, Punani – if you don't like mere angst, we have much more for you in the indie games camp. Come by and look at our wares some time. We can offer you erotica, romantic comedy, dark comedy, high-fantasy tragedy, violent judgement, the master-slave dialectic, the Faustian bargain, and much much more. Going cheap....

If anything, my experience is that indie gaming is even more emotionally shut down than regular gaming, and that's saying a lot.
Indie gaming doesn't just want to ignore emotional expression or complexity, it wants to reduce it to mechanics, where you have to spend points or have certain attributes or roll dice to determine how your character feels about something/someone or how they do about you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sojourner JudasSadly in the minority as far as modern fantasy goes. Zelazny is just phenomenal both in terms of sci-fi and fantasy. Highly underappreciated author that directly inspired Neil Gaiman to write Sandman.

Zelazny was one of the last true actual authors who happened to write fantasy, rather than the far lesser breed of "fantasy author".

RPGPundit

It's a fear of feeling. Of being afraid, of loving, of hating. We have this irrational fear of losing control, which is what emotions are all about. You hate enough, you fear enough, you love enough you lose yourself, and we must always be in control.

Whether you're talking religion or science, it's all about staying in control. Of rising above our animal nature to become something transcendent. Ignoring the possibility we may come closer to transcendence by letting go.

As a rabbi from Nazareth said back around 30AD, "To conquer death you only have to die."

As a lady by the name of Alison Lonsdale once told me, "An orgasm is the only sure way of touching God, but you have to lose yourself."

That's our problem, we're afraid of losing ourselves, afraid of letting ourselves feel. Until we trust ourselves enough to lose ourselves our games will suffer, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalMeh... I wasn't convinced by a Game of Thrones.  I bought it prior to going away last Xmas as part of my attempt to leave my confort zone and try and disprove my running theory that fat fantasy is invariably shit.

I chose a Game of Thrones not because of its popularity within the gaming community but because people like Gary Wolfe had really rated it and said it was all about plotting and politics and intrigue.

What I actually discovered though was about 900 pages of sprawling world building where really not very much happens at all and just when things start getting interesting it turns out to be part of a series... of 7 books.

NO story a human can devise could possibly warrant 6300 pages-worth of text.  No tale is going to be interesting enough to make me want to crawl through that much text in order to find out what happens.

There is some good fantasy kicking around (China Mieville and Terry Pratchett most notably) but fat fantasy can fuck right off... RA Salvatore's books might be shit but at least they're 300 pages and not 6300.  Even the lord of the rings is three books of 300 or so pages.

As a general rule of thumb never read fantasy that's longer than 400 pages.  Once you do it ceases to be about plot and characterisation and starts to be about the self-indulgent wankery that is world-building with the maps and the other words for days of the week and the stupid names with a'postr'rophes in them.

Odd. I've read through the 4 books out three times now, and not encountered any of the complaints you mention. I don't see anywhere near the worldbuilding text in Martin's books as I do in many others I've read... if anything, he trickles it out a bit at a time. At the same time, AGOT contains characters that don't come across to me as cartoonish or underdeveloped, but as living breathing people. He doesn't shove his own ideas of right and wrong at me through his story, or parade his own personal idea of heroes and "cool" characters around, but shows me the "good" and "bad" in all the characters and lets me form my own opinions about them. He surprises me and keeps me interested.

Sorry you didn't have the same experience I (and many others) did in reading Martin's books, I hope you can find a story that is as entertaining for you as this one is for me. I still would recommend it to anyone who is interested in reading fantasy that's not so shallow, weak, or cliche as many of the stories on the shelves.

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.
Indie gaming doesn't just want to ignore emotional expression or complexity, it wants to reduce it to mechanics, where you have to spend points or have certain attributes or roll dice to determine how your character feels about something/someone or how they do about you.

Your experience seems quite limited.

Anyway, I agree with King of Old School. The gaming style you so ferociously defend as 'true roleplaying' is quite devoid of emotions.

Variety is good.

Quote from: SigmundOdd. I've read through the 4 books out three times now, and not encountered any of the complaints you mention. I don't see anywhere near the worldbuilding text in Martin's books as I do in many others I've read...

  He does it in a more subtle fashion but he does it nonethless.  I actually found it problematic that he didn't discuss what his views on marality were because the world splits quite nicely into heroic characters, evil characters and intentionally or misguidedly neutral ones.

  I'm all for morality being a central part of fiction but Martin doesn't really engage with the morals of his characters.  The only difference is that the goodies are nice and the the evil ones cackle when they kill people inbetween shagging their sibblings.

  I don't doubt that Martin's one of, if not THE premier purveyor of fat fantasy but he does nonetheless produce fat fantasy which is practically a genre in itself and a genre with a number of irritating characteristics at that.

I really enjoyed the first two books of Martin's saga. I bailed about two-thirds of the way through the third one. All that happy crappy about opening up your "third eye" and having "green dreams" seemed suspiciously new-agey for what is otherwise a pseudo-medieval, quasi-European setting.

I kept half expecting to hear one of those creepy swamp kids to tell Bran to "Free your mind".

I seem to recall that Martin wrote those books explicitly because he was disgusted by fat fantasy and wanted to show how it could be done better.

I enjoyed them initially, but the prospect of seven in total drains my soul.  I have oceans of great literature to read, I don't have the lifespan for seven volume fantasy epics.

Quote from: ImperatorYour experience seems quite limited.

Anyway, I agree with King of Old School. The gaming style you so ferociously defend as 'true roleplaying' is quite devoid of emotions.

Variety is good.

When 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...

Its like the joke they did on futurama. Except it shouldn't have been Gary Gygax, it should have been Ron Edwards or Vince Baker "I'm (rolls)... Pleased! to meet you!".

In 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.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn 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.

That's untrue: you're making the assumption that having personality mechanics == not roleplaying. That's a big mistake.

In D&D you can roleplay the speech, roll some dice against some DC or against another character roll (using the skill at hand, whatever it is), and be done with it. In any indie game, you roleplay your speech, roll some dice and be done with it.

The main difference is that, in some indie games, the information provided by the dice roll is different than the info provided by the roll in D&D, due to the difference in perspective that the games may (or may not) have.

Saying that you can't have that situations in an indie game because they have rules to determine what happens with more precission, is as usual when you talk about anything outside Amber or D20, a misrepresentation.

Okay... coupla things to say:

Teenage does not equal angsty. Why? I do not equal angsty. And not pretensious either... I went to a fucking art school. It was by far the most angstless, easygoing group of people I've ever met.

It's the current generation of forty-somethings and ex-gen-exers that had the angsty youth back in the 60s, 70s, and even the eighties. I hate to say this, but angst isn't about making the young feel older. To the contrary it's about making the old feel younger. You might not have roleplayed angst as kids, but you certainly played the part in real life. And that's your foundation right there. That's the lens through which you view the world. Like when a 19 year old poster is defending the religious establishment against 30-40 year olds. It's because "hating the establishment" is dead. Because the establishment is not to blame for the overall deadness of life. If Christians croaked, you'd still be cynics. The same goes for Republicans, Muslims, and that asshole who cut you off on your way to work.

Wait... how did I get on to my "self-absorbed generation" rant on a roleplaying forum?

Oh, right, angst.

That said, if you want a certain kind of game all you really need is the right players. Get yourself some noobs and teach them how to play. Subject them to response-provoking stimuli and whatever you do, act interested. They'll catch on. Also, don't worry about killing them. Fear is the most basic and primal of all emotions.

As for the games and settings themselves: Written by angsty oldsters like yourselves. You can bitch and moan and get all angsty or you can write your own RPG.

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! :D

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

Lamenting? I'm sitting here with chai green tea and a lovely pipe, petting a cat, laughing with my fiancee, and idly hitting F5 here and at TTO to see how the chatter is developing at both.

At the end of the day, I can happily chat here or at rpg.net. I can play d20 (I'd rather not, it's got too much fiddly shit) or Heroquest or Burning Wheel or WFRP or CP2020 or DiTV (I'd rather not, it only tells one story) or Exalted or just about anything I want. My hobby isn't in jeopardy, my fun isn't being ruined, and I have no awful memories of the time the mods badtouched my bathing suit area. I have nothing invested in this.

In short? Pretty clearly the fool.

QuoteIn short? Pretty clearly the fool.

So, you are crying around here, while actually being totally relaxed, and emotionally stable?
Why do you assume others do otherwise?
Do you really think our beloveth and superiormost maximo lider actually is writing his stuff in a fit, instead of *hint* smoking a pipe?

Some self elevation, Mr. Ape. Maybe you dislike him for the right reasons. Maybe he`s just against bigot double-standardistas like your high and mighty selfness.

EDIT: So the question is the same as the thread`s:

Why the Angst? What do you fear? Is he threatening you?

Ape, you're wrong about me being a fundamentalist. If I was a fundamentalist, I don't think I'd be running, reading, or owning the number of different games I do. Nor would I be willing to criticize D&D or Wizards the way I often do.

What I am is a guy who is really fucking sick and tired of pretentious twats trying to show off how cool or superior they are by what RPGs they play. I was, in fact, sick and tired of that years before the Forge even existed.

RPGPundit

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.

I have read them, and I've concluded what I've concluded.  As astounding as it might be to you, those of us who have some few critical faculties can actually read a Forge book and not be astounded by the "wisdom" of the "leader", or impressed by cheap pretentious posturing, which as far as I can see are the only things that would make someone a convert by virtue of reading these games, since the games themselves aren't any good.

QuoteOn 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! :D

No, here you are misreading what Gygax had said.  Dude, what do you think Gygax and Arneson were doing?? do you really think that they were just playing with the stats and not actually roleplaying at all? Were Mordenkainen and Tenser and Rary all just their dogs' (really wierd) names?  THEY WERE ROLEPLAYING.  If not, they would have just continued on with Chainmail, or have just made D&D into a skirmish-level version of Chainmail.  They didn't.  So it doesn't make any fucking sense for Gary Gygax, the guy who invented the ROLEPLAYING game, to be (in your fantasy scenario) telling people not to roleplay. You and others just choose to interpret those very old words totally out of context to mean that, when in fact he was talking about the same sort of pretentiousness/Swine issues I was talking about.

And if you wonder why traditional roleplayers despise the Forge players, THIS IS IT. Its because you fuckers think that we don't roleplay. You think that you are the ones who've invented the concept, and that we are just a gang of clods who couldn't roleplay to save our life, or that when we say "roleplay" we really mean "dungeon crawling" or "combat", as if that's all we know what to do. You talk to us like we were retarded (and, in fact, have literally said we're brain damaged). When the reality is that WE roleplay far better than YOU do because we don't use the fucking CRUTCHES of cheap fashionable gimmicky mechanics to roleplay. If we don't talk about it as much its because we're not as SMUG and PRETENTIOUS about it as you fuckers are, acting as though you're goddamned fucking artistes for doing exactly what Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were doing 30 years ago, only doing it worse.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat I am is a guy who is really fucking sick and tired of pretentious twats trying to show off how cool or superior they are by what RPGs they play.

Pot, meet kettle.

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditJudging 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.

I doubt that. 1 AD&D 1e campaign, 7 years of AD&D 2e almost weekly, and 3 years in various weekly d20 D&D/Conan OGL/d20 Modern/The End d20/d20 Homebrew campaigns (all with different groups, and probably dozens if not almost hundreds of players). Whereas you "read some indie books". I smell someone talking out their ass.

QuoteBut you see, REAL D20, and indeed most real RPGs... depend on the players actually ROLEPLAYING... and it depends on having a DM who's responsible and powerful enough to allow that roleplaying to affect the game...

I smell someone who's never played D&D at a convention. Conventions are where "Real D&D", "Pure D&D", "D&D to the Letter of the Law", happens (or should happen). I've played in no fewer than 25 D&D sessions over 7 years at GenCon and other cons (including RPGA, which prides itself on being "really true to the rules"). And what you describe above completely misses the mark of what I've experienced firsthand with the majority of gamers.

I don't believe that deep down gamers are an unhappy lot. But Players Actually Roleplaying... DMs who are Responsible and Powerful? I've only played one of dozens of D&D convention games, at cons far and wide, where I saw both at one table (Some Birthright adventure back at GenCon in 95 or so).

Sure, maybe you and your four friends, and a couple other dudes on the Net, play the game in your own special "Roleplaying matters guys, c'mon! And I'll be responsible, m'kay?" way. But the "Majority of Gamers", which you just love to appeal to authority to, they are NOT playing the way you and your four buddies play. If there's anything I've learned in 20 years of playing the game, You (and me, but that's another story) are in the Minority of D&D players.

There's tens of thousands of enlightened D&Ders between ENWorld, TheRPGSite and RPGNet: Responsible DMs, Players Who Roleplay. But if you think you're playing D&D the way that the majority of the millions of people play, you're fooling yourself.

-Andy

I've never ever met someone who wasn`t practicing character assumption as a technique in D&D or any other game.
I know several RPGA long time players, and their reports do support this.

If what you say is true, german gaming is even more different than I thought.
Hard to believe, to be honest.

And the textual artifacts of D&D lead to a totally different conclusion. KeepotB, for example mentions character assumption several and conflict resolution through roleplay severaltimes.

Quote from: RPGPunditApe, you're wrong about me being a fundamentalist. If I was a fundamentalist, I don't think I'd be running, reading, or owning the number of different games I do. Nor would I be willing to criticize D&D or Wizards the way I often do.

