TheRPGSite

Oy, vey. This is what one Forger thinks of us "incoherent" gamers (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_bankuei_archive.html).

Is it bad that the first thing I thought was, "Wow, that's a really poorly put together chart"?
Damn UML homework.

I don´t feel adressed.

They can draw charts while the rest of us have fun in "El Dorado". ;)

Quote from: SettembriniI don´t feel addressed.

That's right, JB. You're being that guy. The one who hears someone shout "Hey, dickhead!" and assumes it's about him.

Still and all, not one of Chris's better moments.

please ignore

Quote from: droogThat's right, JB. You're being that guy. The one who hears someone shout "Hey, dickhead!" and assumes it's about him.

Still and all, not one of Chris's better moments.

I agree on all counts.

Ah, the old "these people just imagine they're having fun, really though I can tell without actually meeting them that they're miserable" theory.

Seen it before, the diagram like much of this stuff makes it look a bit more academic than the prejudice it actually is.

Chris has produced a couple of useful things, it's a shame he feels the need to rationalise his dislike of certain forms of gaming in this way.

That's a really bad chart. :)

Quote from: BalbinusSeen it before, the diagram like much of this stuff makes it look a bit more academic than the prejudice it actually is.

It makes it look like a poorly cobbled together chart made by someone who should stay the hell away from Paint and Word...  That's terrible, and barely comprehensible.

Quote from: Geoff HallIt makes it look like a poorly cobbled together chart made by someone who should stay the hell away from Paint and Word...  That's terrible, and barely comprehensible.

As I said, Chris is merely expressing personal prejudice against another style of play in a diagram, so as to make it seem somehow more objective.

It'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.

Quote from: BalbinusAs I said, Chris is merely expressing personal prejudice against another style of play in a diagram, so as to make it seem somehow more objective.

It'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.

Oh I agree, I'm just expressing the opinion that it's a prom dress sewn together from random, worn out bits of cloth found at the bottom of a cupboard somewhere.  If I were feeling particularly mean/pun-loving I might even describe the 'diagram' as incoherent ;)

Quote from: droogThat's right, JB. You're being that guy. The one who hears someone shout "Hey, dickhead!" and assumes it's about him.

When you have a look at the associated text (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_bankuei_archive.html) (scroll down), it becomes clearer that he's addressing just about everyone.

   There are several factors that come together to make this a common form of play and a recurring model in the hobby.

Social

Socially, a big part of this model is the classic Geek Social Fallacies, which are naturally codependant and non-communicative practices. "We HAVE to stick together" is not unlike the rationalization of people staying in abusive relationships.

And, like an abusive relationship, you also have lots of conditional love/friendship being thrown around, shame of being ostracized, and rationalization.

Check out that bottom block upon which it all balances- that's exactly the social behaviors of abuse and manipulation.

By Design?

It seems pretty crazy that anything so extreme can come out of a hobby, of all things. But what leads to it being a common experience is that we actually have game manuals which explicitly encourage these techniques.

- "Punish the character to 'teach' the player
- "GM is God"
- "Cheating/fudging is ok as long as you don't get caught"
- "Meta is bad"
- "Don't let the players get control"

Etc. All of these either involve weird power games, anti-communication, passive aggressive behavior instead of open discussion, deception, and a lot of things you wouldn't say, want to deal with from a boss at work, or in any other kind of relationship.

And, the biggest red flag, the ever present "Problem Players" sections. Notice that most books encourage strange combinations of either punishment or accomodation, but always make "Let's just not play together" the last option. The fact that problem players is a common feature of game texts, or even play, says something is terribly wrong. It's as if every book on marriage contained a section on how to treat broken ribs (from spousal abuse)...

Can you imagine that? If relationship books had advice saying, "Lie", "Talking is bad", "Cheating is ok as long as you don't get caught?", "Hit someone to make them obey", "Breaking up is worse than suffering", etc.?

Those would be textbooks for abuse.

It's not just that a bunch of people accidentally made mistakes- it's that there's plenty of encouragement, expectation, and explicit techniques to keep the mistakes going. That's what keeps the dysfunction a common experience in our hobby.

Ron's 3 Principles (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.msg196800#msg196800) are especially relevant here.

His April 28, 2006 post about "Incoherence", at the top of the linked page, is especially telling. For example, he discusses compromising on what you want in a game session, giving everyone some of what they want (he ignores the possibility of getting most of what you want, it's only none, some or all for him), he says -
   While this sounds like a good compromise in theory ("You can't always have what you want!"), in practice it works very different. For example, in real life, we might compromise "We'll watch this movie this time, and we'll watch that movie next time", so that in the end we get to see both movies. What happens in play is like everyone agrees to keep flipping the channel back and forth- so that no one actually sees the whole of anything they wanted to see.

Or, 20 minutes of fun from 4 hours.

He's talking to all of us, pretty much.

He also in his "read before commenting" (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/10/ground-rules.html) section refers to Ron Edwards' comparison of "bad" roleplaying to child abuse (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0) (as a defence of the "brain damage" comments) as "the most truthful, and painful thing ever said about roleplaying."

JB,

I don't think his arguments merit the level of detailed response you're giving them, in all honesty.

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that to me that level of response is like giving a detailed response to a man who thinks the CIA are spying on him via his fillings, you can carefully show why that is unlikely, but it's doubtful he is capable of really following the argument.

Chris has for some reason best known to himself partly defined his own fun as requiring him to believe that others are in some kind of psychologically warped or damaged situation.  That makes dialogue with him both impossible and pointless, he's a tin foil hat gamer and as far as he's concerned most gamers are not capable of understanding what they find fun or indeed of recognising their own psychological states.  You can't talk to someone who believes they know better than you do what you are thinking, as anything you can say can too easily be fitted into his rather delusional model.

As for the abuse bit, if he finds that a useful analysis then I can only conclude he doesn't know anybody who has been abused.  If he did, I doubt he would belittle it with that sort of comparison.

Does 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?

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?

I was just considering the irony in my posting a lengthy comment on how it wasn't worth talking about.

Nah, no value at all, you're correct.  Besides, as far as I'm concerned people can say whatever they like on their blogs, that's what blogs are for.

I'm out.

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?

Since I cannot find a copy of Macho Women With Guns' vehicle damage chart on the internet, I do not think there is any value, no.

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?

Which dialogue is that? There are a few going on.

Quote from: droogIs it too peaceful for you, JB? Thought you'd better go hunting for trouble?

We're here to inform and entertain one another. And I always like to point out surprising, absurd and amusing shit. It just so happens that the Forgers produce a lot of that :D

If you think it'll stir up "trouble", then you must think there are people on this forum who consider it quite legitimate and reasonable. I think it's good to know who these people are, since these sorts of attitudes inform their theories and discussions.

Rightyo, step on up, who thinks bankuei's got it right? Where's TonyLB to say, "wait, I don't think he means what you think he means"?

TonyLB has not once tried to correct me on my interpretation of how I play or what I enjoy.  He's asked questions sometimes, sometimes rather good ones, but I've never been patronised by him.  He also shows every sign of being interested in and listening to the answers, while many theorists in my experience ask questions but don't listen to the answers.

Hell, if more of the theory crowd were like Tony I'd be a lot happier.

That's true about TonyLB and the way he talks about gaming, in himself quite respectful and questioning - full credit to him for that. But it's also true that he tends to be an apologist for some of the more absurd theory-types, with, "wait, I don't think he means what you think he means..." That's the flipside to the respect - he even respects the loons.

Well, it is worth talking about, because it's worth being aware of.

When I talk about the forgies being shitty people, a menace to the dialog of roleplaying, and a poisonous, cancerous boil on the ass of the hobby-- this is the exact sort of thing I am talking about.

Also, read the comments.

There's one from Ron himself in there:

"Chris, I suggest that this diagram should include a feedback loop of revised memory which permits play to continue and for the group to remain loyal.

"That was the most awesome Werewolf game ever. We are the best group ever. You are the best GM ever. This is the right way to role-play."

Best, Ron "

In other words, even for those groups who think they are having a good time, they were just lying to themselves. No actual positive experience is considered possible. You can either admit you were having a bad time (if you were), or you can think you had a good time, (which would be in denial). Unless of course you do it Ron's way. Once your'e in the cult, you can report positive experiences for games you haven't even played, and it will all be cool.

Note also in the comments of swine-favorite Troy Costisick: "Mental revision of what actually happened also plays a big role, IMO, in keeping crappy groups together.

Peace,

-Troy"

That's pretty much an endorsement. He endorses it again a few posts later "The chart has been updated".. followed by "I like it"

Also, follow the comments thread through to the end. Like Ron, he tends to shut down the dialog once he is seriously challenged with any disagreement.

This is the beauty of truth. Confronting these guys with any substantive reasoning pretty much kills their arguments. At that point they have to either engage (and lose), or withdraw to a place where they control the access.  

