Quote from: droog1. JB has conflated two different posts. The diagram is from a post titled 'When it all falls down', which is also where the comments quoted above have been taken (there are 27 comments). This post concerns dysfunctional play.

Not true.

They're different posts on the same page. The first lot I quoted, which I specifically said you could scroll down for in my link, the social/by design?/ron's three points one, that has (or had, seems to have disappeared now) the chart of "broken play."

Quote from: droog2. The 'Incoherence' post, from which JB took his quotes, is separate, with 6 comments. Chris there claims that 'incoherence' will lead to substandard games, but he does not talk about 'abuse' or anything like it.

I took my second set of quotes, "while this sounds like a good compromise in theory" stuff, from the "incoherence" post.

In any case they are essentially the same thoughts by the same guy.

Quote from: droog3. Thus, JB, through either malice or stupidity, has made it appear that 'incoherence' is the same as 'dysfunction' in Chris's thinking. My guess is malice, but I'm not ruling out stupidity.

About mailice, you would know best, I'd say. However, "incoherence" undoubtedly leads to "dysfunction" in that guy's view of gamers. And "dysfunction" encourages "incoherence." So it all comes to the same thing.

Quote from: droogBut it is only JB placing them together in this way that makes it appear that Chris claims that incoherence leads automatically to dysfunction.

In the comments section here, we see,

Quote from: BankueiD&D 3.0+ is one of those game systems that tends to give a pretty solid set of goals and techniques that gives you most of the pyramid for functional play. It's when you try to drift away from it, without communication, people usually encounter trouble.

It supports combats and gamism well, so, naturally, that worked well. Trying to get something else from it... without explicit mechanics and social discussion, well...

So he's saying that if you try to do non-Gamist things (ie Narrativist and Simulationist stuff) with a Gamist rpg like D&D, you'll get "trouble", ie "dysfunction." Now, what's the definition of "Incoherence"? Well, it's... trying to do more than one of G/N/S at once or with one game.

Thus, he's saying that "Incoherence" leads to "dysfunctional" play.

Don't blame me, "Incoherence" isn't my idea, and I didn't write the guy's posts.

Basically, what this guy says is relevant because it's ideas like this that lie behind a lot of other ideas we see coming up and around. Setting the Forgers aside, we see quite a few and loud gamers out there saying how they're terribly wounded by some oppressive GM, or this guy is "hurting my protagonism", or how it's not possible for game groups to compromise so that everyone has fun.

This last is a pretty common idea, even amongst people utterly uninterested in rpg theory. Apart from the amusing absurdity of his chart, that's what really struck me, this idea that if you make any compromise at all you're going to be miserable. This guy is just expressing in pseudo-academic terms what a lot of people do think.

You are right, mate. But Pundit chewed all over bankuei already. It´s a dead horse. Spare our ammunition for when the enemy chooses to become active again.

Quote from: droogDoes anybody but JB think there's any value in discussing this, beyond disturbing the dialogue we're building up on this site?

Is it too peaceful for you, JB? Thought you'd better go hunting for trouble?

Oh, this is worth discussing.

Next time someone who's into theory walks into a flame war and can't beleive that a theory that just says, "Different people groove on different stuff, man... and to get along, you just gotta get *aligned*" could be so confrontational.

This is what Forge Theory -- GNS/TBM is all about.

This is the sort of thing that underlies the discussion and prevents it from being useful.

Is this worth discussing?

Only if you'd prefer actual talk about theory to covert, poorly-described advocacy of fringe playstyles.

I think that's most of us.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: droogStill and all, not one of Chris's better moments.

I for one have never seen him have "good moments".

Anyways, as to the chart, its typical Forge bullshit, insulting in the extreme, and of course the great evil figure is "GM Fiat".

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusIt's no different than if Pundit were to make a chart talking about how Forge style games weren't rpgs, it's prettifying a dislike of others based on how they play, it's prejudice in a prom dress.

Except that I don't make charts.
I occasionally make tables about Random Drink Names. But I don't make fuckwitted charts trying to look intellectual while spewing hateful bullshit.

You get my hateful bullshit head on, straight no chaser, without any need to hide or lie or pretend that I'm doing academia. Like the other fuckers pretend to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawBy drawing attention to it, we might just get something worked out. Heck, I was surprised to see Balbinus say " they're extrapolating from shitty WoD games they played in the 1990s to the hobby generally, because they're idiots with self esteem issues."

I mean, thats the obvious answer. But I was shocked to see anyone lay it out like that, especially Balbinus.