I may have been unclear; I do not consider you a d20 fundamentalist. You are, however, a rather clearly...passionate...adherent of a particular style of gaming, rejecting the very idea that things can be learned from people exploring the border country of the hobby. It's a little crazy, honestly. That you find no value in something - personality mechanics, player input to the setting - does not mean that is without value for everyone, nor does it invalidate something using it as an RPG, any more than introducing pads and helmets ruined the game of hockey.

There are a lot of points I'm with you. Sorceror is a steaming loaf in your slipper first thing in the morning, not helped in the slightest by the requirement to digest thousands of pages of Big Ron Edwards screaming "You just don't get it!" when people tell him his game appears to have been hacked together by a sub-literate tunnel-dweller, and thinking about My Life With Master makes me want to gouge my eyes out. I agree that a strong and fair GM is the second greatest gift to a role-playing session, following only a group of players who bring their 'A' game every damn night; adventure is the point of the game and story is a by-product - my players like to say it's not about "telling" a story, but "discovering" one.

But then you froth, and you overstate, and you basically Ron it up. Somebody didn't enjoy playing D&D? Cite child abuse or some other kind of "damage"! WH40K is going to be sold as three seperate books about intensely segregated categories of adventure-ready characters? The Forge's all-pervasive but totally irrelevant tentacles are rotting the hobby from within! A game doesn't feature total narrative control in the GM's hands? Not even related to role-playing games (despite being a game in which players spend the vast majority of their time playing a role.

Call it gonzo journalism - which near as I can tell is either dead or firmly in the hands of O'Reilly and kin - or whatever you like, but the fact is it doesn't help your case in any realistic way. Maybe a couple people yell a little louder in your favor, but far more people are driven off by the unnecessary tone of the polemic. I don't think you're gonna change one bit in response to this, of course, but since this entire thing got rolling I felt it would be polite to come in and close this off.

QuoteWhat I am is a guy who is really fucking sick and tired of pretentious twats trying to show off how cool or superior they are by what RPGs they play. I was, in fact, sick and tired of that years before the Forge even existed.

Then may I suggest not acting like playing d20 makes you some sort of hot shit? So the game is popular, so's American Idol - correlation is not causation. There's nothing special about being part of the many, any more than there's something special about being part of the few. I love the old school as much as the next guy, but it doesn't make me a better gamer. The fact my players have a fucking blast - and fight for it every step of the way - goes a lot further in that direction. Just run the games and roll the bones, man. As long as good GMs can offer adventure, the hobby will be fine.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd if you wonder why traditional roleplayers despise the Forge players, THIS IS IT. Its because you fuckers think that we don't roleplay.

Oh, you know that "talking past other people" thing you like to do all the time, where someone says "I like strawberries", and you say "YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE!?!?"

You're doing it again. It's be cute if it weren't so retarded.

And sorry, you might say "I'm not a fundamentalist/zealot" all you want. But you talk the talk and walk the walk. You use all the rhetoric, fallacies, hate speech patterns and tones of the Neo-Nazis over at Stormfront, or the speeches of Ann Coulter, or the rantings of Michael Moore.  

If you look like a duck, and quack like a duck, and smell like a big pile of duskshit... sorry, that makes you a goddamned duck.

Quote from: obrynPot, meet kettle.

Complete Absence of Light Found in the Center of a Black Hole, meet kettle." :)

-Andy

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

I prefer the term "shoes for pidgeons" myself.

Quote from: BagpussI prefer the term "shoes for pidgeons" myself.

I made little led shoes for a whole flock of pidgeons. They stayed in my yard forever. They really must've loved them some shoes!

Quote from: beejazzI made little led shoes for a whole flock of pidgeons. They stayed in my yard forever. They really must've loved them some shoes!

Probably! When those LEDs light up, it's a really cool effect, especially at night. I know all little kids love their LED shoes! :D

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniI've never ever met someone who wasn`t practicing character assumption as a technique in D&D.

I'm not sure what you mean by "character assumption", unless you basically mean "playing a character" (or "playing IN character"). We're talking about "Real Role-playing", the actual act of talking, doing things in character.

Y'know, Talk up the elven wench at the tavern. Give a speech defending the peasant in front of the King. Talk two spies down from a gun duel. The GM reacts and changes the scenario accordingly. That sort of thing.

I see lots of people on ENWorld, RPGNet, TheRPGSite, etc doing that very thing, and I'm fucking thrilled.

Then I get into an exclusive d20 game* at a reputable Con, and there's like One "Drama Guy", 2 medium-autistic guys who rock back and forth in their chairs mumbling and holding their dice, only springing to life when it's time to Fight, and the guy who you forget is there because he doesn't say or do a damn thing. Maybe there's a second Drama Guy, but he's tainted because he's a lawncrapper who can't open his mouth half the time without quoting Monty Python, Black Adder or Buffy or whatever. And wash it all down with a DM who will not, can not, deviate from the adventure she/he wrote or was given: "Wow, Great Speech to the Bandits! They still attack you, though."

That's the majority of Real D&D play.

Then again, 300-point scoring bowlers are not the majority of the slack-jawed folks who throw a 36 point game.

I'm basically pointing out the absurdity of engaging in the fallacy of appealing to the majority... especially when that majority simply doesn't exist.

-Andy

* (I use one example here as an amalgam of dozens of games over several years. No, I wasn't burned on one bad table)

Dagnabit! I meant to fix that, but the edit button just ain't workin'!!!

Augh!!!

Ultimate typo: AJDJCDJFjufhdkhfakfADSJFAJFGHafhadfknkhe!!!!

^That was so not angst.

@Andy K: Isn't there a slight chance that con goers are disproportionally Fucktards and Lawncappers who don't get a regular game? I heard there are a lot of those in the USA, because of your high school system.

Seriously, if the gaming majority was like this nothing would help, no hip game ever could save us from those hordes of fucktarded diceheads. Then all would be lost, and the only thing left would be to feel superiour to those idiots.

Which smells a lot like WoD-D&D-hating-Swine-o-ganda.

Add to your data myy data point:

My experiences are totally different from yours.
if anything, there is too much emphasis on character assumption and in-character talk in mainstream german gaming.

Quote from: Andy KI smell someone who's never played D&D at a convention. Conventions are where "Real D&D", "Pure D&D", "D&D to the Letter of the Law", happens (or should happen). I've played in no fewer than 25 D&D sessions over 7 years at GenCon and other cons (including RPGA, which prides itself on being "really true to the rules"). And what you describe above completely misses the mark of what I've experienced firsthand with the majority of gamers.

You're kidding, right??
Conventions are the ass of all RPG places. They're less likely to reflect real use of an RPG than the games that the lawncrappers play at an FLGS.

The real games are the ongoing weekly campaigns people play in their gaming groups, most of the real value of which gets thrown out the window the second you have to make a game for 4 strangers using premade characters within a 3 hour timeframe in a room filled with 2000 screaming people and a guy playing techno music in the anime stand next to your assigned table.
Judging the quality of traditional RPGs by the games of D&D you've played at Cons is like judging the quality of traditional fine dining by your experiences at hot-dog eating contests.

QuoteSure, maybe you and your four friends, and a couple other dudes on the Net, play the game in your own special "Roleplaying matters guys, c'mon! And I'll be responsible, m'kay?" way. But the "Majority of Gamers", which you just love to appeal to authority to, they are NOT playing the way you and your four buddies play. If there's anything I've learned in 20 years of playing the game, You (and me, but that's another story) are in the Minority of D&D players.

Only here I trump you again. I haven't played with 4 dudes my whole career. You see, kid, in the nearly 20 years I've been roleplaying in the course of my world travels I've probably played with somewhere between 200-300 different gamers.  Virtually all of whom played traditional RPGs the way I do.
What you are promoting is the false stereotype of the "retarded D&D player". So go fuck yourself for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Andy KThen I get into an exclusive d20 game* at a reputable Con, and there's like One "Drama Guy", 2 medium-autistic guys who rock back and forth in their chairs mumbling and holding their dice, only springing to life when it's time to Fight, and the guy who you forget is there because he doesn't say or do a damn thing. Maybe there's a second Drama Guy, but he's tainted because he's a lawncrapper who can't open his mouth half the time without quoting Monty Python, Black Adder or Buffy or whatever. And wash it all down with a DM who will not, can not, deviate from the adventure she/he wrote or was given: "Wow, Great Speech to the Bandits! They still attack you, though."

That's the majority of Real D&D play.

You see, that's counter to my experience, too...

I've been playing (mostly gamemastering) various shades of D&D for about 20+ years now, and I've run games or campaigns of Call of Cthulhu, FATE, Earthdawn, Mythus, MERP, Paranoia, and many others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

I will grant that my players roleplay a little more when we're doing something like CoC (yes, believe it or not, the d20 version) or FATE.  It's a minor difference, though, and I think it's more related to rules density during combat than anything else...  Outside of combat, all the games I've ever run or played are pretty even for me.  Maybe over the course of running games for 20 years I've just coincidentally collected great groups of players, but apart from middle school, my players have routinely been excellent and have gotten into roleplaying their characters.

I'll posit that convention gaming is not the end-all, be-all typical game.  I have only seldom played a Con game which has come even close to any game I've ever run.  I don't think this means it's the way real people play D&D.  I think it's the way real people who don't know each other, using characters they've never seen before, with a possibly indifferent GM running a module that's not his play D&D.

-O

Quote from: RPGPundit...most of the real value of which gets thrown out the window the second you have to make a game for 4 strangers using premade characters within a 3 hour timeframe in a room filled with 2000 screaming people and a guy playing techno music in the anime stand next to your assigned table.

All your regular fanatical bullshit aside, you do have a very good point here, echoed by obryn.

-Andy

Wow. That has to be one of the most vicious and false characterizations of how D&D is played that I've ever seen.

I've seen bad players and even the really, really obnoxious players before. I've seen the tragically unhealthy (fat?) guys that were into gaming to their own detriment. We've got a guy out in my area named Howard who is practically banned from every game in town, but he's the exception, not the rule. But I've seen those guys also be the ones who sneer at D&D players. In a few experiences it's been the total losers who have been the most likely to sneer nastily at us mere D&D hobbyists.

Most of the people I've met and observed have been cool guys. Normal guys. And they game in a normal baseline way. They don't jump up on the table and start emoting or moralizing or having psychodrama exercises or anything. But thats fine, because that shit is weird. And when people talk about gamers being weird? Theyre talking about all that stuff. D&D players are- by comparison, pretty low key. For most of us, we're just hobbyists. We generally play weekly with friends, (Con games are the not the rule contrary to your ridiculous statement earlier). We have a good time and we don't agonize about it.

I went to Flickr and I was trying to find some pictures of just regular people playing D&D. I quickly found photos of that 'Go-Play' gameday. I even got a picture of some guys getting together to play indie-dahling Dread:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74537109@N00/170019910/
(Apparently the game was cancelled due to lack of interest. LO...L? But let's not be petty.)

Here's some people getting together for some D&D.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uberwolf/246062314/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhenry/233478739/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckirkman/41386289/

I'm saying the idea that you guys are somehow better people than us is ridiculous, and in the ways that you you keep trying to convince each other that you are superior, your'e simply wrong.

Ummm - Andy, I've played with probably 60 to 80 people as they moved through Boston on their way to a diploma or another job over the 28+ years I've been gaming. All of them were bright, articulate, socially adjusted people who loved to play their characters. None of them were the type of maladjusted social rejects you talk about. Until recently, I'd never even played with anyone who had ever been to a con.

I went to my first con this year - Vericon at Harvard. I ran a game of Cold Space with a group of 9 - 17 or so showed up - bright attractive young people who enjoyed the heck out of playing their pre-genned characters in a 3 hour game at my assigned table. I played my regular game, no-one lost a beat, no-one pissed and moaned, and the game rocked. I was on a GM high for days afterward.

Next year I'm going to GenCon to run a few games. Maybe I'll run into a few catpissmen and lawncrappers, but so far, they are as real to me as Sasquatch.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawWow. That has to be one of the most vicious and false characterizations of how D&D is played that I've ever seen.

Oh, great, another idiot who thinks that somehow my REAL EXPERIENCE IN REAL LIFE over 10 REAL YEARS of REAL ROLEPLAYING at REAL CONS is not only FALSE, but a VICIOUS ATTACK (and are taking it personally).  :eek::eek::eek:

I implied it above when I talked about my personal d20/D&D experience, but let me state it out on the table as cold fact for the people who are going to accuse my REAL EXPERIENCES of being false:

1) All of my gaming of d20 with friends and friends-of-friends has ranged from lukewarm (very rarely) to great to fucking awesome. Normally we drift the hell out of the rules (no encumberance, no tracking of arrows etc, loose on XP, and going around the rules when it gets in the way of real roleplaying. Just like most folks here, I assume).
2) I've been in a few sucky house sessions, usually with some strangers and one friend who I joined. I quickly leave and find another good group. But these are rare so I don't include them in the data to somehow blame d20 for the failures of those DMs or groups.
3) When I attend or see Con games of strangers, it's usually a Lawncrapper herd with a few notable exeptions. But these are the guys who are into the game far more hardcore than you or I are into anything else.
4) My assumption above, after being in and seeing many of these games, is that this is how the majority of games get played.  That may be mistaken. But it's hard to say, "All these thousands of people at the con are all wrong  and play wrong and stuff" without thinking about it more.

Oh, and I'll throw this out there too:
* I've been in lukewarm or shitty Con games that WEREN'T d20, too! :eek: OMIGOD!
I was in shitty games of mainstream games. I've been in shitty indie games. I've been in shitty d20 games, and non-d20.  These days, though, I'm very picky about with whom and what I play (even at Cons), and therefore have more awesome experiences than shitty experiences. But the first few times I was at GenCon it was like throwing darts.