So it is extremely important that we talk about these things here, where the access isn't controlled.

I thought that Julian chap made some good points in a very polite fashion, although of course he got told to shut up for his troubles.  

Over the Edge has a section on abusive players, Heroquest has a section of advice on how to punish players for in-character behaviour you dislike.  Not sure how if at all that supports the hypothesis.  Runequest has neither, nor Gurps, nor any version of D&D that I'm familiar with though I suppose 3.5e may, I've not read it.

They're basically ranting about White Wolf of the 1990s again aren't they?  That's really what they're talking about, their entire view of the hobby is based on some shitty vampire games played under a ruleset that is now out of print.

Well, I'm not sure, but he (and by extension, his several endorsers) are certainly extending this sort of stupidity to cover everyone.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, I'm not sure, but he (and by extension, his several endorsers) are certainly extending this sort of stupidity to cover everyone.

Of course they're extending it, 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'm going to point out a couple of things:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

I have my own thoughts about 'incoherence', which are not relevant at this point. I think Chris goes overboard on that post as well. But it is only JB placing them together in this way that makes it appear that Chris claims that incoherence leads automatically to dysfunction.

Balbinus: Exactly true. Thank you for pointing this out so clearly.

My point is:

you know, some of us could possibly get behind the idea of independently published games. But when you have people doing shit like this, there's simply no way.  You know why I don't buy or play anything associated with any known forgies? Because fuck those guys. Thats why.

Associating people as dishonest and hateful as Chris Chinn with the forge discredits and damages all of independent gaming as a movement. This guy shut his blog down in October and theyr'e still getting the shockwaves from the "broken play" chart. Heck, Ron Edwards himself discredits independent publishing, because he's so emblematic of the weird bigotry that characterizes the forgies.

Droog: Bullshit. I think it's fairly clear that Chris Chinn throws around words like incoherence and dysfunction all the time, clonflates the two and has a vested interst in doing so, because at the time he had nothing much to contribute to the cult.

Quote from: droogI'm going to point out a couple of things:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

I have my own thoughts about 'incoherence', which are not relevant at this point. I think Chris goes overboard on that post as well. But it is only JB placing them together in this way that makes it appear that Chris claims that incoherence leads automatically to dysfunction.

My comments are based on the chart and the comments that accompanied it, not JB's summary.

Is this a dead blog though as Abyssal says?  If so, why resurrect it now?

JB is being just as dishonest and hateful. More so, in my opinion.

Quote from: BalbinusIs this a dead blog though as Abyssal says?  If so, why resurrect it now?

Because JB craves attention.

Who was it that said, and I parapharse, "Don't try to tell me that your way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf is any better than my way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf"?

Because that's EXACTLY how I feel about it.  Seriously.

From Ron Edwards to American Badass, I don't give a shit what they think of my game.  It's MY game, and my FRIENDS' game, and we're gonna do it our way.  It's OUR fun.  

AB and Ron can have their fun.  I WANT them to have fun.  I want them to get down and rock.  But I don't give a shit for anyone's vision of fun but my players' and mine.

Not at all. Dead blog or not, this is extremely relevant today. This is our beef. We have yet to see anyone come out and say "yeah, all that crap from early 2006 where we were talking about how nobody actaully enjoys themself? We were wrong. Some of use were pretty fucking malicious. Yeah, I could totally see how that would offend someone."

By 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.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot at all. Dead blog or not, this is extremely relevant today. This is our beef. We have yet to see anyone come out and say "yeah, all that crap from early 2006 where we were talking about how nobody actaully enjoys themself? We were wrong. Some of use were pretty fucking malicious. Yeah, I could totally see how that would offend someone."

By 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.

Too many years on rpg.net have clearly got in the way of my posting my opinions on the topic plainly.

Edit:  Why especially me by the way?  Do you tend to think of me as being on their side as it were?

The post I edited away said the same. But I have no energy to back that up, or argue about it. So, I´m totally with Balbinus and Abyssal here.

" they're extrapolating from shitty WoD games they played in the 1990s to the hobby generally, because they're idiots with self esteem issues."

Is also Punditry from 2005. And very true.

In regards to the self esteem issues, look at bankuei´s:

"I´m also brain damaged!"-comments on his link explanatorium.

I still think the Pundit has handled all this already, and we should move on.

The most obnoxious Forgers are WoD Storyteller rape victims, who want to blame their shitty games on other people and other peoples system.

That´s basically established fact. No need to discuss anymore. Let´s move ahead, let the self-loathers loath themselves.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDroog: Bullshit. I think it's fairly clear that Chris Chinn throws around words like incoherence and dysfunction all the time, conflates the two and has a vested interest in doing so, because at the time he had nothing much to contribute to the cult.

Dead horse, man. Get over it. And I even have some sympathy with your view of Chris. But let's also examine the lying, bombastic fool that is JB. Or let's not.

We've got something happening here and now. People keep on wanting to revisit RPG.net and the Forge, and various blogs, when beyond all expectations we're actually getting somewhere here. Let's not fuck it up.

Droog: Fair enough. As a fellow Carpenters fan, I must respect your wisdom.

(I was not trying to be sarcastic there! I just reread that. man. I am an ass. )

Quote from: droogWe've got something happening here and now. People keep on wanting to revisit RPG.net and the Forge, and various blogs, when beyond all expectations we're actually getting somewhere here. Let's not fuck it up.

Yes.  Very good advice.

All right! And on that note, I'm going to bed. See you all later.

As I said: Let the self-loathers loath themselves and move on.
There´s work to be done.

The Forge and RPG.net are only artifacts from the first part of this decade. They and their ideas have run their course. They are oxbow lakes.

Quote from: BalbinusAs I said, Chris is merely expressing personal prejudice against another style of play in a diagram, so as to make it seem somehow more objective.

What really pisses me off is that there are still valid bits in the diagram AND the blog. They're just twisted and shaped to produce the line of warped and hideous thinking the author wanted in the first place.

That Chris dude is doing a great disservice to open and productive discussions because every concept and terms he uses can be flagged as utter bullshit from now on (if it wasn't already due to similar nuts spewing similar garbage). And I believe some of the terms and bits can actually be useful, so that's a loss.

Quote from: JimBobOzOy, vey. This is what one Forger thinks of us "incoherent" gamers (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_bankuei_archive.html).

(http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/files/17/27/Broken%20Play.jpg)

I'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?

Quote from: BalbinusOver the Edge has a section on abusive players, Heroquest has a section of advice on how to punish players for in-character behaviour you dislike.  Not sure how if at all that supports the hypothesis.  Runequest has neither, nor Gurps, nor any version of D&D that I'm familiar with though I suppose 3.5e may, I've not read it.

Actually, there is a section in AD&D 1e, something we mentioned a while ago (link (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=36902&postcount=81); someone also brought it up earlier in the same thread). The actual text is kept online by John Kim at this page (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/gametext/dnd1.html)

QuoteThey're basically ranting about White Wolf of the 1990s again aren't they?  That's really what they're talking about, their entire view of the hobby is based on some shitty vampire games played under a ruleset that is now out of print.

It sure seems that way from here, though really I don't have the slightest experience with WW games.

But as much as I'd love to go on, I agree with droog.

If someone comes here peddling that diagram as an accurate analysis or prediction of how "traditional" RPGs work, I'll shoot it down in a second. But I don't see a need to stir up fights over an old post in a dead blog.

I get the impression, the war is over, and JB fired a some guy who had already thrown his rifle away.

The last active swine I saw actually fighting, was eyebeamz in a ridiculous guerilla action over at ENworld.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187184

And that´s like an old Japanese geezer sniping from the jungles till it´s 1968.

He´s still fighting for Storytelling, and tries to revise history. Like its 1992 again.

I now officialy cease firing in this war for lack of an enemy.

Quote from: SettembriniI now officialy cease firing in this war for lack of an enemy.

It was an imaginary war, but I'm glad you've decided to stop fighting....

Regards,
David R

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?

The Freemasons are implied by the inverted pentagon, which clearly represents the inverted pentagram used the the Eastern Star.  The International Bankers are clear the "Stuff that Matters" in the circle on top, since they pull all the strings.  And the connection between GM Fiat and 9/11 is clearly indicated by it's position between the two boxes on the left and right, representing the two towers, and at the tip of the pentagon, doing dual duty as, well, The Pentagon, and pointing to the box at the bottom which clearly represents the gold vaults beneath the World Trade Center.  Clearly, the diagram represents a conspiracy by the International Bankers, pulling the strings of the Freemasons within the Pentagon to attack the World Trade Center in order to get at the gold controlled by the Elders of Zion as an act of GM Fiat.  The attack on the Pentagon was meant to prevent suspicion about the true architects of the conspiracy, which is why the plane hit the most fortified side of the building.