Well, its pretty much what I've been saying for the last two years.
That the Theorists do what they do for psychological reasons more than any kind of actual interest in RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawDroog: Fair enough. As a fellow Carpenters fan, I must respect your wisdom.

AAAAAAAAHHHH!!!

Sorry, sorry. Just recently suffered some serious carpenters-related trauma. :brood:

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurI'm sorry, this chart is simply useless. Where's the Freemasons? Where's the International Bankers? Surely there's at least some connections between GM Fiat and 9/11?

WHO TOLD YOU??!..errr.. I mean.. no, that's a lie.. obviously just forgie propaganda...

:mason:

RPGPundit

My favorite part is how "Promises of Fun" is under the bad GM part under the pentagon...I'm sure they meant "Promises of Fun Unfulfilled"....or did they?
 
If that isn't the most fitting tribute to what this sort of gaming theory has meant to most gamers, I don't know what is.
 
What a mess.

Okay, in the interest of actually providing some coolness that people can use, instead of crapiness to throw old shoes at, let me suggest a look at two of Chris's best posts:

Flag Framing
The Conflict Web

I suggest that, even though Chris often writes about in-game improv of a "button-pushing" sort that I'm not sure I care for, he's describing a perspective and tools that could be very useful at the level of scenario or campaign prep, even for the most mainstream type of gaming.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, in the interest of actually providing some coolness that people can use, instead of crapiness to throw old shoes at, let me suggest a look at two of Chris's best posts:

Flag Framing
The Conflict Web

I suggest that, even though Chris often writes about in-game improv of a "button-pushing" sort that I'm not sure I care for, he's describing a perspective and tools that could be very useful at the level of scenario or campaign prep, even for the most mainstream type of gaming.

Yeah, I had read his Flag Framing entry recently. It's really neat stuff!  I'm ashamed to say I hadn't connected the fact it was the same guy. I can't keep up with all these theory blogs at all!

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, in the interest of actually providing some coolness that people can use, instead of crapiness to throw old shoes at, let me suggest a look at two of Chris's best posts:

Flag Framing
The Conflict Web

I suggest that, even though Chris often writes about in-game improv of a "button-pushing" sort that I'm not sure I care for, he's describing a perspective and tools that could be very useful at the level of scenario or campaign prep, even for the most mainstream type of gaming.

I agree. Both posts are cool stuff. Most of the time, when game theorists talk about concrete techniques, cool things are produced. Is when they try to aplly their bad experiences to all the gamers when their message sucks gorilla balls.

As I said before, most of GNS and Forge theroeis about gamer interactions seem to me heavily biased by negative experiences of Edwards and the like. That, and a bit of oversensitivity to shitty games.

See, I can't forgive it. That stuff is there to lure people in so he can sell his fringe advocacy, race-baiting, and assorted victim nonsense. Peel the veneer off, and it's generic GM advice. If it's any use at all- it's probably stolen and rephrased.

I'm not sure the forgies even realize that this guy and Ron's braindamage post (along with just enough "me toos" from enough forgies to make it look like a consensus) are pretty much responsible for 80% of the reputation the forge has today of being a bunch of shitheads. Pundit should write him a thank you letter.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSee, I can't forgive it. That stuff is there to lure people in so he can sell his fringe advocacy, race-baiting, and assorted victim nonsense. Peel the veneer off, and it's generic GM advice. If it's any use at all- it's probably stolen and rephrased.

I'm not sure the forgies even realize that this guy and Ron's braindamage post (along with just enough "me toos" from enough forgies to make it look like a consensus) are pretty much responsible for 80% of the reputation the forge has today of being a bunch of shitheads. Pundit should write him a thank you letter.

Maybe it's because I don't know who the fuck the guy is (thus being forgiving or neutral) but I think you are harsh. The stuff linked is really good. It's not reinventing the wheel. Unsurprisingly, few things are. But there's nice pointers for less experienced folks and even nice reminders for some of us veterans.

Stolen and rephrased? I don't know. Looks like it is built on past experience, which was no doubt influenced by other people and other products, which were themselves influenced by other people and other products. I don't think that's bad at all, nor does it make useless.

The only original part was the advice to draw it out as a chart with "triangles representing antagonistic" "circles=friendly"..

But that's not that original either, considering this was around the time that all these guys simultaneously discovered you could make charts in MS Paint. I swear, after December 2005 or so, suddenly everyone was making charts.

I mean, it was kinda funny after a while to see the 19th guy with a huge circle chart with arrows and crap all over the place. Some of them were even animated.