Usually it's because there's more damage in the group than good (bad GM, bad players, etc), and I quickly bail and find a good table.

I didn't bring it up earlier because it didn't really contribute to the discussion. But it's obvious after reading your remarks that some people are under the opinion that my statements about the millions of roleplayers at conventions or public gaming groups == the experience of people who play at home. Not true, and I want to clarify that.  Also, it seems that people are assuming that I'm saying that all my d20 games were shitty, while all my non-d20 games were not shitty. This, too, is false, so I want to clarify that now.

If I don't clarify that, people will go on to say shit like:

QuoteI'm saying the idea that you guys are somehow better people than us is ridiculous, and in the ways that you you keep trying to convince each other that you are superior, your'e simply wrong.

Who here said or implied anything like "we are better than you"?  

It IS a ridiculous idea. And no one has brought it up that idea but you.

Oh, or are you doing that thing that Pundit does, where he makes up shit that 'other people say' (they don't) and levels it against himself, so he can crushingly defend himself against it?

Because that's AWESOME.

EDIT: OK, I was a little rough above. I do see your personal experiences as highly comparable to my own. I was only talking about the majority of gamers I have seen and played with at events all over the country. I didn't mean for my words to mean that "...therefore this (lawncrappers and quasi-autistic powergamers) is how things must be with You and Your d20 Group at Home", and it irritated me that people willingly decived themselves to read that into what I said.

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KOh, great, another idiot who thinks that somehow my REAL EXPERIENCE IN REAL LIFE over 10 REAL YEARS of REAL ROLEPLAYING at REAL CONS is not only FALSE, but a VICIOUS ATTACK (and are taking it personally).  :eek::eek::eek:
-Andy

Your'e disregarding my real life experience, and I think when it comes to D&D, mine trumps yours.

In any case, why shouldn't I take offense when you characterize 'all D&D play' that way? It's insulting.

I mean, I guess it's the same as saying "most of the games coming out of the forge are chiefly enjoyed by race-baiters, date rape advocates and people who have failed at life. BUT DONT TAKE IT PERSONALLY."

Both statements have a bit of truth to them.

Quote from: Andy KIt IS a ridiculous idea. And no one has brought it up that idea but you.

-Andy

Are you sure? I could cherry pick quotes from all kinds of places (including Story-Games) that illustrate this exact attitude. It certainly didn't come from nowhere.

@Andy: There is an important distinction to be made here. At a convention, you're sampling from a broad group, in that those who attend are from all the fuck over the place; but you're also sampling from a very narrow group of hardcore fans... and hardcore fans with enought time and money to devote to a convention. Even which Con you go to makes a big diference. Check out Dragon Con sometime. Not so roleplaying-specific or intense, but highly popular and very laid back. Usually there are very few catpissmen (the local slang being Sailor Bacon... 400lb man dressed up as teenage girl anime character... eugh). If you want a broad sampling, you're better off just living lots of places than attending a Con.

Andy:

Just want to be clear that I wasn't disputing your experiences - after all, I've only been to one con as yet, and a tiny one at that. I was more supporting your experiences with your home group, and trying to assure you that most games are indeed more like your home games, at least in my experience.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn any case, why shouldn't I take offense when you characterize 'all D&D play' that way? It's insulting.

I mean, I guess it's the same as saying "most of the games coming out of the forge are chiefly enjoyed by race-baiters, date rape advocates and people who have failed at life. BUT DONT TAKE IT PERSONALLY."

Both statements have a bit of truth to them.

...er...

OK, it's usually not the "Cock thump the enemy until they submit" way around here to approach a discussion, but yeah: You do have a really solid point there.

There's what I see and all at cons (relayed above), which is empirically invalidable, but I actually DID want to discuss it instead of just waving my manhood about- So with that I really should have tempered it with the equally (or even "more importantly" actually) empirically invalidable claim - and personal proof through experience - that most people who do play d20 that I've known are, almost to a man, great roleplayers and having a great time of the hobby.

Looking back, it wasn't a good methodology for me to use when actually wanting to discuss things with people, and I really do apologize for that comment. Throwing Pundit's own widely-used rhetoric style back in his face isn't my style after all; it's not for me, in the end. Fantatics don't care about collateral damage that hurtful remarks can make (yeah, even "just about games") and in "being Pundit" up there, just like him, I paid no mind to the collateral damage I was spewing on you and others.  

But when the dust clears, I realized that I do, actually, care about the collateral damage that my words can do, and it leaves me a little ill, and a little disappointed in myself.

Yeah, I'll leave the fanaticism to those who can stomach that bullshit, and stick to my own posting/conversational style from now on, I think.

So from me, again, to you Abyssal Maw (and other onlookers who were thinking the same thing as A.M.), I really do apologize for my lopsided characterization and hurtful remarks. Sure, it's just about "a bunch of fucking games" and all, but hey, we all love games, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them during work. I should have been more thoughtful.

-Andy

I apologize as well.

I think that we can probably agree here that it's the quality of the players rather than any innate quality of the game. Bad players/gm equals bad gaming session.
I enjoy a fairly wide assortment of games, and have had differing experiences with all of them depending on who I'm playing with.
There's nothing innately wrong with d20 or whatever the hell else you like, especially if you're enjoying it.
I do understand what Pundit is getting at - it's the unfortunate assumptions that some adherents of a particular style of play makes about those on the other side of the table that can be so vexing; problems with systems themselves usually skew toward personal taste.
For instances, I've had some heinous World of Darkness experiences with pompous, navel-gazing drama queens that were very much not to my liking, and then I've had some fantastic episodes of camaraderie, role-playing and seat of my pants excitement with the exact same system and very different players.  
Same thing with d20, and a lot of the indie darlings. Some stuff - of course - really isn't my cup of tea, and I find them objectionable for some reason or the other, but like the saying goes, "There's no accounting for taste."

PS: very adult of everyone to apologize and make nice. I'm not being sarcastic or anything - it really impresses me when people are civil to each other. It's easy to depersonalize folks on message boards like this. The irony is that most of us - even at our worst times - would probably get along famously in real life.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI went to Flickr and I was trying to find some pictures of just regular people playing D&D. I quickly found photos of that 'Go-Play' gameday. I even got a picture of some guys getting together to play indie-dahling Dread:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74537109@N00/170019910/
(Apparently the game was cancelled due to lack of interest. LO...L? But let's not be petty.)

Here's some people getting together for some D&D.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uberwolf/246062314/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhenry/233478739/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckirkman/41386289/

I'm saying the idea that you guys are somehow better people than us is ridiculous, and in the ways that you you keep trying to convince each other that you are superior, your'e simply wrong.

Hey!  That's me!  Or, well, the third one (account lizhenry) is taken by my wife Liz of games at the kids room at ConQuest SF 2006 last month.  That's our friend's kid Ellen in the center left.  I can't tell which game it was offhand from the picture.  I've got a convention report here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/cons/conquest2006.html

In the kids room, I ran one D&D variant game, and one Faery's Tale game.

Quote from: jhkimHey!  That's me!  Or, well, the third one (account lizhenry) is taken by my wife Liz of games at the kids room at ConQuest SF 2006 last month.  That's our friend's kid Ellen in the center left.  I can't tell which game it was offhand from the picture.  I've got a convention report here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/cons/conquest2006.html

In the kids room, I ran one D&D variant game, and one Faery's Tale game.

Thats very Cool Mr. Kim! I honestly had no idea who I was getting pictures of. I did a Flickr search on 'gamers' and went for pictures of people with a battlemat. :) My point was- we're an incredibly diverse hobby, and (on the whole) a lot more 'normal' than you'd think from these conversations.  

Perpetuating the stereotype is self-destructive.

First thing first, my kudos to everyone for apologizing. As mattormeg said, is really impressive. I have to say that specially of you, Abyssal Maw. I had a very different opinion of you, and I was mistaken. My apologies, too. :)

Answering to the Pundit: Please, stop the cult thing. I'm not impressed by the wisdom of anyone, and I think that is true for most people, indie gamers or not. Ron Edwards says some interesting things, some boring things, and some stupid things, just as any other guy.

The Gygax thing doesn't come from thin air. You can refer to Alarums & Excursions, for example, where all that flame was treated. And frankly, I wouldn't have cared about what Gygax said, the same way I don't care about R. Edwards saying stupid shit about brain damage.

The most damaging statement that I find in your discourse is this:

QuoteAnd if you wonder why traditional roleplayers despise the Forge players, THIS IS IT. Its because you fuckers think that we don't roleplay. You think that you are the ones who've invented the concept, and that we are just a gang of clods who couldn't roleplay to save our life, or that when we say "roleplay" we really mean "dungeon crawling" or "combat", as if that's all we know what to do. You talk to us like we were retarded (and, in fact, have literally said we're brain damaged).

¿See? There's no 'we' and 'you'. I play both indie games and mainstream games. Am I a 'we', a 'you' or what? Man, this is not a war. Try as hard as you can, there is no need to make such a separation and try to create a confrontation that does not exist.

What does it matter if some dude says on Internet that your gaming is wrong? Fuck him! Why are people like you trying to make this become a rift between gamers? Most guys around there can happily play both mainstream and indie games and be very happy with them, they're not enemy soldiers.

There is no a conspiracy of indie gamers trying to go to your house and burn your D&D books. They are not trying to pass a Congress bill to forbid all the games but the indie ones. On the other hand, there is no a chance that any mainstream game becomes the only game available there.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI mean, I guess it's the same as saying "most of the games coming out of the forge are chiefly enjoyed by race-baiters, date rape advocates and people who have failed at life. BUT DONT TAKE IT PERSONALLY."

Both statements have a bit of truth to them.

Hey, guys?  This is how rumors get started.  Let's be careful, huh?

There is no seed of truth to the link between the Forge and either race-baiting or date-rape.  But yeah, if you keep saying it over and over then people will be willing to accept that "Hey, everyone knows that!  And they kill puppies in satanic rituals when they finish a game!" and then anyone who wants to talk about Forge things will have to wade through clearing that crap first, which is just silly.

Even if you dislike everything Forge-influenced folks stand for, there's fair ways to argue against what they actually say.  I'm sure you'd rather do that than be party to spreading baseless slander.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, guys?  This is how rumors get started.  Let's be careful, huh?

There is no seed of truth to the link between the Forge and either race-baiting or date-rape.  But yeah, if you keep saying it over and over then people will be willing to accept that "Hey, everyone knows that!  And they kill puppies in satanic rituals when they finish a game!" and then anyone who wants to talk about Forge things will have to wade through clearing that crap first, which is just silly.

Even if you dislike everything Forge-influenced folks stand for, there's fair ways to argue against what they actually say.  I'm sure you'd rather do that than be party to spreading baseless slander.

Let us discuss baseless slander, then.

Certainly, the idea that you actually advocate date-rape is baseless slander, holding equal validity with the idea that D&D players are socially maladjusted cat-piss men.

See? Baseless slander. Lack of respect all around. Why not? After all, anyone who wants to talk about our side of the hobby already has to wade through the same crap you guys generate constantly. Why shouldn't it be reciprocative? I can personally think of several reason it shouldn't be this way, but I want to hear what you think.

And I disagree- there are several forgies who are dedicated race-baiters who obsess on that exact thing. While the 'date rape advocate' was just being silly, I actually believe that second part was true.



We can discuss that too if you like, but it kinda deserves it's own topic.

Quotethere is no need to make such a separation and try to create a confrontation that does not exist.

My experiences say otherwise.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCertainly, the idea that you actually advocate date-rape is baseless slander, holding equal validity with the idea that D&D players are socially maladjusted cat-piss men.

Uh ... no.  The idea that there is even one Forge advocate who also advocates date-rape has no basis in fact.  The idea that there are maladjusted cat-piss men who play D&D is well established.  Andy met them.  Nobody's claiming that they dominate, simply that they exist ... which they do.  Really not the same thing, y'know?

Quote from: Abyssal MawAfter all, anyone who wants to talk about our side of the hobby already has to wade through the same crap you guys generate constantly. Why shouldn't it be reciprocative?

That's just argument through repetition.  "Forge people pepper arguments with baseless slander all the time ... because I said so!"  Saying it doesn't make it so.  Hearing other people say it, and believing them, doesn't make it so.  But saying it often enough will tend to muddy any possible discussion.  I'd like to think you don't want that.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd I disagree- there are several forgies who are dedicated race-baiters who obsess on that exact thing. While the 'date rape advocate' was just being silly, I actually believe that second part was true.

Again, argument through repetition.  You saying that the Forge has race-baiters doesn't make it true.  It's not true.  I've been on the Forge actively for quite some time, and I don't even know what race people there are, unless I've met them in person.  Sometimes not even then. :)

What is a "race-baiter", anyway? Is it another word for racist or something?

Oh, nevermind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiter)

And to second, I don't recall ever seeing "Race Baiting" by ANYONE in an RPG context, let alone Forgie/d20/other.  Where are people saying these things? Does anyone have a link? I'm curious, as maybe I remember a post or two like that on RPGNet's TANGENCY forum (but that's a Whole Other barrel of monkeys), but not really in talking about RPGs?

-Andy

@Andy: I have the fweeling the race-bate and date-rape thing is referencing to some discussion neither of us two has had on his radar screen. I hope someone can enlighten us.

I'm referring to the "Drow elves are really people in blackface" thing, but to a lesser degree other issues. Nothing to do with either Andy or Tony, but still on the radar.