Any questions?

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 (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13620273&postID=114404603561117546), 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 (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/568657582/item.html). :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...

:D :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? :p
 
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 (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html)
The Conflict Web (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/conflict-web.html)

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 (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html)
The Conflict Web (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/conflict-web.html)

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! :p

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 (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html)
The Conflict Web (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/conflict-web.html)

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.

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 (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html)
The Conflict Web (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/conflict-web.html)

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, those are both excellent.

As to whether they're original or not, I neither know nor care, they're useful which is far more important.

Careful, Eliot, embracing those essays is pretty much Exhibit A (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20222.0) in my McCarthy Hearing (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=66654&postcount=137) on Swinedom. If you don't watch yourself, you may be called before committee to explain your whereabouts and activities on the first night of Gencon 2004. :D

Anyways, I find it ironic that the last time I tried to participate in a discussionof this kind of issue, I was told that I hadn't experienced what I SAID i HAD: "You haven't read Ron Edwards' essays and forum posts because if you had you'd agree with me!" Sothere's probably not much I can do here.

Flag Framing and Conflict Webs were the first Chris Chinn things I read, and they were awesome and useful. After that I poked around and found that ugly, ugly diagram. i thought it was interesting, but more on that later.

Then I found his rants to the effect that dressing up as Drow was irredeemably racist and offensive. He even spent some time arguing the point with a black woman (Lisa Padol, I believe).

That was where I got off the Chris Chinn boat. The very idea was ridiculous. And I seewhere people are getting that victim-mentality impression, having read stuff like that. But it didn't make me think "Oh, he said these things thatare dumb and reactionary and divisive, therefore I must not value anything he says, ever." Chris Chinn is a guy. He has his moments. Somethimes I think he's awesome, and sometimes I think he's full of shit. In this respect he's much like many people that I actuallyknow personally (unlike Chris), and am proud to count as dear friends.

But silly me, why am I even commenting, when we have those on hand who can see into the secret heart of Forgers:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThat stuff is there to lure people in so he can sell his fringe advocacy, race-baiting, and assorted victim nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, about the diagram and accompanying prose:

I'm not for a minute going to try to say anyone might be right, wrong or sideways about whether the setiments are an accurate picutre of the majority of gamers. Or whether this represents hate/bile/contempt on Chris Chinn's part. But consider: What if, just if, someone came to Deep in the Game or the Forge or wherever, and read descriptions of gaming like this, and instead of saying "Oh my God, what hateful bullshit! My gaming isn't like that at ALL!" what if instead, they said "Oh my God! This is exactly the kind of shit I've been going through in X years of gaming! Someone's seen the same problems,and maybe has some sort of useful analysis and solution!"

That person exists. Me, for one.

My gaming hasn't been at the far extreme of the dysfunction spectrum, but it's generally been somewhere downthe scale. Things have changed over the years with personal maturing andmembership changes, sometimes for the better, but still, the problems exist. Stuff like Chris' writing has helped me identify what's happening with me and my friends and work at positive solutions.

So can anyone maybe, just maybe see a non-hateful side to this? Maybe?

Peace,
-Joel

No, Joel. I don't believe it's productive to stir up shit between this place and The Forge. In fact given that he is local to me I would like to be able to meet Chris in a game room and not have a bunch of ideological flamewars acting as baggage on our interaction.

But I also think that apologia for crap are also crap.

Give up the reflex to defend the Forge tribe, and judge statements and theories on their merits.

Quote from: MelinglorSo can anyone maybe, just maybe see a non-hateful side to this? Maybe?

What, the diagram?

Sure.  It's a picture of one brand of stupid to avoid.

I'm sure that there are games like that out there.  I had a couple of sessions that sort-of fit that picture early on in my run as a gamer - where we played happy-nice despite the suckage of a game.  In both cases, we killed the games with excuses, learned from our mistakes, and tried different things thereafter.

Man wants other people not to get stuck in that mold.  Good on him.

Man also thinks that most gamers are stuck in the mold most of the time, and are in denial about it.  There's nothing hateful about that.  Silly, yes, to my mind.  Hateful, no.

Probably a frustrating position to maintain.

Quote from: MelinglorSo can anyone maybe, just maybe see a non-hateful side to this?

Do you make the same request of the people on The Forge that talk trash about other people's style of play?  (That is by no means everyone who identifies with The Forge so this probably doesn't mean you if you are reading this.)

There is something that a lot of even very smart people don't seem to understand.  You don't have to be smart to detect someone else's contempt for you.  So if you look down on people, they'll figure it out.  Once they figure it out, the normal response to contempt is contempt in return.

Watch the movie Searching For Bobby Fischer.  Contempt for one's opposition is one of the themes of the movie.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat, the diagram?

Sure.  It's a picture of one brand of stupid to avoid.

I'm sure that there are games like that out there.  I had a couple of sessions that sort-of fit that picture early on in my run as a gamer - where we played happy-nice despite the suckage of a game.  In both cases, we killed the games with excuses, learned from our mistakes, and tried different things thereafter.

Man wants other people not to get stuck in that mold.  Good on him.

Man also thinks that most gamers are stuck in the mold most of the time, and are in denial about it.  There's nothing hateful about that.  Silly, yes, to my mind.  Hateful, no.

Probably a frustrating position to maintain.

Levi, this is a very clear-headed analysis. Would that others could see it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMan wants other people not to get stuck in that mold.  Good on him.

Man also thinks -

Your manner of speech leads me to believe that you have been watching Firefly again, as might be seen from a perusal of the show's quotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Firefly). Also it can be seen that you really want to be Captain Mal. I can't conjure up no reason against that desire.

Is wanting to be Captain Mal "broken play"?

Quote from: JimBobOzIs wanting to be Captain Mal "broken play"?

If so, I'll be having a terrible time at the Firefly one-shot LARP we have going next month.

But I'll pretend that it was great, so that's okay.

:haw:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMan wants other people not to get stuck in that mold.  Good on him.

Man also thinks that most gamers are stuck in the mold most of the time, and are in denial about it.  There's nothing hateful about that.  Silly, yes, to my mind.  Hateful, no.

I was focusing more on the first part. The second part, well, as I said I'm not interested in whether it's true of "most gamers", or whether he's saying it's "most gamers." What I'm interested in is that it happens to some gamers, and that to varying degrees at various times, one of the "some" has been me.

See, when people rant and rave around here about how fucking ridiculous it is to paint gaming this way, I feel pretty marginalized. Not like, crushed or wounded or anything; I'll be fine, thanks. But it's wearing to see one's own experience railed against as if it doesn't happen, or doesn't happen in sufficient quantity to be relevant, especially after finding confirmation somewhere else that yes, it does happen to other people, and there are folks toiling to find processes to alleviate it. I guess I'm just trying to point out that there's more than one way to view something like this. Others are reading it (the diagram's wonky, I'm concentrating more on the text) and saying "how dare he describe gamer dysfunction!" and I'm looking at it going "Whoa, brutally honest description of gamer dysfunction."

Elliot: It doesn't seem to me that I'm the one stirring upshit. Or has the thread up to now been a paragon of cordial and reasoned debate in a spirit of intellectual honesty?

As for "defending the Forge tribe," what's a guy to do? I am trying to"judge theories and poinions on their merits." Am I just automatically supposed to disagree with someone just because they're "from" the Forge, whatever that means? I read and judged Chris Chinn on his merits, and made my determination. Sorry I didn't arrive at the locally prevalent conclusion.

John: I've honestly not been in a Forge discussion that I can remember, where people showed contempt for others' style of play. I know people are gonna throw shit at me now, but that's the God's-honest truth. In my experience, discourse at the Forge is focused on discussing what works for play in that instance and that group, unburdened by the baggage of "right ways to play." That's the reception that I've gotten over there. So again: what's a guy to do?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I'm interested in is that it happens to some gamers, and that to varying degrees at various times, one of the "some" has been me.

See, that's ass.

But you could, y'know, just say that nice and plain-like:

"I feel like my group maintains their ideal of what our gaming is to the detriment of actual play, by talking as is our play had reached the ideal even when it plainly hasn't.  Sometimes the actual play isn't even all that fun, but I feel like I need to go along to get along."

And even the plain-thinking, anti-theory crowd will pitch in with questions and suggestions.  If they're objecting to the funny clothes, and thus not helping with the problem, just put it in different clothes.

QuoteJohn: I've honestly not been in a Forge discussion that I can remember, where people showed contempt for others' style of play.

God you must be thick.

Joel, you seem to have misunderstood my last message. I'll spell it out for  you.

JimBob's post at the beginning of this thread was a sort of troll for people who reflexively defend The Forge. Bad JimBob.

But he hooked you. Bad you.