"In political terms, someone seen as a race baiter views all social, civil, legal, and criminal matters in terms of continuing racial oppression of their respective group and places all discussion of those subjects in those terms.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiter"

QuoteUh ... no. The idea that there is even one Forge advocate who also advocates date-rape has no basis in fact. The idea that there are maladjusted cat-piss men who play D&D is well established.

Exactly, and I totally read online the other day where there was some guy named Tony Lowenbasch from the Forge advocating date rape. Just as well established.

Oh god, I hope this hits google.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw"In political terms, someone seen as a race baiter views all social, civil, legal, and criminal matters in terms of continuing racial oppression of their respective group and places all discussion of those subjects in those terms.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiter"

Also known as Amado.

RPGPundit

QuoteAlso known as Amado.

Pundit! Bad dawg, no insiders without explanation!
Amado is an infamous RPG.Netter, who drew the race card oftentimes, he seems to be a halflatino, and not black as he was implying. If you really care, search Pundit`s Blog for Amado.

Quote from: ImperatorAnswering to the Pundit: Please, stop the cult thing. I'm not impressed by the wisdom of anyone, and I think that is true for most people, indie gamers or not. Ron Edwards says some interesting things, some boring things, and some stupid things, just as any other guy.

I'll gladly "stop the cult thing" the day that the Forge members stop acting like they're in a cult.  Like when Ron Edwards said gamers were brain damaged, and you had half a dozen forgies tripping over themselves in a desperate rush to be the first to cry out "YES YES!! I AM brain damaged!! You have seen the truth about my despicable self yet again o brilliant one!! Your grace is immeasurable!!"

Fuck that. Want to not be called cult members? Stop mistaking Edward's piss for liquid gold.

Quote¿See? There's no 'we' and 'you'. I play both indie games and mainstream games. Am I a 'we', a 'you' or what? Man, this is not a war. Try as hard as you can, there is no need to make such a separation and try to create a confrontation that does not exist.

That's where you're wrong. As long as they're trying to turn my hobby into their story-hobby, it is a war. The forgeites love to play innocent about it, claim persecution even, as they filter into every message board and slowly force all conversation to accept forgespeak-as-truth, and then to accept forge-theories as truth.  They like to claim, as you are here, that traditional gamers are totally unreasonable oafs attacking them for no reason, with one side of their mouth even as the other side cackles about how traditional gamers are inferior brain-damaged child-abused gamers who need to be re-educated for their own good. So fuck that.
This is a war. And theRPGsite is the place where I intend to stand firmly against the influence of Forge-theory and forge-games.  This is one moderator you won't be able to subvert or bribe the way you did the ones of other sites. This is one place the traditional gamer will be able to go to talk about games without being forced to talk in Forgese.

QuoteWhat does it matter if some dude says on Internet that your gaming is wrong? Fuck him! Why are people like you trying to make this become a rift between gamers?

I didn't make that. Ron Edwards made that; like Mark Rein·fucking·Hagen did before him, the moment he said that his type of games were smarter and more artistic and better than other people's games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniPundit! Bad dawg, no insiders without explanation!
Amado is an infamous RPG.Netter, who drew the race card oftentimes, he seems to be a halflatino, and not black as he was implying. If you really care, search Pundit`s Blog for Amado.

To be really fair, I don't think he ever claimed to be black; he did claim to be mexican and to be horribly oppressed for his race, even though the guy looks as white as I do, and definitely not Aztec.

Also, to be fair, it wasn't "oftentimes" that he played the race card, it was ALL the time. There wasn't a thread around that he couldn't turn into an issue about racism, usually accusing all gamers/whitepeople/etc of being racists.

RPGPundit

You will not find Ron furthering this or saying this.

But there are a lot of Forge-Swine who do and act so on the internet.

The war is there, but Ron is not the King-Rat Pundit would love to have. So much easier with a single hateable enemy, than a group of disconnected wankers, who aren't even important in any way...

Basically Pundit, you are pulling a George W.:

You can't single out the terrrorists, so you attack Iraq and get Saddam to pull through the streets.

Well Ron is totally not like a gaming Saddam, not in action nor in private, hope the comparison is taken with the tongue in cheek needed.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm referring to the "Drow elves are really people in blackface" thing, but to a lesser degree other issues. Nothing to do with either Andy or Tony, but still on the radar.

Uh ... what?  First off, if you're talking about the post-GenCon discussion, that thread was about actual people in, y'know, actual blackface.  There were pictures and everything.

But maybe that's not what you're talking about.  Maybe it's a more general question of "Hey, is it cool to have the dark elves be inherently, racially, evil?"  That strikes me as a legitimate discussion of race, not race-baiting.  Race-baiting is, like, "Hey man!  You're firing me!  This is because I'm black, isn't it?  You can't stand to see the black man havin' some power!"

I mean, seriously ... I'm white as a lily, and I find the concept that "White elves are inherently good, and dark elves are inherently evil," uncomfortable enough to be worthy of comment.

Quote from: Abyssal MawExactly, and I totally read online the other day where there was some guy named Tony Lowenbasch from the Forge advocating date rape. Just as well established.

Oh god, I hope this hits google.

Ohhhh ... you're not even keeping up a pretense of being interested in honest discussion any more.  You're out to smear people by any means necessary, even when you know perfectly well that it's a pack of self-serving, vitriolic lies.

Gotcha.

Quote from: TonyLB... even when you know perfectly well that it's a pack of self-serving, vitriolic lies.

Gotcha.

Well, yes. Exactly. I've answered your self-serving vitriolic lies with ones that are absolutely and equally true and verifiable. It's reciprocation.

This is the discourse you wanted, right?

Ok, so back to drow elves:

First of all: they come from norse mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartalfar

Second of all, drow leves have nothing to do with black people.

Where you see "black face" I see someone wearing bodypaint who wanted to be in a costume contest. You brought race in. YOU put it there. Then you condemned the person for an imagined racial wrong. Then you got angry on the behalf of an entire group you don't even belong to.

(http://photos1.blogger.com/img/186/984/200/100_0111.jpg)


There's a term for that.. imagining a racial issue where none exists. What was it again...?

(http://www.skippypodar.net/WebGallery/IncaMan/incaman-trainwreck.jpg)


I'm sorry, but I was dying to use that picture. :p

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, yes. Exactly. I've answered your self-serving vitriolic lies with ones that are absolutely and equally true and verifiable. It's reciprocation.

Hrm?  Which lies of mine would these be?

Would these be when I lied by using Andy as a ventriloquists dummy and making him say that he had played D&D with folks of odious personal habits (which, I assume, you think could NEVER actually happen)?  Or was it something else?

Again ... just because you say that I've lied doesn't make it true.  If you're operating on the old notion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition) that "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," then I hope that people will disappoint you by being a bit more discerning than you expect.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhere you see "black face" I see someone wearing bodypaint who wanted to be in a costume contest. You brought race in. YOU put it there. Then you condemned the person for an imagined racial wrong. Then you got angry on the behalf of an entire group you don't even belong to.

There's a term for that.. imagining a racial issue where none exists. What was it again...?

Dude, you're really, seriously, talking about this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20896.msg216719#msg216719)?  The one where people said, basically, "Wow, given the history of blackface, that made me uncomfortable.  People could get offended," and then folks said "Yeah, but this really isn't a venue for talking about racial politics" and everyone said "Yeah.  Fair 'nuff"?

That's your big race-baiting episode?  LOL. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Abyssal MawOk, so back to drow elves:

First of all: they come from norse mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartalfar

Svartalfar were basically dwarves, not dark-skinned evil elves with white hair.

-O

Quote from: obrynSvartalfar were basically dwarves, not dark-skinned evil elves with white hair.

As "Dock-Alfar", that's what they still are in Nobilis.

Maybe Pokethulhu has Alf-Alfar, cat-eating faeries from OUTER SPACE.

QuoteSvartalfar were basically dwarves, not dark-skinned evil elves with white hair.

Alfs, Elfs, Alben, Elben, Alfen, Elfen, Nachtalben, etc. all
relate to small magical beings.

Dwarf and elf are not easily seperated in germanic mythology.

The Dwarf (small beard, treasure) from the Nibelungen Epic, is called Alberich, which means: King of the Elves (Friedrich means "King of Peace" etc. it's the same root as the old indian "Raja" or latin rex, one of the cornerstones of  indo-germanic language heritage)

Quote from: SettembriniMy experiences say otherwise.

What is the point of talking to you, then? :confused: As I'm only interested in talking about games, gaming and such, and I am not interested in helping anyone to feel like a hero in some imaginary war, I don't think that anything constructive or interesting can come out of a dialogue in which I'm going to find sniping attacks every few posts.

Well, I've answered my own question.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'll gladly "stop the cult thing" the day that the Forge members stop acting like they're in a cult.

I am amazed that you allow other person's behaviour to have such an impact in your own life. Sincerely. The impact on my hobby of Ron Edwards statements have been exactly zero, other than the excellent game that is Sorcerer (IMO).

So, as some members of the Forge (I haven't been at The Forge enough to identify any, or how many of them are) may act that way, you automatically make the assumption that:
(a) the 7224 members of The Forge (at this moment) are all part of the cult, and
(b) they have some occult powers of hobby - subversion, that will melt the gamers' brains (despite the fact that most gamers don't use Internet messageboards, so the indie message will probably be under their radar), and that unholy poweras will in the end cause the police to break into your house, and burn your D&D books, forcing you to play MLWM until you die screaming.

Well, if I accepted that assumptions as true, I would be fucking scared. You better make copies of all your RPG books, just in case.

Quote from: RPGPunditLike when Ron Edwards said gamers were brain damaged, and you had half a dozen forgies tripping over themselves in a desperate rush to be the first to cry out "YES YES!! I AM brain damaged!! You have seen the truth about my despicable self yet again o brilliant one!! Your grace is immeasurable!!"

Like when you say that if a person don't accept D20 as the best game design ever is deluded or probably a Swine. Man, you're a big hypocrite. And on the people crying 'Hallelujah!' and gospel and so... well, what does it matter? If they really think that they were damaged and now they're better, good for them. That is not going to cause WotC to crush, or something. That has an impact only on the lives of that persons, not on yours. But hey, if you're into feeling threatened by other's people behaviour, good for you.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs long as they're trying to turn my hobby into their story-hobby, it is a war. The forgeites love to play innocent about it, claim persecution even, as they filter into every message board and slowly force all conversation to accept forgespeak-as-truth, and then to accept forge-theories as truth.

Those cunning forgeites! Filtering slowly to the top levels of gaming!

Pundit, do you realize that you sound like a friggin' loon? Man, you're the Dan Brown of gaming! There are millions of gamers out there, most of them are not in Internet. Most of them don't go to cons. You make sound the indie publishers as the Illuminati.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Mike Mearls owns and plays several indie games, and thinks quite well of them. They probably have filtered to the top levels of WotC! Oh my god, they probably have killed Mike Mearls and Ryan Dancey, and have put evil clones of them to make the next D&D edition a Narrativist one! Ron Edwards will be the power behind the throne...

...and Vince Baker will become the Prresident of the USA, and ban any non-Forgeite game of the world, invading any country that allow traditional gaming. Spain will be the first.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is a war. And theRPGsite is the place where I intend to stand firmly against the influence of Forge-theory and forge-games.

Man, I'm sure you jerk off every morning thinking of you as a hero, and of this site as El Alamo, or some crap like that. I hear the fapping from here. But you don't need to do that, seriously. There are many other boards that don't care about indie games out there. I think of ENWorld, WotC boards, and many others. You haven't been banned of all that, have you?

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is one moderator you won't be able to subvert or bribe the way you did the ones of other sites.

Please, explain to us how that is done. I'm serious about that. How are moderators in other sites bribed or subverted?

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is one place the traditional gamer will be able to go to talk about games without being forced to talk in Forgese

How exactly are people forced to talk in Forgese? I don't talk in Forgese, and haven't perceived any force trying to make me do so. But maybe my tinfoil hat protects me from the Forge Mental Control Ray.

Please, answer these simple questions.

Quote from: ImperatorMan, I'm sure you jerk off every morning thinking of you as a hero, and of this site as El Alamo, or some crap like that. I hear the fapping from here.

Dude, chill the fuck out.

If Pundit wants to make a board that firmly represents traditional game-play, and builds a theoretical basis for gaming that is grounded in that then COOL!  That's a damn fine goal.

Agree with him or disagree with him on his opinion of the Forge, the goal he's actually espousing sounds unambiguously noble.

And, frankly, even if he were saying that his goal was to destroy the Forge and all who post there, you can't get from there to hero-complex, much less masturbation.

Why would you even go to that sort of groundless ad hominem attack?  Are you unable to meet his arguments in fair, reasoned discourse?

Hi Tony:

You're right, of course, and I was wrong. That was totally pointless and quite childless. I apologize for it.

Quote from: TonyLBWhy would you even go to that sort of groundless ad hominem attack?  Are you unable to meet his arguments in fair, reasoned discourse?

Hey, I thought it was amusing.  It gets the Obryn Stamp of Approval!

This is the fucking Internet.  It's all about the ad-hominem attacks.

-O

I happen to take RPGPundit's essays with a fair bit of salt myselt.  I read them for the rants.  A passionate, well-executed rant may lack subtlety at times.  But boy howdy can it be entertaining.  One thing in favour of the Pundit's style is that he never whines.  Bile, yes.  Vitriol, sure.  Edging on overblown raving, sometimes.  Yet there's usually a cogent point made amid the fire and brimstone.  The sturm und drang just provides some stylistic colour.