As to the value of the diagram itself: no, it's wrong, period. The key is the giant emphasis on "GM Fiat". There's nothing there except contempt for a particular type of game mechanic, caricatured as a kind of tyranny of the GM. The people at the table are responsible for the cycle of dysfunction, because they're too dumb or something to be honest with each other.

In Forge-type games that use "conflict resolution" or whatever, there's just as much of an opportunity for people to go along to get along, lie about their experiences to themselves and each other, and be miserable. All that's really happened is that these games have created a culture with a set of identifying signs so that people can find the type of game and, by the game, the type of people who like the same stuff they do.

Aside from that, what some people (including Chris, good on him, but it's not the main focus of the diagram) have done is say, "If you're not having fun, stop what you're doing, think about it, and talk about it."

Quote from: MelinglorI was focusing more on the first part. The second part, well, as I said I'm not interested in whether it's true of "most gamers", or whether he's saying it's "most gamers." What I'm interested in is that it happens to some gamers, and that to varying degrees at various times, one of the "some" has been me.

See, when people rant and rave around here about how fucking ridiculous it is to paint gaming this way, I feel pretty marginalized. Not like, crushed or wounded or anything; I'll be fine, thanks. But it's wearing to see one's own experience railed against as if it doesn't happen, or doesn't happen in sufficient quantity to be relevant, especially after finding confirmation somewhere else that yes, it does happen to other people, and there are folks toiling to find processes to alleviate it.

Well, you see, there's the problem.  You see Chris' description of dysfunction and it resonates with you.  That's fine and good.  

But then you see Chris' further claim that most games are dysfunctional.  This also resonates with you, but that doesn't make it true.  And it doesn't make it a reasonable claim.  

Just because in your personal experience, most games are dysfunctional, that doesn't mean that over the whole hobby, most games are dysfunctional.  And objecting to the claim that most games are dysfunctional over the whole hobby is not the same thing as objecting to the claim that most games are dysfunctional in your experience -- and it's not invalidating your experience.  It's just pointing out the limits of your experience.  

EDIT:  It's just pointing out that your experience is not our experience.  It's just pointing out that your experience is not necessarily the experience of the hobby as a whole.  Because if Chris said "some bad games I have played in are like this, maybe some bad games you've played in are like this, too"...I don't think you'd see much objection.  But that's not what he said.  And if you want to defend what he said, then you've got to engage with the entirety of what he actually said, and not just the part of what he said that spoke to your personal experience.  You can't just pretend he didn't say "most games are dysfunctional like this", because he did say, and it's a pretty signficant claim.  

--

Now, try and look at Chris' post for just a minute from the perspective of someone who's had a long history of mostly-functional gaming:  Chris is telling you that your games have mostly been not fun, that you have lied to yourself to make yourself believe that they are fun, and that Chris has all the answers to make you really have fun.  Now, do you see how that is offensive?

EDITED AGAIN TO ADD:  It seems like what you want to say is something along the lines of "I found this piece of his useful to me personally, but I don't stand by his claims about its wider applicability."  Well, then, you should just come out and say that.  Stand by the bits of his post that you want to stand by, but don't stand by the bits that you don't want to stand by.  Like Elliot said, don't get backed into that corner.  Because if you just claim "that's a good description of dysfunction I've seen a lot of," I don't think you'll see nearly so many people object.  But when you buy in to the claim that this is widespread in the hobby, and the implicit claim that Chris' favorite style of gaming is the magic solution...that changes the whole nature of the discussion.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf so, I'll be having a terrible time at the Firefly one-shot LARP we have going next month.

But I'll pretend that it was great, so that's okay.

:haw:

JOY!

-Marco

Lee Short nails it. It's not the "describing gamer dysfunction" part that I find to be indicative of shithead. He can describe until the cows come home. I don't care. But the idea that he attributes it is plain moronic.

OK, let me first of all state my position clearly:

I remain entirely agnostic as to how widespread this model of dysfunctional play, or dysfunctional play itself, is in the RPG hobby. We've got some internet folks saying "I see this all the time!" and others saying "I never see this at all!" and some folks inbetween, like "I've seen it but not often." I've experienced it, so I know it exists, and human nature plus the law of averages says that it's out there in some percentage, but I have no idea how much.

My basic point is that given that it exists, applying study and effort toward a solution is vaulable.

Now, I thought that was clear in my original post. If not I apologize. Several folks have claimed I was being indirect or evasive, but that was not my intent.

Levi: Yes, I see some folks objecting to the "funny clothes," but I see plenty of objections of the "how dare he say something like that about gamers!" sort, starting with the OP. That's what I'm reallytrying to address here.

Eric: Hey, maybe I'm thick, maybe I'm not, but John asked if I had taken Forgers to task the way I'm doing here, and my honest answer was that in my experience, I've not experienced that phenomenon in the threads that I've started or posted to. I'm not saying nobody posting on the Forge has ever been rude or stuck up or whatever. I'm just saying that I don't recall anything in my direct interaction. So we're talking about different people having different experiences with a site. Presumably there are umpteen-whatever Forge participants who don't experience the pretentious dickage you do, and presumably that's not in every case because they're pretentious dicks themselves. I haven't experienced the dickage of the Forge the way many folks here say they have. All I can do is throw up my hands and maintain skepticism, maybe occasionally ask for some evidence and get called an undercover Forger for my trouble.

Elliot: I see what you're saying. Yes, I got suckered. I'm an easy mark for this kind of shit, 'cause I think "yeah, it's a troll, but it should still be rebutted!" I keep thinking that this time I'll put things in just such a way that people will understand my point. Plus I'm new here, so I'm still getting a feel for what'll fly and what's worth attempting. Bottom line, I need to work on my "pick your battles" skills.

But since I'm here:

Lee: I'm reading through the whole entry (diagram and text), and what I'm seeing Chris actually say is that this is "the common form of Dysfunctional Play" and it's "a common form of play and a recurring model in the hobby." Neither one of those says "most gamers are playing dysfunctionally." They say that this is usually what dysfunction looks like, and that dysfunction is "a common form of play." Both of these are debatable. There are some reasonable points about the accuracy of the model buried here among all the angry cries. But I don't feel like it's very easy or even possible to have that discussion without stilling the angry cries. Which may not be a realistic expectation.

My original post basically did say "I'm not prepared to comment on how widespread this is, but it does resonate with me." Maybe I should work on brevity, but it's there. Yet still the cries. I'm not sure how else to go about it, y'know?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: StuartThat's a really bad chart. :)

/sign

Quote from: MelinglorLee: I'm reading through the whole entry (diagram and text), and what I'm seeing Chris actually say is that this is "the common form of Dysfunctional Play" and it's "a common form of play and a recurring model in the hobby." Neither one of those says "most gamers are playing dysfunctionally." They say that this is usually what dysfunction looks like, and that dysfunction is "a common form of play."

And if you look up-page to the April 28, 2006 entry then you will see:  

QuoteIncoherence in Play

Contrary to what many think, it doesn't always result in a flaming wreck of a game. More often, it just results in boring, dissatisfying play with occassional schizo flashes of things some, but not all, of the players find fun.

At the very -pinnacle- of play, some people have fun, for some of the time.

So maybe you didn't notice this before, but it's right there in black and white.  See also this entry (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/11/gm-burnout.html) where he says

QuoteEven more, add in the usual "Land of Broken Wheels" style of gaming- where no one at the table will openly communicate about what it is they really want out of play.

Emphasis added.  

If you didn't see those before, I can understand your interpretation of Chinn's comments about dysfunction.  But this quote makes it clear that in his opinion most games are "broken," and most gamers are "broken wheels."  

Again:  try and look at Chris' post for just a minute from the perspective of someone who's had a long history of mostly-functional gaming: Chris is telling you that your games have mostly been not fun, that you have lied to yourself to make yourself believe that they are fun, and that Chris has all the answers to make you really have fun. Now, do you see how that is offensive?

I'm repeating this because it's the key to have a rational discussion about some of Chinn's points without having to get mired in discussion of the crappy things that he's said.

Because he's said some pretty crappy things (some of which I've posted above).  

If you want to have a level-headed discussion of some of the good things he's said (and he has said some good and useful things), what you need to do is this:  come out and clearly admit that the crappy things that he's said are crappy, rather than refusing to admit that.  Then point out the things that he's said that you have found useful and try and get a discussion going on those.  You've totally taken away JimBob's ammunition, and then you get to have the conversation you want.  

Lee

Jeez. Just read the rest of the blog:

He says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html


So tell us, "Are you really having fun? Or are you just hanging out from habit?"

Read the comments:

Two brief stabs at sanity by John Kim and Mike Mearls. The rest is plenty of agreement from fellow forgies. (Many of whom went on to not having gaming groups afterwards, which is kind of a funny karmic reward in itself).

So is being a forgie fun? I imagine it's a lot less fun now.

Or are you just hanging out from habit?