Andrew

Quote from: SamarkandI happen to take RPGPundit's essays with a fair bit of salt myselt.  I read them for the rants.  A passionate, well-executed rant may lack subtlety at times.  But boy howdy can it be entertaining.  One thing in favour of the Pundit's style is that he never whines.  Bile, yes.  Vitriol, sure.  Edging on overblown raving, sometimes.  Yet there's usually a cogent point made amid the fire and brimstone.  The sturm und drang just provides some stylistic colour.

Andrew

A good analysis, Andrew.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SamarkandI happen to take RPGPundit's essays with a fair bit of salt myselt.  I read them for the rants.  A passionate, well-executed rant may lack subtlety at times.  But boy howdy can it be entertaining.  One thing in favour of the Pundit's style is that he never whines.  Bile, yes.  Vitriol, sure.  Edging on overblown raving, sometimes.  Yet there's usually a cogent point made amid the fire and brimstone.  The sturm und drang just provides some stylistic colour.

Andrew

I think he can make sense and make some good points when he isn't talking about his deranged conspiracy theories.  For fuck's sake, the RPG industry isn't big or important enough to be subverted.  When he gets going he makes me think of Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory with his eyelids taped back yelling "See!  I was right!  I was right!"

His posts would be a lot more interesting if he'd leave that crap out of them.

The ranting is why I read Pundit's stuff in the first place. He's like the Lewis Black of gaming.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut 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

Oh I assure you from experience, D&D as it is written (and as it has always been written) has no dependence on roleplaying from the players.  You can play through entire campaigns without ever roleplaying your character to any greater degree than one would roleplay the battleship in Monopoly.  My regular group includes such players, and they affect the smooth operation of the rules not one whit.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolOh I assure you from experience, D&D as it is written (and as it has always been written) has no dependence on roleplaying from the players.  You can play through entire campaigns without ever roleplaying your character to any greater degree than one would roleplay the battleship in Monopoly.  My regular group includes such players, and they affect the smooth operation of the rules not one whit.

KoOS

Definitely, that is in fact the core reason why I think it is one of the best rpgs out there even now for introducing newbies.  You can play without roleplaying at all, and so can introduce roleplaying elements as you become comfortable with them.

In all seriousness, I think it's ability to be played as a glorified board game makes it far more accessible to new players than it is generally given credit for.

Quote from: SettembriniOr 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.

This is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolThis is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

KoOS

I think, in fairness, before condemning Clinton for any apparently absurd statements he may have made one should either look at the original context or give him the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton is a good guy, reported comments routinely lose context or tone.  I don't think we should generally draw much from them.

Quote from: BalbinusI think, in fairness, before condemning Clinton for any apparently absurd statements he may have made one should either look at the original context or give him the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton is a good guy, reported comments routinely lose context or tone.  I don't think we should generally draw much from them.

I'm not condemning Clinton, I'm condemning Settembrini.  I don't think Clinton had much to do with anything past the first sentence or two that I quoted, and the last sentence in particular was indefensible tripe.  Nisarg has more than a few cogent points mixed in with the tinfoil hat-worthy raving, but the suggestion that he doesn't consider himself superior to his opponents (real or imagined) is so nonsensical that I have a hard time imagining that Settembrini was serious.  OTOH, he's Prussian and since Prussians are incapable of humour, I can only assume he meant what he typed.

KoOS

KoOS, thanks for the correction, I couldn't make any sense of the quote to be honest which is probably why I got confused.

Quote from: mattormegThe ranting is why I read Pundit's stuff in the first place. He's like the Lewis Black of gaming.

One of my favourite comedians.

RPGPundit

QuoteThis is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

Where is your exact problem with my statement?

It`s totally logical.

There is self-elevation shit.  Whoever fights this, automatically has to self-elevate himself above the self-elevators.

This shall be known henceforth as Pundit`s Paradox.

Quote from: MaddmanI think he can make sense and make some good points when he isn't talking about his deranged conspiracy theories.

    I see that as more an extreme reaction to certain trends he finds damaging to the hobby.  I mean, the Pundit hasn't insinuated that Ron Edwards makes baguettes from the blood of innocent gamers lured into the Forge forums.

    *pause*

     Well, not yet at any rate.

Andrew

Quote from: SamarkandI see that as more an extreme reaction to certain trends he finds damaging to the hobby.  I mean, the Pundit hasn't insinuated that Ron Edwards makes baguettes from the blood of innocent gamers lured into the Forge forums.

    *pause*

     Well, not yet at any rate.

Andrew

Out of curiosity, do you know a good recipe for this? I mean, I've tried a thousand or so times and it always tastes like sawdust.:D

You guys don't seem to understand. You should be viewing what the Pundit writes like an encounter between Kurtz and Willard in Apocalypse Now -


"Are you a gamer or a d20 supporter ?"

"I'm a gamer"

"You are neither - you are SWINE sent by the Forge to deliver the Kool Aid"

The horror, the horror.......:D

As to angst. You know the reason why I think it is so pervasive in RPGs esp in certain games and campaigns is because it is the easiest emotion to roleplay. I mean think about it. It takes very little effort. Also creating angst prone characters are a hell of a lot easier than creating credible characters. This is a long thread and in case this point has been offered - sorry for the repeat.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: beejazzOut of curiosity, do you know a good recipe for this? I mean, I've tried a thousand or so times and it always tastes like sawdust.:D

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times: you need to use less sawdust.

And more blood.

And some paprika.

Quote from: Andy KI smell someone who's never played D&D at a convention. Conventions are where "Real D&D", "Pure D&D", "D&D to the Letter of the Law", happens (or should happen). I've played in no fewer than 25 D&D sessions over 7 years at GenCon and other cons (including RPGA, which prides itself on being "really true to the rules"). And what you describe above completely misses the mark of what I've experienced firsthand with the majority of gamers.

I don't believe that deep down gamers are an unhappy lot. But Players Actually Roleplaying... DMs who are Responsible and Powerful? I've only played one of dozens of D&D convention games, at cons far and wide, where I saw both at one table (Some Birthright adventure back at GenCon in 95 or so).

Sure, maybe you and your four friends, and a couple other dudes on the Net, play the game in your own special "Roleplaying matters guys, c'mon! And I'll be responsible, m'kay?" way. But the "Majority of Gamers", which you just love to appeal to authority to, they are NOT playing the way you and your four buddies play. If there's anything I've learned in 20 years of playing the game, You (and me, but that's another story) are in the Minority of D&D players.

There's tens of thousands of enlightened D&Ders between ENWorld, TheRPGSite and RPGNet: Responsible DMs, Players Who Roleplay. But if you think you're playing D&D the way that the majority of the millions of people play, you're fooling yourself.

-Andy

Hm.

I don't think conventions are representative of the way most people roleplay. I'm a bit astonished that you'd reach that conclusion or base your assumptions about what goes on in people's game rooms on what happens on the convention floor.

They're very different animals across a wide variety of dimensions.

That said, no one can be sure what the "majority of gamers" is like -- we all have our subjective experiences. The generalizations we make usually tell us more about the generalizers than about what might or might not be happening in the real world.

You don't see GM's as being both Responsible and Powerful.

You're not alone in that -- a lot of people believe that. A huge portion of Forge theory and alternative-to-traditional gaming style is predicated on the idea that a powerful GM is *bad* for gaming.

But traditional gaming is by far the most popular form of RPG play.

Overwhelmingly popular.

I know you know that -- but a lot of people dismiss that, so I'll say it again:

"Traditional RPG play is overwhelmingly more popular than alternative styles."

Add up all the players, ever, of Sorcerer, DiTV, MLWM, Nicotine Girls, etc. etc. etc. and put them against any edition of D&D and you'll find order-of-magnitude differences.

There's no way to know what that means, but there's really only a couple of possibilities:

1) Traditional gamers are a miserable, unhappy lot, who choose to play a dysfunctional hobby because they don't know any better

2) Most of them, in fact, enjoy their game and are willing to endure a few puds at conventions (or whatever) as minor annoyances in an over-all functional and fun-delivering system

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).

Anyone who has had *good* experiences with those kinds of games must be an abberation (your theory. I'm one of the 4 guys on the Internet, as well -- and I know the other three... and one of them's not the Pundit...) or delusional (a hugely popular point of view in some circles).

Let me suggest this to you: authority in social settings is not, by its nature, dysfunctional. It's *natural.* The traditional GM role is no more dysfunctional than any other leadership role.

Therefore any *problems* with the GM role are the result of the people involved, not the nature of the system. I think that if you look in detail at examples of problems with Powerful GM's, you'll find that this to be the case.

Cheers,
-E.

You rock, minus E!

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

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.

Quote from: TonyLBThe 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.

Well, this sounds a lot like "he was missunderstood." Actually, he wasn't:

Any claim that gaming (with *any* agenda) can cause lasting physiological damage -- absent evidence -- is *irresponsible* and *intellectually corrupt*

I'd think everyone here would easily agree to this, and be first-in-line to stand up and repudiate it. But if I'm wrong, let's take a step back and look at one of the foundational bits of the theory that says much the same thing.

Anyone reading this is surely going to run out and make their own decision about what theory says and what (most importantly) theorists believe.

They'll probably go to the original GNS essay and on page 5 or so, they'll learn that the most-likely outcome of playing Vampire is "ongoing power struggle."

Now, I'm no huge fan of Vampire. I'm ashamed to confess that during the 90's, while all the cool kids were doing Masquerade LARPS, I was still killing trolls and taking their stuff...

And I'm certain that some people had on-going power struggle in their games.

And I'll even acknowledge that Vampire probably set up some conflicting expectations (see the on-going "story" discussion) with it's "how to roleplay" text (I haven't read the text, but I'll readily believe that it says stuff that could be read as "thou must railroad").

But I'm dead certain anyone who not only failed to resolve any conflicting expectations, but then chose *not to leave* but rather *stayed* in the game and *kept struggling* (i.e. "on-going power struggle") had problems that had nothing to do with the game.

I blame, personally, Goth Metal from bands like Rosetta Stone and Bauhaus. I think its high-frequency sound makes American youth pierce their belly buttons, and the pain of the mutilation can only be expressed as power-struggle in roleplaying games. But this isn't the place for that.

Point is: here's another example of ridiculous theory. Something that I believe any thinking person (who wasn't signing up to be a victim of brain-damage/vampire) who reads that is going to

1) Correctly conclude that GNS is a bit absurd
2) Incorrectly conclude that RPG Theorists agree on that point

I know you can't change GNS -- you're not the author -- but you *can* step up here and say,

"The whole on-going power struggle being caused by Vampire -- in fact, the whole section on what the outcomes of playing Incoherent games are -- is wrong; it's not what I believe, and I reject that as part of the theory I adhere to."

While the brain damage is still floating around, with silence indicating tacit acknowledgement, people doing their own reading are likely to make assumptions you've been eloquently arguing against.

But maybe the essay from years ago is an easier place to start.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusThing 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

Once you strip away the pseudo science, you've got a hypothesis with only annecdotal evidence (kids in someone's class, who apparently can't tell a story...)

Most people wouldn't publish on that.

It's *still* marvelously irresponsible and intellectually corrupt. It's amazingly unsophisticated -- and considering that the theory speaks to *theorists* -- presumably people who are in search of truth -- I'd think it would be rejected outright.

But, of course, it wasn't. The appologists are quick to explain away the offensive language.

If I had someone on my team who was expressing themselves offensively in a way that was really hurting the dialog I wanted to have, I'd vote them off the island.

But then, for me, theory isn't about the *people* or *personalities* involved. It's about the theory itself.

Amazingly, when you boil down *most* RPG theory you get limp tautologies that are either obviously true or obviously weird/wrong (ongoing power struggle caused by Goth Metal, or some such).

Cheers,
-E.

Dammit E, you keep making sense like that and we won't have shit left to talk about anymore.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, 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.

Okay.  I don't know enough of either topic to make sensible judgments on where the idea stands relative to the mainstream.  In fact, I don't even know for sure that it's what Ron thinks (again ... second-hand information), it's just my theory.

Quote from: BalbinusThing 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.

*shrug*  I dunno ... I think the statement that playing a game can impact the way you think about literature, television and movies ... that's pretty interesting.  The fact that story is the common element does make that sort of obvious in hindsight, but if you'd never realized it before I suspect that would be an insight worth picking up.  Not, of course, that you're likely to pick it up amidst all the kerfuffle, but it's there, and it doesn't strike me as boring.  YMMV.

E, the reason I stopped commenting on rpg theory was pretty much that, I view it as so poor by and large as not to merit rebutting.

Not sure how I ended up in this thread actually.

If people find it useful, if it helps them design games or gives them better play then fair enough and I can see why they use it.  That's their business and they're free to do as they wish and all power to them.

For me, like astrology, freudianism or Elliott wave theory I see it as a complex and deep theory that bears little resemblance to anything actually in the world.  The fact a theory is complex, has clever people into it and has had a lot of time spent on it does not sadly give it validity.  If it did, I would be looking at my horoscope before going to work in the morning.

The only reason I sometimes find the theory annoying is that it creeps into discussions which are not theory discussions.  It disrupts communication.  It's like if I went to an astronomy board and people kept bringing up starsigns, I don't care that people believe in astrology but it gets annoying if it keeps getting referenced when we're trying to talk about other stuff.