Folks:
Let´s all agree that bankuei is a pathetic whiney ass and move on.
It´s been proven time and time again, Melinglor was just not up-to-date.

Forge bashing is sooo 2005.

Lee: thank you for working with me here. Thanks also to Elliot, upthread, for your patience. I appreciate being treated as if I'm not a dishonest twat.

Quote from: Lee ShortSo maybe you didn't notice this before, but it's right there in black and white.

No, I didn't see this before. Or the other quote. I was only reading the post at hand. So Chris Chinn does say that most gamers aren't having fun. The vast majority even. This is stupid. I'm entirely comfortable saying that.

The reason that this is stupid is that it may well be true, but how can we really know? It may well be not true. As I said upthread, there's a bunch of internet folks reporting the experience, and a bunch of other internet folks reporting its absence. And my personal beliefs or philosphy are not dependent on dysfunction being the majority. To some degree they are dependent on it being a significant presents, but hell, even 1 in 10 is significant enough for this purpose. "Common enough to be worth dealing with in group discussion is my benchmark.

I'm pretty sure I have read those posts at one time or another, since I've spent a lot of time wading through his blog in the past. And, y'know, I probably didn't pick up on or retain those comments due to the blindness of my perspective: "Hey, he's speaking to me, wow, somebody gets it," to the point where "this is most people's experience" doesn't really give me pause. I can understand where someone whose experience doesn't match is going to look at the "most gaming" stuff and go "what the fuck?"

Now, if we can set aside the "most gamers are like this" claim, I think it's valuable to look at a post like Chris' as a diagnostic: if your game group looks like this, you may have a problem. If it doesn't, great, move on and assume the "hey, dickhead!" wasn't meant for you. This is particularly true in the case of the denial issue: this can definitely happen, and it's good to point it out in the hopes of highlighting it for the denial-group, but clearly not every group is in denial.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html

Hey, that's Frank Filz disagreeing with him! I haven't met him yet, but he's local. Cool.

Yep, Chris clearly says that, and it is indeed ass. Kind of like your contemptuous attititude. But thanks for the link anyway.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTwo brief stabs at sanity by John Kim and Mike Mearls. The rest is plenty of agreement from fellow forgies. (Many of whom went on to not having gaming groups afterwards, which is kind of a funny karmic reward in itself).

This is an odd characterization of the discussion. First, Frank Filz is a Forger himself, and providing the main voice of dissent. And besides that, none of the posts were simple "me toos." Most of them merely said "I've experienced that," and provided anecdotes and such. And losing gaming groups afterward--I'm tempted to ask your source for this information, but really, it's irrelevant. People get gaming groups, people lose gaming groups. What is this, a chain letter? Did their dicks shrivel up after posting as well? I can see no value in this line of comment, unless it's laughing at others' misfortune.

Anyway, Chris did admit that he can't prove the 95% claim, so that's something.

Also, I would like to note: Chris has a terrible habit of responding dismissively and rudely to opposition. That IS something I noticed back when I was reading the blog.

Finally,

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo is being a forgie fun? I imagine it's a lot less fun now.

Or are you just hanging out from habit?

Um. . .I'm no more a "Forgie" than, I dunno, anyone who posts on the Forge as well as other PRG boards. In fact I rarely post there. And as I said above, my personal beliefs (and I'll add, my personal happiness) is not dependent on the 95% of gamers claim, or on any personal beliefs of Chris Chinn.

Quote from: SettembriniFolks:
Let´s all agree that bankuei is a pathetic whiney ass and move on.
It´s been proven time and time again, Melinglor was just not up-to-date.

Forge bashing is sooo 2005.

Gee, thanks for elevating the level of the discourse, Sett. It
s like, just when we seem to be getting somewhere in communication on a couple of other threads, you suddenly needed to take a dump on my head to balance things out. Jeez.

I'm certainly not up-to-date on the ideas and opinions current on this site. I'm trying to get up to speed. I also haven't read the entire intarnet. Some people are more helpful in this than others. If being helpful isn't a goal of yours, then by all means continue in this vein.



With that: I would like to analyze the Chinn Dysfunction Model, but perhaps I'll wait to see if the air's sufficiently cleared before I delve into that.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: Just spotted a typo, I meant to say that I rarely post to the Forge anymore. Not trying to deny association, just saying that i've been drifting more toward other forums.

Wow, deja vu. This is the exact thing you did earlier.

"Wha? Forgies saying stupid things that are complete and utter BS? What? Prove it to me! Why.. he never says the majority of gamers are dysfunctional...he's just talking about something else I want to .. er.. make an excuse about.."

(I point out where he says exactly that)

"Oh that doesn't say... er.. exactly what it is says. Plus.. uhh. it might even be true... not that I'm agreeing with the sentiment or anything...! I mean it's completely ridiculous... But it totally could be true!"

The problem with cultists, is that they are all worthless snivelling liars. Public relations is tough, I realize, but COME ON.

Settembrini: Sorry.

Well, if "Yes, he does say what you said he did, and I agree that it's stupid" isn't enough for you, then I clearly am out of options.

Peace,
-Joel

Fair enough! I consider your ass status to be kicked. Send in the next forgie!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe says plainly that 95% of all gamers aren't having fun.. That's the context for everything else written. When someone disagreed, he wrote this:

http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/09/experiment-then.html

It's interesting to contrast that with the poll I did on rpg.net, "Is your gaming any fun?" (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=279944)

In the first place we've got the framing of the question. I ask basically three questions: Are you gaming nowadays? Is it overall good, okay or bad? And if not gaming, would you like to game?

Now, I would say that if a person says, "it's overall okay," then they're having fun. Not just if they say, "it's overall good." Whereas Bankuei says,
   "After every game night, if you come home, excited, hyped, and can't wait for the next game session, mark the calender . If it was just "ok", or "routine", then don't mark the calender." [sic]
So if you say, "my gaming is okay," he reads that as "my gaming is no fun." See, I'd say that the simplest way to break down happiness and fun is good/okay/bad. If you want to split it into only two options, then those who would have said, "okay" have to decide whether to call it "good" or "bad." But in this case, Bankuei's not offering them that option - if it's "okay", then he insists that means it's "bad."

Consider all the things in your life which are "okay". Now imagine that you'd call all those things "bad". You'd be miserable, right? So that's a negative way of looking at life. You could take the other view, the optimistic one, and say that everything "okay" is good. That'd be just as silly, and in fact Bankuei would take it as reinforcing his chart. The proper view is a balanced one - some things are good, some are bad, and some are just okay.

Okay is okay, it's not bad.

Second, even going on his definitions, well, let's look at the results of my poll -
   70% of people said their current or past gaming experience was "overall good."
23% said their current or past gaming experience was "overall okay"
6% said their current or past gaming experience was "overall bad."

Now, even if you slot the "okay" guys into "bad," still you're left with 70% of gamers being quite happy with their gaming, having fun.

Which is way off "95% of gamers aren't actually having fun."

Sure, my poll with (as of today) 347 respondents ain't scientific. However, it's a larger sample than "Bankuei's buddies on his blog". It's more useful data.

I think what we're looking at here is a question of focus. A person can focus on the shitty things in their life, and think of all the okay things as crap - that's a pessimist. Or they can focus on the good things, and think of the okay things as good - that's an optimist. Or they can more or less honestly understand good things as good, okay things as okay, and bad things as bad - a "realist" we might call it? I dunno.

And then of course a person can have an open view - say, listen to the 347 gamers - or they can have a narrow view - say, listen only to the guys you allow to post on your blog.

So the guy's chart is born out of pessimism and a narrow view he chooses to have.

Quote from: MelinglorThe reason that this is stupid is that it may well be true, but how can we really know? It may well be not true. As I said upthread, there's a bunch of internet folks reporting the experience, and a bunch of other internet folks reporting its absence. And my personal beliefs or philosphy are not dependent on dysfunction being the majority. To some degree they are dependent on it being a significant presents, but hell, even 1 in 10 is significant enough for this purpose. "Common enough to be worth dealing with in group discussion is my benchmark.

Well, if we assume that "functional" play produces fun, and "dysfunctional" play produces "not fun", then looking at my poll, we've got 20/347, or 6% of gamers saying they're having gaming which is "overall bad." So, 6% might be having "dysfunctional play." That doesn't make your "even 1 in 10", so by your standard is not "worth dealing with in group discussion."

To meet your benchmark, we'd have to either lower the bar for worth discussing to 1 in 20 or so, or assume that some of those gamers with "overall okay" experiences, and/or some of the "overall good" ones were having "dysfunctional play."

Now, I don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much. Maybe some things less deserve less attention than others. I brought up Bankuei's stupid miserableness because it's something we see often online. I mean, reading threads on rpg.net, you wouldn't think that only 6% of rpg.netters were having an "overall bad" experience - seems like a shitload more! I guess it's the same as anything else, unhappy people make a lot more noise than happy people.