Tony though clearly marks his theory stuff as that, and I can take it or leave it as I please.  If I find myself getting annoyed at anything then, that's my fault and not his and I have only myself to blame for that situation.  His One Simple Thing threads were very good for that, he labelled what he wanted to talk about and invited you to move on if it wasn't your thing, sometimes it was and I commented, sometimes it wasn't and I moved on as requested.  Tony for me is like Levi that way, if you're in the discussion you're in it knowingly and his use of theory is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: TonyLB*shrug*  I dunno ... I think the statement that playing a game can impact the way you think about literature, television and movies ... that's pretty interesting.  The fact that story is the common element does make that sort of obvious in hindsight, but if you'd never realized it before I suspect that would be an insight worth picking up.  Not, of course, that you're likely to pick it up amidst all the kerfuffle, but it's there, and it doesn't strike me as boring.  YMMV.

Ah, I hadn't picked that bit up, perhaps proving your point that it gets easily lost.

That isn't boring, but I don't think there's any meaningful evidence for it either, except at the most superficial level of impact.

Edit:  Actually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Quote from: -E.If I had someone on my team who was expressing themselves offensively in a way that was really hurting the dialog I wanted to have, I'd vote them off the island.

And you're welcome to do that.  It's not the way I do things, personally.

Quote from: -E.Amazingly, when you boil down *most* RPG theory you get limp tautologies that are either obviously true or obviously weird/wrong (ongoing power struggle caused by Goth Metal, or some such).

I'm actually quite a fan of what I call "Well, duh! Theory" ... things that are obviously true, said in a clear, comprehensible way.  So the idea that when you boil down a theory it turns out to be obvious only strikes me as a problem because you have to do a lot of boiling.  I think it should be obvious.  Do you think it shouldn't?

Quote from: BalbinusE, the reason I stopped commenting on rpg theory was pretty much that, I view it as so poor by and large as not to merit rebutting.

Not sure how I ended up in this thread actually.

If people find it useful, if it helps them design games or gives them better play then fair enough and I can see why they use it.  That's their business and they're free to do as they wish and all power to them.

For me, like astrology, freudianism or Elliott wave theory I see it as a complex and deep theory that bears little resemblance to anything actually in the world.  The fact a theory is complex, has clever people into it and has had a lot of time spent on it does not sadly give it validity.  If it did, I would be looking at my horoscope before going to work in the morning.

The only reason I sometimes find the theory annoying is that it creeps into discussions which are not theory discussions.  It disrupts communication.  It's like if I went to an astronomy board and people kept bringing up starsigns, I don't care that people believe in astrology but it gets annoying if it keeps getting referenced when we're trying to talk about other stuff.

Tony though clearly marks his theory stuff as that, and I can take it or leave it as I please.  If I find myself getting annoyed at anything then, that's my fault and not his and I have only myself to blame for that situation.  His One Simple Thing threads were very good for that, he labelled what he wanted to talk about and invited you to move on if it wasn't your thing, sometimes it was and I commented, sometimes it wasn't and I moved on as requested.  Tony for me is like Levi that way, if you're in the discussion you're in it knowingly and his use of theory is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Most RPG theory is crap because most of it is advocacy or superiority.

It's roleplay v. rollplay for the post White Wolf crowd (the crowd that's *even more elite* that the Wolfers -- if you can imagine such a thing. Like infinity squared, or something).

Because of this, it's *necessary* that the theory *really* (when you strip away the offensive bits and the pseudo science) be empty. After all, it has to be *defensible* -- and therefore GNS theory is worse than inaccurate. It's *dull*

This, by the way, also explains *why* the GNS threads generate so much attention, while other theory threads drop into oblivion: there's an emotional component to GNS (largely superiority). You can't use AGE to talk about what neanderthals White Wolf players are. You can't use it prove your games are *better* than the others.

Thus, little interest.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

There's a lot of interesting places theory can go. So long as the loudest voices are primarily interested in advocacy and superiority, it's not likely to go there. It's largely up to the folks talking theory to manage this. Until we're past crap like the Brain Damage, getting any real dialog is going to be difficult.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Most RPG theory is crap because most of it is advocacy or superiority.

Y'know, I hear a lot of people saying that, but it's not what I find looking at the theory.  Again, we may be seeing different things because we look at the same evidence from a different context:  what we expect to see flavors what we emphasize and what we gloss over, in perceiving things.

To my mind, most theory is useful little snippets like "Hey, y'know, there's a difference between saying things for your character, like "I raise my arm..." and saying things for the world, like "... and grasp the stein of beer that the bartender hands me," and people make up different unspoken rules in their groups about how far players can go in different categories."

To your mind, I gather, most theory is ivory tower self-aggrandizement without reference to any actual craft or play.

As with many things, I hope that people look at the actual evidence and make up their own minds, rather than taking the second-hand recaps provided by either of us.

Quote from: BalbinusEdit:  Actually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Sounds good.  I'll work up a thread starter when I have my thoughts pulled together a bit more.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you're welcome to do that.  It's not the way I do things, personally.

I hope it's reasonably clear where I stand. I assume that if you were unhappy with the kind of dialog the theory generates, you'd do something to change it.

You could, for example, repudiate the whole Vampire/power struggle thing, like I invited you to without voting *anyone* off the island.

You could go on-record as saying that making diagnosis of harm, absent evidence, is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt.

I assume you believe both of these things. All I'm asking you to do is stand up and say it plainly, without caveats or back doors.

You might not change the dialog all by yourself, but it would be a start, and I'd welcome it.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm actually quite a fan of what I call "Well, duh! Theory" ... things that are obviously true, said in a clear, comprehensible way.  So the idea that when you boil down a theory it turns out to be obvious only strikes me as a problem because you have to do a lot of boiling.  I think it should be obvious.  Do you think it shouldn't?

I don't have any problem with simple theory; my criticism of GNS theory is that it says so little that it's devoid of insight.

Or, where it says something, it's weird/wrong.

My problem with GNS isnt' that it's simple -- it's that it's not useful.

You can't use it to diagnose play
You can't use it do design a game
You can't use it to communicate your gaming preferences
You can't use it to assess a game

It provides a set of lables (Incoherence, Force, Narrativist, etc.) but with definitions so poor that it's impossible to use them in practice -- so people who do use them are inevitably applying them based on their completely subjective preferences.

They're no more meaningful than lables like "Good" or "Bad"

GNS's theories about what people like in games are even worse -- the agendas themselves are not defined (Sim, especially, but as Sim collapses, it takes down Nar as well), and the idea that they're so different there's no intersection is bizzarro... the stuff about the Impossible Thing and Incoherence are even worse.

Theory can be simple -- simple theory can be good... but GNS is the worst of both worlds: it's apparent complexity hides an empty center.

As far as I can tell, it's only practical application is to piss off Jeff Dee ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorWhat is the point of talking to you, then? :confused: As I'm only interested in talking about games, gaming and such, and I am not interested in helping anyone to feel like a hero in some imaginary war...

Now I'm confused as that seems the be a large majority of the subject matter of games and gaming.

Bagpuss:
You are spot on.

Quote from: BagpussNow I'm confused as that seems the be a large majority of the subject matter of games and gaming.

Good point ;)

Quote from: -E.I hope it's reasonably clear where I stand. I assume that if you were unhappy with the kind of dialog the theory generates, you'd do something to change it.

Well, c'mon ... that's not all you assume.  :)   You also assume that if I did something to change it, that thing that I did would be one of the things you've listed, or a close cousin.

Phrasing it in that way, "If you really cared you'd do what I want you to, so since you're not doing what I want you to you must not really care," is a trifle leading.  I don't really expect that you're doing that consciously, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing it out for you to think about.

It is, after all, possible that I am trying to change the dialogue on these topics in ways that aren't immediately apparent to you.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, c'mon ... that's not all you assume.  :)   You also assume that if I did something to change it, that thing that I did would be one of the things you've listed, or a close cousin.

Phrasing it in that way, "If you really cared you'd do what I want you to, so since you're not doing what I want you to you must not really care," is a trifle leading.  I don't really expect that you're doing that consciously, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing it out for you to think about.

It is, after all, possible that I am trying to change the dialogue on these topics in ways that aren't immediately apparent to you.

Well, it sounds like you agree with the theory behind the Brain Damage in its mildest form -- but I'd still think you'd expect evidence before accepting the claim that people have been *damaged* in some way.

I can't think of any reason not to speak out against it on those grounds ("It's completely irresponsible to claim games cause damage without some kind of evidence").

Even if you're not convinced it would help, why not give it a shot based on my recommendation?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Well, it sounds like you agree with the theory behind the Brain Damage in its mildest form -- but I'd still think you'd expect evidence before accepting the claim that people have been *damaged* in some way.

As I tried to explain here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2089&p=32710), my disagreement isn't one of evidence (I personally think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that playing these games can train people into habits that are bad for other types of story-telling) but of definition.  I don't contest what the games do to people's habits.  I do contest whether that constitutes damage.

It is not irresponsible for Ron to feel more strongly than I do about how closely linked story-telling is to the fundamentals of human character (EDIT:  If, indeed, that's even what he thinks ... only my theory, remember).  To say that it is would be dishonest of me.

Quote from: -E.Even if you're not convinced it would help, why not give it a shot based on my recommendation?

On the contrary, I am completely convinced that making such a statement would do wonders for building bridges with folks who have been offended by the whole kerfuffle.  But I think it would be an unfair slam against Ron, and a lie on my part.  As eager as I am to foster happier relations, I don't want to violate my own standards in order to do so.

Quote from: TonyLBAs I tried to explain here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=32710), my disagreement isn't one of evidence (I personally think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that playing these games can train people into habits that are bad for other types of story-telling) but of definition.  I don't contest what the games do to people's habits.  I do contest whether that constitutes damage.

It is not irresponsible for Ron to feel more strongly than I do about how closely linked story-telling is to the fundamentals of human character (EDIT:  If, indeed, that's even what he thinks ... only my theory, remember).  To say that it is would be dishonest of me.

On the contrary, I am completely convinced that making such a statement would do wonders for building bridges with folks who have been offended by the whole kerfuffle.  But I think it would be an unfair slam against Ron, and a lie on my part.  As eager as I am to foster happier relations, I don't want to violate my own standards in order to do so.

At least that makes everything more clear -- I'd ask you to link to evidence beyond highly biased annecdotal data (i.e. evidence that would convincing to someone who didn't accept the theory on face value), but I assume no such evidence exists.

I'll also state that, absence such evidence, it *is* irresponsible to go around claiming games cause damage -- just as I find it irresponsible when people blame Colombine on Doom or whatever (clearly Goth Metal is a different animal... ;) )

And finally: I don't see how this would be a slam against *anybody* -- are you making the theoretical personal?

Isn't it possible to disagree with a theory without that being a personal attack on the theorist?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Isn't it possible to disagree with a theory without that being a personal attack on the theorist?

Well, if you ask him to say that this or that is irresponsible to say, then you're asking TonyLB to make a judgement on the person who says that. That could be (or not) a personal attack.

Quote from: BalbinusActually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2174).  I suspect we'll end up having a lot less to disagree about than you might think.  Sorry :(

Quote from: -E.You could go on-record as saying that making diagnosis of harm, absent evidence, is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt.

One of my fomer grandmothers-in-law believes that eating too much cheese can give you worms, that much stomach trouble comes from worms, and that the proper way to get rid of them is, once a week, to down a big old glass of apple vinegar.

This particular weirdness of hers is not true.

I wouldn't decide to stand up and call her irresponsible and intellectually bankupt, though.  She's a neat old lady, with lots of cool stories and stuff; I can just set her oddities aside when we interact.

Because, see, that's something people do when they want to get along.  They tolerate what they consider each other's weirdnesses, at least a little.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOne of my fomer grandmothers-in-law believes that eating too much cheese can give you worms, that much stomach trouble comes from worms, and that the proper way to get rid of them is, once a week, to down a big old glass of apple vinegar.

This particular weirdness of hers is not true.

I wouldn't decide to stand up and call her irresponsible and intellectually bankupt, though.  She's a neat old lady, with lots of cool stories and stuff; I can just set her oddities aside when we interact.

Because, see, that's something people do when they want to get along.  They tolerate what they consider each other's weirdnesses, at least a little.

I assume that little oddity of her's isn't expressed in a highly offensive way. I also assume that it's not upsetting any dialog you regularly participate in.

In other words -- it doesn't bother you, so there's no need to address it or distance yourself from it.

If you're perfectly happy with the RPG Theory dialog and see no negative influence from the Brain Damage discussion then there's no reason to further bring it up.

I, myself, was rather pleased to see the Brain Damage -- I thought it was bracingly honest compared to earlier discussions about "projecting" and "not understanding" what the theory said.

I wouldn't have it any other way... but there are a lot of people who feel it needlessly poisons and upsets things. There are people who feel like theorists get persecuted and shut down -- I think stuff like the Brain Damage is part of that, and I think a solution to that problem is to reject it.

If that's not your problem, then no solution is indicated.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorWell, if you ask him to say that this or that is irresponsible to say, then you're asking TonyLB to make a judgement on the person who says that. That could be (or not) a personal attack.

An irresponsible theory doesn't necessarily make for an irresponsible person -- a person can disown, reject, or ammend their theories.

I'm not asking him to name names. I'm not asking him to point fingers (at people). I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.An irresponsible theory doesn't necessarily make for an irresponsible person -- a person can disown, reject, or ammend their theories.

I'm not asking him to name names. I'm not asking him to point fingers (at people). I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

To be honest, I disagree with that, I think it's fuckwitted but I don't really see how it's irresponsible.