So our discussions are shaped by too much consideration of stupid and miserable people's points of view. We forget the happy sensible people. And that's no way to understand what good gaming's about. When learning their trade, psychologists don't only study disturbed people, mechanics don't only pay with broken cars, doctors don't only learn about illnesses. All of them take a good look at healthy, well-functioning systems.

Bankuei and the other Forgers ask you, "What went wrong?" SteveD at rpg.net with his mindless optimism would ask, "What went right? What was AWESOME?" I'd ask, "what went wrong, and what went right?" That's what I'm working on with the cheetoism wiki - just a description of what actually happens in game groups, good and bad.

I think that's the way for a useful discussion, describing what actually happens, and asking a wide variety of people, not just "1 in 10 dysfunctional gamers", not just the miserable sods attracted to The Forge, or the kids attracted to ENWorld, or whatever - but a wide stretch of people.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's interesting to contrast that with the poll I did on rpg.net, "Is your gaming any fun?" (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=279944)

It's odd. The last time you brought up the poll you claimed it wan't scientific, and that Ron Edwards' impressions of the proportion of dysfunction was no more or less scientific. That's a fair point. But here you're holding the poll up as more reliable than the opposition. You can't have it both ways.

But, let me restate, I do NOT believe the claim that 95% of gamers are dysfunctional is a valid one. I find it likely, in fact, that dysfunction is in the minority.

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, I don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much. Maybe some things less deserve less attention than others. I brought up Bankuei's stupid miserableness because it's something we see often online. I mean, reading threads on rpg.net, you wouldn't think that only 6% of rpg.netters were having an "overall bad" experience - seems like a shitload more! I guess it's the same as anything else, unhappy people make a lot more noise than happy people.

I feel the same about what's worth discussing. My statement was more of a public plea to folks who might need more convincing to put the issue on the table. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere niggling at the exact numbers. Hell, I almost wrote "1 in 20" originally, but thought, "nah, 1 in 10 is strong enough to get the point across." Ah well.

Likewise niggling the exact wording for anyone's fun threshold seems like a dead end. Some folks are going to be satisfied if their gaming evens out to "just OK," whereas others are more content with low-key, less gonzo sessions. Myself, I'd characterize my gaming as a lot of stretches of boredom punctuated by cool moments. If you asked me how my session went and I said "ehh, it was okay," that could be miles apart on the contentment scale as someone else's "yeah, that was OK."

Quote from: JimBobOzBankuei and the other Forgers ask you, "What went wrong?" SteveD at rpg.net with his mindless optimism would ask, "What went right? What was AWESOME?" I'd ask, "what went wrong, and what went right?" That's what I'm working on with the cheetoism wiki - just a description of what actually happens in game groups, good and bad.

For what it's worth, my general reception at the Forge has been more like along the lines of "what went wrong, and what went right?" I agree wholeheartedly that it's important to focus on both sides. I just think you're unfairly characterizing the opposition.

Not that I expect that to stop, I guess. Just hoping to bring the characterization down to more sober levels, maybe.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorIt's odd. The last time you brought up the poll you claimed it wan't scientific, and that Ron Edwards' impressions of the proportion of dysfunction was no more or less scientific. That's a fair point. But here you're holding the poll up as more reliable than the opposition. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not.

First point, we're talking about different "polls." There's what people told Ron Edwards that prompted him to write that most gamers he meets are "tired, bitter and frustrated." "Perhaps over one hundred," he said.

Then there's Bankuei, who's done no polls at all, doesn't claim that any individual has told him anything (as far as I can see from a casual glance at his blog), but suggests people examine their level of gaming satisfaction - while predicting the results of his study, and not actually asking for any feedback.

Ron Edwards asked for feedback and then ignored it anything positive that didn't sound "Narrativist"; Bankuei didn't ask for feedback at all. My poll was pretty open, and while I expected certain results, I didn't broadcast them while offering the poll.

Second, I never claimed that my poll was "scientific." I just said that because it's a sample of more gamers than theirs, (347 to Ron Edwards' 100+, and some unspecified number for Bankuei), it's more likely to be representative than theirs.

My poll, despite its numbers, is too small to give truly quantitative results, they can be qualitative only. Is it plausible that, say, only half of all gamers are satisfied with their gaming? Rather than the 93% my poll suggests? Yes, it is. Is it plausible that only 5% of all gamers are satisfied (Bankuei's claim), rather than the 93% my poll suggests? No, it isn't.

We're not going to get rigorous figures here, but I think we can make the qualitative statement: "Most gamers are happy with their gaming."

Quote from: MelinglorBut, let me restate, I do NOT believe the claim that 95% of gamers are dysfunctional is a valid one. I find it likely, in fact, that dysfunction is in the minority.

That's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

And do you think that we can just assume that "functional" = "happy" and "dysfunctional" = "unhappy"? Or do you think that some "dysfunctional" groups are unhappy (they don't know when they're not having fun, they delude themselves)? Do you think that some "functional" groups are unhappy - what does "functional" mean, then?

Quote from: MelinglorAnd we're certainly not going to get anywhere niggling at the exact numbers. Hell, I almost wrote "1 in 20" originally, but thought, "nah, 1 in 10 is strong enough to get the point across." Ah well.

Which would be why I wrote...

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't think we need any particular benchmark of "worth discussing." I think everything's worth discussing, pretty much.

No niggling needed.

Quote from: MelinglorMyself, I'd characterize my gaming as a lot of stretches of boredom punctuated by cool moments. If you asked me how my session went and I said "ehh, it was okay," that could be miles apart on the contentment scale as someone else's "yeah, that was OK."

Sure. But the point isn't exactly what "okay", "good" or "bad" mean on some objective scale - only what it means to that person answering. It's like asking someone if they've had enough dinner. Whether it was 1oz of food or 4lbs doesn't matter in establishing, "have you had enough?" We just want to know if people's gaming is good enough for them. If someone is happy with 1oz of food, or not happy with 4lbs, there's no use my saying, "but you should be happy with more/less" - things ain't going to change for 'em. Likewise, maybe this guy should be happy with his gaming, and this girl should be unhappy with hers, looking at it "objectively" - but it doesn't matter a damn what it should be, only what it is.

Unlike Bankuei with his chart describing self-delusion, or Uncle Ronny with his articles describing brain damage, I think that people pretty much know if they're happy or not. If they say they're happy or unhappy, I'm not going to argue with them. I'll just ask them, "why?" And then from their responses, try to find out what seems to make lots of people happy, and what makes lots of people unhappy. That's how we get Cheetoism - it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Quote from: MelinglorFor what it's worth, my general reception at the Forge has been more like along the lines of "what went wrong, and what went right?" I agree wholeheartedly that it's important to focus on both sides. I just think you're unfairly characterizing the opposition.

I'm glad you've had a good experience there; many others haven't. And the end result of their questions has been their various articles, where they don't seem to have taken on board things that went right, only things that went wrong - thus, Uncle Ronny's "perhaps over one hundred" "tired, bitter and frustrated" gamers.

Joel,

I'll be more than happy to have that discussion.  I'm on vacation and my access is unpredictable for the next 2 weeks -- and I still owe droog a report on Shock when I have some time to collect my thoughts -- but, yeah, I'll be in on that conversation.  

The rest of you: lay off it.  Joel's clearly interested in discussing RPGs and doing so in a rather more open and honest manner than you often see on the internet.  So don't run around trying to stuff him into a clean little box labelled "Forgie" or "anti-Forgie".  Those labels are only appropriate for those who buy in to the party lines -- who are too damn common as is, so don't go trying to create any more of them.

I think most of us are here, at least in part, because we honestly like discussing RPGs, and many of us are unhappy with the us-vs-them that permeates RPG discussion online.  Well, we're not going to make it any better by using others' honesty against them.  I guess it all depends on what you really want:  a tit-for-tat where you get to amuse yourself by calling others names, or an open and honest discussion.  So, yeah, do some tongue-in-cheek stuff if you want.  But if you keep laying it on, it pretty quickly goes beyond tongue-in-cheek.  

Now I'm not the one to cast the first stone here.  I've certainly had some times when I read something that pissed me off, and said some things that didn't help the situation.  But we've got to fight the impulse to reflexively support "our team" regardless of the merits of the situation -- if we want an open and honest discussion.  OTOH, if what you want is snide comedy, then keep on.  Honest discussion, snide comedy, and a bit of payback are all goals that are appealing to the human psyche.  That's the paradox.  How much of each are you willing to give up to get the others?

Quote from: Lee ShortI'll be more than happy to have that discussion.  I'm on vacation and my access is unpredictable for the next 2 weeks -- and I still owe droog a report on Shock when I have some time to collect my thoughts -- but, yeah, I'll be in on that conversation.

No worries, there. My own internet access is sporadic, and it's all I can do to keep up with the forum. If the conversation progresses slowly, I will, in fact, be relieved.

Quote from: Lee ShortThe rest of you: lay off it.  Joel's clearly interested in discussing RPGs and doing so in a rather more open and honest manner than you often see on the internet.  So don't run around trying to stuff him into a clean little box labelled "Forgie" or "anti-Forgie".  Those labels are only appropriate for those who buy in to the party lines -- who are too damn common as is, so don't go trying to create any more of them.

God, thank you. I'm finding I'm spending three times the energy I should have to just clarifying and reiterating what I mean.

Jimbob: I must say, this is starting to look like as level-headed and respectful a conversation as we've been able have on this subject, much better than our last effort. So thank you.

About the polling: I can see where your data carries more weight than Chris' experience or even Ron's, but I remain unconvinced that the this weight is anything like conclusive or convincing. In short, I'm not sure if it's useful at all. I'm extremely suspicious of statistics.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

I do. I think the reason (or one reason) the dysfunction gets more airtime is that it's easier to point out what's not working than what is. And just more to say about it. Often if things are going fine, you don't need to think about it, and if you do analysis tends to be a bit fuzzy.

Quote from: JimBobOzSure. But the point isn't exactly what "okay", "good" or "bad" mean on some objective scale - only what it means to that person answering.

Well, that's actually the weakness I was trying to point out: "what it means to the person answering" is impossible to pin down within the context of, say, your pole. For me, personally, "Just good enough to get by" is a pretty bleak picture for a regular activity. When my roleplaying sessions are in such a state (and the dysfunction I've encountered has usually been closer to that end of the spectrum than the "tutally fucking awful" end), I start wondering "God, why am I staying up till 3AM on Friday nights to do this? I could be staying up on Friday nights with my girlfriend instead." So it really all depends.

Regarding the delusion issue: I think it exists, I should say know it exists, because I've seen it. It comes in various severities and forms, but the most common is "well, it's not that bad, really" accompanied by a good dose of "these are my friends, I can't quit/leave." But again, this is my experience and a "thing that happens," not the norm or indeed any definite percentage.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm glad you've had a good experience there; many others haven't. And the end result of their questions has been their various articles, where they don't seem to have taken on board things that went right, only things that went wrong - thus, Uncle Ronny's "perhaps over one hundred" "tired, bitter and frustrated" gamers.

I'm aware that my experience is not universal, and was only pointing it out because the opposite assumption is the rule here, and wished to provide a counterexample. Which has been getting me called a liar or dense or whatever, but that seems to be subsiding now, thank goodness.

The point about the essays is a whole 'nother topic, and I'm not even quite sure where to begin. On top of the monumental effort to delve into it sufficiently, I'm at a disadvantage in such a discussion since any agreement with the Forge essays is suspicious around here.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Zachary The FirstMy 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? :p

My guess is that the chart author is trying to say "The more the GM promises that This Game Will Be Fun, or The Next Session Will Be A Blast, the less likely this is to be true."

Which, you know, I can kind of see. The GM shouldn't have to promise that the game will be fun, that ought to be a given; loudly promising that the game is going to be totally awesome sounds insecure.

Quote from: Warthurloudly promising that the game is going to be totally awesome sounds insecure.

Quoted for emphasis. This is true.

I know of one particular group that does this with regularity, over the internet. Wait-- who is it again?

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

There is a more basic level where I think some of these theories go wrong.  The same exact process that can produce a functional and happy experience for one group can produce a dysfunctional and unhappy experience for another group.  One group may be very happy to have the GM lead them through a linear adventure while another group may feel controlled and railroaded and be quite unhappy about that.  That's because the likes, dislikes, and expectations of gamer can differ substantially.  That's why whenever there is advice on how to be a Good GM or an attempt to define what makes a Bad GM, there will be someone calling one person's Good technique Bad and someone calling one person's Bad technique Good.

In other words, other people might be doing the exact same thing your group is miserable doing and they might be having a blast.  And if they try doing something that produces a great game for your group, they might have a really awful time.  

For example, there is nothing wrong with players expecting to sit at the table and have the GM guide them through a story.  We accept the exact same dynamic when a person sits down to have a writer and director guide them through a story while watching a movie.  Why not watch a movie instead of playing a GM?  Because may the player enjoys having a stake in the story (via their character) and enjoys the participation they do get to make (basic decisions and dialog).  And what's so wrong about that?  So in the right context, even railroading isn't dysfunctional or bad.

I agree. There's nothing particularly "dysfunction"-inducing about a particular process such as so-called "GM Fiat". (Whose exact definition is still pretty unsettled IMO.) But maybe there is something about another common element of RPGs--continuing play from session to session--that makes it harder for the normal processes of evaluation and feedback to do their work. I.e., continuing play carries promises of future payoffs and also imposes an obligation to keep attending, both so you don't miss the "good parts" and so you don't let down the rest of the group.

If you compare boardgames to RPGs, in essence I think it's harder to drop out of an ongoing campaign than it is to simply opt out of a boardgame. With a boardgame group, you can skip a game--meaning at most a few sessions--without missing anything. And if you're not happy in a game, you know it's going to be over pretty soon anyway. These characteristics of boardgames allow a sort of "invisible hand" feedback mechanism that's not too socially disruptive, as games or people who don't go well together simply stop appearing at the same table.

So if there's any one widespread practice in RPGs that I would connect to "dysfunction", it's the expectation of continuing play, especially with just a single GM/single system/single campaign. Mixing things up with short-form games or one-shots, rotating GMs and/or games and campaigns, seem like good ways to avoid this.

[Digression: I think I've experienced something similar when it comes to TV shows--24 to be exact. For the first two seasons I thought it had moments of coolness interspersed with increasingly lengthy and annoying stretches of stupidity and spinning wheels. But we kept watching because the show always ended on a cliffhanger, leaving us--my wife and I--wondering what would happen next and how it would all eventually pay off. Finally, after the first episode of season 3, we just made a vow to quit cold turkey, and never looked back. With Dawson's Creek, we grimly waited out the series to its ridiculous conclusion. Come to think of it, TV has been using continuity more and more as a trick to keep people watching, even in comedies, and with a similar effect as people watch just to "see what happens next" instead of actually enjoying the lousy shows. But at least you don't feel like you're letting down your end of a bargain when you stop watching.]

Not buying this traumatized-by-continuity-expectations thing.

My experience is that even in situations where there is continuity-- long term campaigns-- people miss sessions all the time, without a problem. I know I've done it before when I was a player in someone else's campaign, and I know I've had players have to miss sessions of my campaign. It's no big deal. How is this long term campaign thing so traumatizing? If it is, why wouldn't you just drop out? I would. I dropped out of a not-so-great campaign last year..

   Anecdote: Now, was I traumatized or dysfunctional? Well, to be truthful, I kinda wanted my illusionist character to get some more bluffings and trickery in and I questioned this guy's ability as a GM, sure. But I really dropped out because I wanted to GM again myself, and I wanted to play on Thrusdays versus Friday, and I was driving like 30 minutes to get to this guys house..and 30 minutes back...  I mean, that stuff adds up. That's not "Dysfunction", it's just arranging your time.

Most groups even have a policy (formal or informal) about this kind of thing. I know in the "sister" campaign I play on weekends, the GM gave us a little "campaign primer" and it has a spelled out "absence policy". (You can either hand your character off to be run as an NPC for half experience or just have the group pretend you arent there for the session for no experience).

Thats' more elaborate than I do. If anyone's absent, we have an informal policy; we just pretend the character disappears into the background. The game is about the players after all, so if the player isn't there, then we just pretend the character isn't there either. In the event I have to come up with a notional fiction we just go ahead and do it. (ala "ok, Saul's not here? Ok, let's say his character suddenly remembers he has to check on the horses, and he leaves the dungeon. Alright, where were we?")

The other reason I see this as problematic: I truly believe that continuitous long term campaigns are the ideal way to manage a gaming group.

Well, I'm not saying continuity causes trauma, just that it encourages people to keep coming back to the same campaign--which is a problem if the campaign isn't delivering.

The core hypothesis is that large numbers of gamers are having a miserable time, but due to some odd psychological feedback mechanism are unaware that they are having a miserable time.

In other words, large numbers of gamers think they are enjoying themselves when in fact they are not.

IMO that's an extraordinary hypothesis, particularly when put against the alternative hypothesis that people who think they are enjoying themselves are in fact enjoying themselves.

Extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proof, for this one we don't even have weak proof.  We have in fact no evidence at all in favour of this hypothesis.  We do have evidence suggesting that some gamers are not enjoying themselves, and even that some gamers convince themselves they are having fun when they are not.  But we have literally no evidence to support an extrapolation to the wider population.