See, now I would agree with "fuckwitted", but I might save "irresponsible" if someone like the Surgeon General said it.  What's like one step short of "irresponsible" on the accountability scale?  "Reckless"?  (And yeah, I'm just playing with semantics for fun). :)

Quote from: -E.I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

Dude. You don't need to ask me for that. I've said before that the Brain Damage thing was a stupid thing to say, and a stupid thing that doesn't help anyone to get a better understanding of whatever point Ron Edwards was trying to say. So yes, saying that games cause you brain damage, or equating some bad gaming experiences due to dysfunctional dynamics to being molested in your childhood, is stupid. Irresponsible? I feel that to claim irresponsibility the person must be responsible for something, due to his position as... I don't know... medical eminence, or Surgeon General, or whatnot. Ron Edwards is just some random guy that said some fuckwitted thing, is not the fucking Pope or the President of the U.S.

Quote from: BalbinusTo be honest, I disagree with that, I think it's fuckwitted but I don't really see how it's irresponsible.

I think fuckwitted is probably a better phrase than irresponsible -- but I wouldn't ask someone to swear.

Fuckwitted, it is then. ;)
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorDude. You don't need to ask me for that. I've said before that the Brain Damage thing was a stupid thing to say, and a stupid thing that doesn't help anyone to get a better understanding of whatever point Ron Edwards was trying to say. So yes, saying that games cause you brain damage, or equating some bad gaming experiences due to dysfunctional dynamics to being molested in your childhood, is stupid. Irresponsible? I feel that to claim irresponsibility the person must be responsible for something, due to his position as... I don't know... medical eminence, or Surgeon General, or whatnot. Ron Edwards is just some random guy that said some fuckwitted thing, is not the fucking Pope or the President of the U.S.

I think we all bear responsibility for what we say -- and we bear responsibility to present our qualifications correctly.

I'm not a doctor. It's irresponsible for me to be handing out medical diagnosis.

I lack evidence -- it's irresponsible for me to claim something cause harm.

But you raise a good point about the source: a lot of people in the gaming world probably *don't* care what Edwards does to his own reputation or the reputation of his theory or his board.

Certainly some do.

If I *wanted* a productive dialog around GNS or RPG theory in general, and I felt he had materially damaged that -- because of who he is in that community (the author of GNS) -- I'd be pretty upset and I'd consider his statements (although possibly not the person) irresponsible.

Since you see him as some random internet guy and (maybe?) don't care so much how Internet RPG Theory discussion goes, maybe it makes sense not see it as irresponsible.

I read Tony as someone who does care, is interested in this stuff, and is probably having less fun in these discussions because of stuff like the Brain Damage.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I read Tony as someone who does care, is interested in this stuff, and is probably having less fun in these discussions because of stuff like the Brain Damage.

Cheers,
-E.

Possibly, but I doubt somehow it would improve his fun to get into it further in this way.

Emphasis mine:

Quote from: -E.If I *wanted* a productive dialog around GNS or RPG theory in general, and I felt he had materially damaged that -- because of who he is in that community (the author of GNS) -- I'd be pretty upset and I'd consider his statements (although possibly not the person) irresponsible.

I don't think that Ron has materially damaged my ability to have a productive discussion about RPG theory.  So far as I can see, what's damaged that is people that feel the need to wander into threads that aren't about him or his views, and threadjack them into being about that.  They did it before they had "brain damage" as a convenient byline.  They'll always be doing it.

Quote from: BalbinusPossibly, but I doubt somehow it would improve his fun to get into it further in this way.

It's along the lines of separating Tony-theory from GNS-theory.

Yes, GNS says -- and will continue to say -- Brain Damage until someone with the authority to do so changes it.

But Tony's got lots to say that doesn't rely on GNS. Explicitly separating his body of work from GNS is a way to not-inherit the poisonous influence of brain damage and power struggle.

If Tony were coming from a completely *different* direction (like, say, Kuma's theory), it wouldn't be a problem. Kuma's not associated with GNS theory. He doesn't carry that baggage. Levi, also.

But I don't see that significant difference, and in fact, I believe Tony's a charter member of the Big Agenda club or some-such; he's chosen to be associated with GNS and the Forge.

So I'm recommending creating a firewall between the stuff he agrees with and the stuff he doesn't.

I will note that he seems to agree with some of the things Ron has said; if that's true then there's no problem: If I walk into a room with offensive theories, I should expect vigorous and energetic discussion.

Cheers,
-E.

I'm not sure GNS does say brain damage.

I know Ron created GNS and Ron said brain damage, but once authored it ceases to be entirely his.

I don't agree with GNS, I think it's wrong to put it plainly, but I regularly chat with guys into it and I don't think most of them see brain damage as part of the theory.

It may always have been there for Ron, it may be a new thing, but I think it is quite possible for someone to be entirely persuaded by GNS and still think the brain damage thing is nonsense.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEmphasis mine:



I don't think that Ron has materially damaged my ability to have a productive discussion about RPG theory.  So far as I can see, what's damaged that is people that feel the need to wander into threads that aren't about him or his views, and threadjack them into being about that.  They did it before they had "brain damage" as a convenient byline.  They'll always be doing it.

Perhaps -- but I think very often the door gets opened to topics like the Brain Damage because the theorists bring them in.

Take this thread for example: my first post here doesn't reference brain damage at all. It addresses the assumption that Powerful and Responsible GMs are vanishingly rare.

This does, in fact, appear to be what a good deal of GNS Theory presupposes.

Tony's response (I paraphrase) is that those offensive views are marginal parts of the theory -- not what the (moderate) majority of theorists believe. He hopes people won't draw conclusions about theorists believe based on second hand sources.

I agree with him -- and point out that, as a theorist, here, in the flesh, he could clear up some of the infamous bits of the theory.

If he wasn't concerned about how theorists are preceived this would never have come up.

If he hadn't pointed out that the loonies are really the fringe group, this would never have come up.

It was brought up as a direct result of him leading the conversation in this direction.

This is actually *common* -- when you're talking GNS theory, you have to ignore huge parts of it to stay away from the brain-damage/power-struggle type stuff.

When those parts don't get ignored, someone defending the theory will inevitably say,

"You don't understand it."
or
"It doesn't say that"

Followed by posting with links, footnotes, and references to key theorists saying exactly those things in plain english, and standing by them.

This, in turn, is followed by cries of anquish and reports to the moderators. Apparently the people accused of "not understanding" the theory should have simply gone away rather than reference the ugly parts.

The way to avoid this is simple: don't talk about a theory that says wildly offensive things that until it stops saying that... or embrace those offensive things and proclaim them loudly from the rooftops (and deal with the consequences -- contraversy).

Since many folks aren't willing to wholesale re-do the theory as you have, I'm suggesting that they fire-wall themselves off from the stuff they don't want to talk about.

If Tony *doesn't* believe incoherent games cause on-going powerstruggle, he could say that, simply, and this part of the thread would have been 4 posts. It would also have been a shining example of how not all theorists believe the ugly stuff -- which was Tony's original point.

As it is... it might not work for that so well.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm not sure GNS does say brain damage.

I know Ron created GNS and Ron said brain damage, but once authored it ceases to be entirely his.

I don't agree with GNS, I think it's wrong to put it plainly, but I regularly chat with guys into it and I don't think most of them see brain damage as part of the theory.

It may always have been there for Ron, it may be a new thing, but I think it is quite possible for someone to be entirely persuaded by GNS and still think the brain damage thing is nonsense.

I go back to the first GNS essay -- it says that people who play incoherent games most likely get on-going power struggle.

People who play games with a Nar agenda get it even worse.

The essays decline to specify what 'even worse' is (I'm paraphrasing -- but I'm not making this up wholesale).

The ideas are all there: the *game* causes some kind of non-transient dysfunction. People with a certain agenda are especially effected by it.

Further terms or metaphors for abuse, co-dependence, and disease are found  scattered throughout the dialog (I can look some of these up -- I did this earlier in another discussion).

Most of the pre-brain-damage GNS discussion didn't come right and and say "brain damage" of course -- but if you leave out the ideas of agendas with no intersection and the need for agenda coherence to produce non-power struggle play, what are you left with?

A bunch of terms from rgfa theory (Social Contract, Stances, etc.) and the three-fold GM decision-making critera.

Even today -- after the shutting down of the theory threads -- it's clear that a lot of people who regularly read theory and participate in theory discussions don't understand GNS terms and how to apply them, requiring Ron to explain again and again.

Until there's another authority -- someone else who can make or clarify definitions -- it's his theory.

Let me put it this way: If I said, "GNS says X" and I *didn't* have a quote from Ron to back him up, would anyone accept that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Even today -- after the shutting down of the theory threads -- it's clear that a lot of people who regularly read theory and participate in theory discussions don't understand GNS terms and how to apply them, requiring Ron to explain again and again.

I don't think that's an authority issue, I think that's because the theory is fundamentally incoherent and doesn't hang together, but that's a slight tangent.

No pun intended with the use of the word incoherent there.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think that's an authority issue, I think that's because the theory is fundamentally incoherent and doesn't hang together, but that's a slight tangent.

No pun intended with the use of the word incoherent there.

Well, yeah. But not everyone would agree with you -- to them, it must say something meaningful... but when they try to apply it, it falls apart.

So what do they do? They ask the community and people flail around until Ron steps in.

This, to me, suggests that no one else is able to really, authoritatively, define what GNS is or isn't.

Let's look at the current discussion: I say "brain damage is a formal part of GNS."

You disagree.

How could we possibly decide who was right? Who could tell us whether or not Brain Damage is a formal part of GNS? Anyone on these boards could throw in their 2 cents, but unless it came from Ron, I don't think I'd trust it.

Another example: Ron wrote the Sim essay (the right to dream). Later he writes a post explaining that that essay is deprircated; the definition of Sim changed.

The essay's still there. People still point to it. But the author has moved on.

So what does "GNS" say? Does formal GNS still point to the essay? Or should formal GNS consider Sim to have changed?

It's clear to me that I would reference the latest announcements on the definition of Sim from the author. I wouldn't continue to trust the essay... but you might have a different opinion -- I'd like to hear it.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: I'm sure you meant incoherence in the nicest possible sense -- like ambient light, right?

Quote from: -E.Perhaps -- but I think very often the door gets opened to topics like the Brain Damage because the theorists bring them in.

Take this thread for example: my first post here doesn't reference brain damage at all. It addresses the assumption that Powerful and Responsible GMs are vanishingly rare.

This does, in fact, appear to be what a good deal of GNS Theory presupposes.

Tony's response (I paraphrase) is that those offensive views are marginal parts of the theory -- not what the (moderate) majority of theorists believe. He hopes people won't draw conclusions about theorists believe based on second hand sources.

I agree with him -- and point out that, as a theorist, here, in the flesh, he could clear up some of the infamous bits of the theory.

If he wasn't concerned about how theorists are preceived this would never have come up.

Wow, that's ... that's an interesting chain of reasoning.

Okay, linky time.  Here's (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32575&postcount=139) the link where you first brought up Brain Damage.

Your claim, if I understand it, is that you didn't open that door ... I opened it, wide and inviting, and you just walked through all innocent-like.  Not your fault at all.  Entirely my fault.

So tell me ... other than being a theorist, what is it that I did that made Brain Damage the necessary topic of the day?

EDIT:  Fixed the link.  Whoops!

You guys are wasting your time. I already shot down GNS back when I wrote a Socratic Dialogue (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html) on it. The essence of the shootdown lies in the fact that Uncle Ronny says we're brain-damaged; this invalidates GNS. His observation is that many of us are miserable and don't know it; such delusions require brain damage.

I am saying that his observations are incorrect. Most of us are not miserable, and would know it if we were.

This, more or less, is the scientific method:

• Be bewildered by information.
• Make hypothesis to explain the information.
• Conduct experiments and collect more information to confirm or toss aside hypothesis.
• If hypothesis appears from the information gathered to be broadly correct, develop it further into a full theory.
• Return to (3)

Now, I realise he makes no real claim to being scientific (though he does seem keen to tell us about his biology degree). However, this scientific process is a good and reasonable way of approaching a problem. We don't have to be as rigorous as a doctoral thesis, we can paint in broad strokes, that's okay. But there should be something vaguely resembling this process.

When developing a theory about how people roleplay, the "data gathered" will be watching and asking them how they roleplay.

But he has not watched many groups. So that leaves asking people. And he says that when he asks people, they give him wrong answers. After all, they are brain-damaged.

If my measuring stick doesn't measure properly, I cannot draw useful conclusions from its measurements. Likewise, if roleplayers are unable to report accurately what they enjoy, then I cannot draw useful conclusions about the way they roleplay from their reports.

• If what roleplayers say about their roleplaying is correct, then GNS is wrong, because it doesn't match what they say.
• If what roleplayers say about their roleplaying is not correct, then GNS is wrong because it's based on nothing, on made-up data.
• If GNS is a correct theory despite wrong data from roleplayers, then Ron Edwards has more insight into roleplaying than many roleplayers. One man is right, and many are wrong.
• It is more likely that one man is wrong than many are wrong. It is more likely that one person will have warped perceptions, than that many people will have warped perceptions.

So if GNS is correct, then roleplayers are brain-damaged. But if roleplayers are brain-damaged, then they cannot report their experiences properly, so the reports on which GNS is based are false. Therefore, GNS is false.

There, that's GNS dealt with. Now you need a new theory to discuss. Let's play Theory Wars (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/8413.html)!

You start the PbP.  I'll be statting up a character.

Quote from: TonyLBWow, that's ... that's an interesting chain of reasoning.

Okay, linky time.  Here's (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32575&postcount=139) the link where you first brought up Brain Damage.

Your claim, if I understand it, is that you didn't open that door ... I opened it, wide and inviting, and you just walked through all innocent-like.  Not your fault at all.  Entirely my fault.

So tell me ... other than being a theorist, what is it that I did that made Brain Damage the necessary topic of the day?

EDIT:  Fixed the link.  Whoops!

The post you link to is a response to your post, where you state:

Quote...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.

You also expressed concern about people just flat-out believing either of our characterizations, and hoped that people would find first-hand sources.

I'm down with that; I offered what I thought would be a great opportunity:

One of the most visible bits of the Crazy Stuff, of course, is the Brain Damage -- and a first-hand source of a theorist on TheRPGSite disavowing that kind of thing seemed like exactly the sort of reference you (and I -- I'm with you on this) were hoping that people would look to when evaluating the theory community.

This stuff really doesn't come up unless you bring it up; your concern that people base their assessment of "what theory says" from first-hand theorists' opinions points directly to the next post:

I agree. So what *is* your opinion?

Why'd I choose the Brian Damage? Because I honestly thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to reach agreement on... that was supposed to be a 'soft ball.'

Shows what I know ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou guys are wasting your time. I already shot down GNS back when I wrote a Socratic Dialogue (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html) on it.

I am at a loss for words. The dialog is funny. Theory Wars is brilliant.

Bravo!
-E.

Quote from: fonkaygarryYou start the PbP.  I'll be statting up a character.

Done (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=33044). Even made the first post!

Quote from: -E.One of the most visible bits of the Crazy Stuff, of course, is the Brain Damage -- and a first-hand source of a theorist on TheRPGSite disavowing that kind of thing seemed like exactly the sort of reference you (and I -- I'm with you on this) were hoping that people would look to when evaluating the theory community.

That is, by definition, second-hand source.  That's not a theorist talking about theory.  It is a theorist talking about a theorist talking about theory.

Or, to be more accurate, it is a theorist talking about non-theorists talking about a theorist talking about theory.

I cannot even begin to describe to you how different asking about that dreck is from asking me about what my opinions are on actual theory.

Quote from: -E.This stuff really doesn't come up unless you bring it up; your concern that people base their assessment of "what theory says" from first-hand theorists' opinions points directly to the next post:

I agree. So what *is* your opinion?

You have not asked me a theory question.  Here are some questions I have answered, nonetheless:

Do I think that game-play can cause brain-damage:  No, I do not. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32710&postcount=147)
Do I think that game-play can make you less able to tell a traditional story:  Yes, I do. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2174)

Have you got any questions about theory that I haven't already fielded in excruciating detail?  Or are you only asking me to talk about my second-hand interpretation of what other people have said?

I totally brought up the question of what I think of RPG Theory.  I'm happy to answer any question in that territory.

But I was actively speaking out against the very sort of second-hand discussion that you're continuing to hammer away at some forty posts later.  There is no sensible way for you to construe "I don't think there's much point to me talking about other people's opinions, you should listen to them talk about their own opinions" as meaning "I insist that we all talk about other people's opinions, in the interest of productive dialogue!"

I didn't bring it up.  Why on earth would I?  You brought it up, and you excused it by arguing (basically) that the topic is always fair game when talking to any theorist, on any subject.

Quote from: TonyLBThat is, by definition, second-hand source.  That's not a theorist talking about theory.  It is a theorist talking about a theorist talking about theory.

Or, to be more accurate, it is a theorist talking about non-theorists talking about a theorist talking about theory.

I cannot even begin to describe to you how different asking about that dreck is from asking me about what my opinions are on actual theory.

You have not asked me a theory question.  Here are some questions I have answered, nonetheless:

Do I think that game-play can cause brain-damage:  No, I do not. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32710&postcount=147)
Do I think that game-play can make you less able to tell a traditional story:  Yes, I do. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2174)

Have you got any questions about theory that I haven't already fielded in excruciating detail?  Or are you only asking me to talk about my second-hand interpretation of what other people have said?

I totally brought up the question of what I think of RPG Theory.  I'm happy to answer any question in that territory.

But I was actively speaking out against the very sort of second-hand discussion that you're continuing to hammer away at some forty posts later.  There is no sensible way for you to construe "I don't think there's much point to me talking about other people's opinions, you should listen to them talk about their own opinions" as meaning "I insist that we all talk about other people's opinions, in the interest of productive dialogue!"

I didn't bring it up.  Why on earth would I?  You brought it up, and you excused it by arguing (basically) that the topic is always fair game when talking to any theorist, on any subject.

Hmm... I still think you're missreading me. I didn't argue that the topic is always fair game under any circumstances.

I brought it in specifically because you brought up "crazy stuff" theorists say.

If I read your response to me (your first one) correctly, you're saying you hope that people ignore both your and my articulation of what theorists believe, perhaps because we're biased, and make their own decisions based on the primary-source words of those theorists.

And I agree with that.

See what you're brinigng to the conversation?

1) Crazy stuff some theorists say
2) Your belief that those voices are marginal; that is, most theorists don't believe that "crazy stuff"
2) The suggestion that observers turn to primary sources (i.e. actual theorists) when evaluating whether RPG theory as a whole believes "the crazy stuff"

That focus, those words, that context doesn't appear anywhere in my post.

It's not what I came here to talk about. It's a discussion of general theory and how one might make a decision about "what theory says."

I would have been happy to talk about exactly *why* I think GNS RPG theory believes that powerful and responsible GMs are rare, but that wasn't the discussion you wanted to have -- in fact, it was the one you suggested we *couldn't* have:

Your post suggests that both of us are so biased that observers should discount what we're saying.

But you're a theorist -- aren't you? Discounting's not necessary; I can point to some crazy stuff (perhaps the craziest) and say, "Hey -- do you, speaking as a theorist, believe that?"

We can, in fact, have the dicussion you've established as *necessary* right here, right now. No linking and searching involved.

And I expected a, "No. I do not. Here, on the screen, is Exibit A for my contention that most theorists don't believe the crazy stuff."

If you didn't want to have a discussion about "what theorists believe" and "crazy stuff" why bring it in?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.But you're a theorist -- aren't you? Discounting's not necessary; I can point to some crazy stuff (perhaps the craziest) and say, "Hey -- do you, speaking as a theorist, believe that?"

Right.  And as I point out, I've answered that question.  That wasn't the end of it though, was it?  No ... then you kept asking "Well, do you repudiate statements X, Y and Z that you disagree with?  Do you feel that they are fundamentally irresponsible?  What do you feel about what other people have said, and how do you justify feeling that way?"

As I said, I am perfectly willing to talk about whether I, personally, believe that roleplaying causes brain damage.  I don't believe that, for all the reasons I've outlined.

We do not have to have any second-hand conversation about Ron Edwards, or what either of us think of him or his works, in order to have that first-hand conversation about what we, ourselves, believe.

Do you disagree with that assertion?  Do you think that it is impossible to have that first-hand conversation without the second-hand questions you've pulled in?

I think Tony just tried to pull a switcheroo here.

Did I?  Can you be more specific?

Quote from: TonyLBRight.  And as I point out, I've answered that question.  That wasn't the end of it though, was it?  No ... then you kept asking "Well, do you repudiate statements X, Y and Z that you disagree with?  Do you feel that they are fundamentally irresponsible?  What do you feel about what other people have said, and how do you justify feeling that way?"

As I said, I am perfectly willing to talk about whether I, personally, believe that roleplaying causes brain damage.  I don't believe that, for all the reasons I've outlined.

We do not have to have any second-hand conversation about Ron Edwards, or what either of us think of him or his works, in order to have that first-hand conversation about what we, ourselves, believe.

Do you disagree with that assertion?  Do you think that it is impossible to have that first-hand conversation without the second-hand questions you've pulled in?

I'm totally cool with not talking about Edwards; I never meant to bring him into the discussion at all -- I never asked you to repudiate him, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this isn't about personalities. It's about theories, not theorists. It looks to me like you felt that disagreeing with the Brain Damage was somehow taking a shot at Edwards. I disagree with that and I'd hope that he wouldn't feel personally attacked because you disagree with his theory.

In the unlikely event that he did, that would be *his* problem -- not yours.

As far as I'm concerned, saying, "RPGs don't/can't cause brain damage" is where I expected this to stop ages ago -- an example of a theorist who doesn't agree with the "Crazy Stuff."

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.As far as I'm concerned, saying, "RPGs don't/can't cause brain damage" is where I expected this to stop ages ago -- an example of a theorist who doesn't agree with the "Crazy Stuff."

Well, I said that (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32710&postcount=147) more than fifty posts ago.

I think the problem with the 'crazy stuff' is that, if "Brain Damage" is an example, all I have to do is go to that thread on the Forge and find a lot of people in firm agreement. Like many, many people (not just a vanishing few).

Even here it seems you more or less agree with Ron's sound-bite version (RPG-play can give you bad storymaking habbits in general) but don't agree with terming it brain damage or maybe that indie games are "the cure" (although I would think that with the PTA discussion, it does seem likely that continued analysis would find that some indie games would be seen as "the cure" and maybe even more than just PTA).

What this means is that Brain Damage is not actually "crazy stuff." In this discussion it is only "somewhat overstated stuff."

So that poses the question: What are these theorists saying that actually *is* crazy stuff?

I'm asking Tony--because if it's not Brain Damage, I don't know what theorists out there are saying crazier things. Can you find a post that says something about theory you actually think is crazy (Discounting Hybrid which isn't exactly theory)?

-Marco
[ Note: there may be a lot of theorists saying *offensive* stuff--without a lot of facts to back it up. I suspect that while this does more damage to the dialog than any for-real crazy things do, the general consensus would be that anyone gets to be as offensive as they want so long as they are sure they are correct. ]

[Also note: I do not believe Ron is crazy. I think that the discussion is framed in terms of "crazy stuff" because of someone's post early on--and it might be better framed in terms of 'wildly offensive stuff' but we're stuck with crazy for now. ]

Quote from: MarcoI think the problem with the 'crazy stuff' is that, if "Brain Damage" is an example, all I have to do is go to that thread on the Forge and find a lot of people in firm agreement. Like many, many people (not just a vanishing few).

Then instead of just reporting that second-hand you should link to the thread, so other people can view the same first-hand evidence and make up their own minds.

Quote from: MarcoEven here it seems you more or less agree with Ron's sound-bite version (RPG-play can give you bad storymaking habbits in general) but don't agree with terming it brain damage or maybe that indie games are "the cure"

Well, yeah.  I do.  I've said that (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2174) rather explicitly, haven't I?

Am I supposed to think that those ideas are "infected by crazy" or something?

Quote from: MarcoI'm asking Tony--because if it's not Brain Damage, I don't know what theorists out there are saying crazier things. Can you find a post that says something about theory you actually think is crazy (Discounting Hybrid which isn't exactly theory)?

See, I'm just going to chalk this up to "No theory questions, just another request that I indulge in hearsay and speculation," and move on.

Is the difference between "My opinions on theory" and "My opinions on other people's opinions on theory" genuinely difficult for you to grasp?  Should I give examples?

EDIT:  Added second quote-response pair when I noticed I'd left one of Marco's points wholly unaddressed.  Mea culpa!

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I said that (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32710&postcount=147) more than fifty posts ago.

Nuance may be your enemy here. The post you linked to isn't nearly as concise or straight forward as your summary above.

In the linked post you agree with many of Ron's theses, and disagree with what I (and others) see as a key point: the need for evidence that RPG's create bad habits or any other kind of lasting effect.

You (and others) don't see any need for evidence before making claims that RPG's cause lasting bad habits in story-telling ability. I think that's one of the key bad-things about the whole Brain Damage argument.

I'm happy to let it drop; in fact, I mostly did let it drop -- a huge portion of the remaing conversation *isn't* me hammering out the Brain Damage. Once you declined to agree with the need for evidence, I moved on and we discussed various other topics.

A little later I got accused of threadjacking... we can keep coming back to this, but I think I'm not sure it's productive.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBSee, I'm just going to chalk this up to "No theory questions, just another request that I indulge in hearsay and speculation," and move on.

Is the difference between "My opinions on theory" and "My opinions on other people's opinions on theory" genuinely difficult for you to grasp?  Should I give examples?

EDIT:  Added second quote-response pair when I noticed I'd left one of Marco's points wholly unaddressed.  Mea culpa!

Um, wait a second. In another post you say this:

QuoteNow, 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.

Empahsis added.

I'm not asking you to speculate or use hearsay. I'm asking--without snark--what things do you find 'pro-theory' people saying that you think are crazy?

If Brain Damage isn't an example then what is?

I'm asking for a link or something that shows a pro-theory viewpoint you think is someone saying "crazy stuff."

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoUm, wait a second. In another post you say this

Yes, Marco ... and then immediately following that I say this:

Quote from: TonyLBOf 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.

Do you see where, if you look at the quote in its actual context, rather than cherry-picking the words you want to reply to, I'm actually saying that my opinion on the matter is not a big deal, and that people should take any second-hand opinion with a grain of salt?

Quote from: TonyLBYes, Marco ... and then immediately following that I say this:Do you see where, if you look at the quote in its actual context, rather than cherry-picking the words you want to reply to, I'm actually saying that my opinion on the matter is not a big deal, and that people should take any second-hand opinion with a grain of salt?

That's okay--I get that. I'm asking, with honest curiosity, "What theorist-stuff do you find to be crazy?"

I get that you have faith in the community as a whole--so you may find less stuff 'crazy' than someone else--that's fine. I'm perfectly alright with that. But I'd like to know where you draw the line since you are posting about it here and other places.

-Marco