Quite honestly, I think we are giving this more attention than it merits.  Let someone come up with some evidence for what is frankly a bizarre claim and then let's discuss it, until then as best I can tell Melinglor is simply extrapolating from his own experiences to the wider population in the absence of any evidence that such an extrapolation is meaningful or justified.

It's a classic debating trick being used here, let's put all the possibilities in the ring and then assess them all equally.  By doing that, you give equal weight to the extraordinary hypothesis as to any others, and sidestep the issue of whether there is enough evidence supporting the extraordinary hypothesis to merit it being considered in the first place.

There isn't, there is simply no reason to believe that the majority of gamers are having a shitty time but convincing themselves otherwise, other than a vested interest in promoting other games which may not be selling purely on merit, I struggle to see why anyone would suggest such a bizarre claim.  Do people who enjoy knitting go around suggesting that most people knit despite not enjoying it?  It is simply a ludicrous claim.

Let's let this thread die, Chris was an unhappy gamer who made a bad entry on his blog, no more than that.

QuoteLet's let this thread die, Chris was an unhappy gamer who made a bad entry on his blog, no more than that.

That´s all I´m saying.

See, there is one thing that reliably works in nearly every human being:

The reward system.

The real and cruel truth is, that some forms of gaming are effortless frustration free fuzzy feeling. Just like drugs.
People have fun.
People can have fun & escapism way too easy sometimes.

That´s the real danger.

People enjoying themselves too much.

I keep reading all this stuff and I keep coming to the exact same opinion.

Way too many people have no sense of perspective.  There is no such thing as 'disfunctional gaming'. I've never had it, and really I say no one else has.

Look, you game and this guy in the group, maybe he's the GM, maybe he's just a dominant player... he's an asshole and he's fucking up your game.

That's not a dysfunctional game, not a dysfunctional group. Its an asshole, don't game with him. If  you keep not having fun playing with that asshole, then YOU are exhibiting dysfunctional behavior (not gaming, just in general) by willingly subjecting yourself to an asshole over and over again.

Me? I've played with assholes I couldn't stand. I either figured out a way to ignore/minimize their impact on my play, or I didn't play with them. No middle ground, no coming back over and over again for the abuse. And certainly no 'woe is me, gaming is an abusive relationship' gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair.  

Trying to establish truly incoherent charts (seriously, I'm amazed at some of the analysises of the chart I've seen here... I can take a peice at a time, but the chart itself? means fucking nothing at all. Could have taken each of those ideas and just listed them without lines and it'd make more sense....) to prove the GAMING is dysfunctional is to miss the fundamental truth:

Games aren't assholes, people are. And people who subject themselves repetitively to assholes have problems, not the assholes.

Melingor: If your games were not fun until you discovered the Forge, why the fuck were you still playing them?  Unless someone at the forge said 'don't play with assholes in your group' then they didn't save your gaming.

Defending people from their own stupidity, warrented or not, will bring you nothing but grief. Bring your own ideas and you'll get along with much less stress.   Look at Jimmy... when he brings the Cheetoism we all cheer him on, when he jacks up his own game group with poor communication and passive agressive antagonistic play he heap (or at least I heap...) scorn upon his unworthy head.  No one here defends  the Pundit from his rampages but the Pundit (at least last time I checked...).  

In other words, you are welcome to YOUR opinions even if they disagree with some of us, but if all you do is say that this other guy's opinions are yours, you'll get the flamestick over and over again...

I agree with these last few posts. I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about the respective merits and disadvantages of short-term vs. open-ended play, and how to avoid pitfalls in each, but this thread is probably not the place for it.

http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/weblog/421.html (http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/weblog/421.html)

this is the same dumbass who apparently feels offended seeing nerds dressed up as "Drow" cause "it's black-face".

fucking retards...lumping racism, brain damage, physical/psychological abuse, and the weariness of war veterans under the imaginary fantasy land of role-playing games is insensitive at best.

i remember fucking fuming over the bullshit Ron wrote about how they were all 'veterans', sitting around a campfire, scarred from battle, etc etc. telling war stories of their triumphs in gaming theory....

I don't have enough feet for teeth-kicking in that crowd.

Kregmosier: Brutha, you and me both.

Alright. I just made my post about (long term vs short term) campaigns to split this off:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=75194#post75194

You know what´s so pathetic about the gamer haters?

They are still "only" gamers.

When you want to be pretentious, you stop having college-like fun, and only talk shop about theatre, the opera and literature.
Not games.

They are even failing in their pretentiousness, total losers.

Yeah, then there are those folks who claim their way of gaming is morally superior...losers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, then there are those folks who claim their way of gaming is morally superior...losers.

How can my gaming be morally superior? d00d, my excuse for rolling dice and eating cheetos is way better than your excuse for rolling dice and eating cheetos!

QuoteYeah, then there are those folks who claim their way of gaming is morally superior.

Everybody implicitly says that. That was my point...
Like you just uttered your moral superiority you old over me.

Quote from: SettembriniEverybody implicitly says that. That was my point...
Like you just uttered your moral superiority you old over me.

No, Sett the only folks who claim their games are morally superior used to be (according to some) the Forge guys. And off course now there is you. Most folks don't really care how other folks are having fun much less worry about whether their games are superior. As for your second sentence: Don't be ridiculous.

Regards,
David R

QuoteLike you just uttered your moral superiority you hold over me.

That´s the exact point. When you understand that, you´ll be of my opinion.

Not that my gaming is better, but that every judgement on playstyles (or posting behaviour...look at JimBob: he´s judging all the time!) is inherently a judgement of the underlying values.

That´s life!
But let´s drop that.
Until you understand that, you might as well just think of me as an asshole. But please don´t tell me everytime.

Quote from: Settembrinievery judgement on playstyles (or posting behaviour...look at JimBob: he´s judging all the time!) is inherently a judgement of the underlying values.

...And?

If you're trying to convince me that your judgement is correct, I might give a shit.  If you're just holding an opinion, who gives a damn?  Understanding anything at all requires forming and changing judgements regularly.

So, congrats, you've stated a truism.  I'll be sure to file it under "Valid, but utterly fucking useless."

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s the exact point. When you understand that, you´ll be of my opinion.

Not that my gaming is better, but that every judgement on playstyles (or posting behaviour...look at JimBob: he´s judging all the time!) is inherently a judgement of the underlying values.

Oh, I understand Sett, all too well. I realize, that all comments on playstyles are value based( I said this in your moral thread). But this "values" statement is a long way from sayin' that "my" playstyle is inherently superior than "yours". And please, let's not equate JimBob's posting style with your detour to Swinedom.

Got a question. Did you just realize after all these years when the so-called Swine were going on about the superiority of their playstyle, that they may have had a point?

QuoteThat´s life!
But let´s drop that.
Until you understand that, you might as well just think of me as an asshole. But please don´t tell me everytime.

I don't think you are an asshole. If I did, I would not even bother responding to you. But, you are right. I don't want the only conversation we have with each other to be only about this. I'll refrain from doing so, in future threads...unless really necessary.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowThere is a more basic level where I think some of these theories go wrong.  The same exact process that can produce a functional and happy experience for one group can produce a dysfunctional and unhappy experience for another group.

Just wanted to say that I don't think you're in disagreement with the main body of theory here.

Quote from: BalbinusQuite honestly, I think we are giving this more attention than it merits.  Let someone come up with some evidence for what is frankly a bizarre claim and then let's discuss it, until then as best I can tell Melinglor is simply extrapolating from his own experiences to the wider population in the absence of any evidence that such an extrapolation is meaningful or justified./QUOTE]

Jeez, how many times do I have to say it? I'm not extrapolating from my experiences to the wider population; I'm just holding up my experiences as, y'know, my experiences, and inferring from other counts that I'm not alone. I'm not supporting the claim that "95%" or even "the majority" of gamers aren't having fun. This is seriously exhausting. Why have I had to restate my position on this like five times now?

And I'm apparently using a "classic debating trick." Goddammit. The fact is, it's absolutely impossible to prove my sincerity and honest motives on the internet, even more than in real live conversation. So I guess, think what you will of me. At least a few folks have some feeling that I'm on the level.

Quote from: SpikeMelingor: If your games were not fun until you discovered the Forge, why the fuck were you still playing them?  Unless someone at the forge said 'don't play with assholes in your group' then they didn't save your gaming.

Man,there's a lot of polarizing around here. "fun" isn't an on/off" switch. There's such nuances as "more fun" and "less fun" and "fun more/less often" and such.

Anyway, it's a good question: why was I? Partly 'cause of the shades of grey that I just mentioned--it wasn't that there was no fun being had, just that there was some fun of varying degrees interspersed with mild boredom or just plain Not Fun, and the whole thing was starting to add up to a loss in the fun to time and effort equation.

All this talk of "saving' my game is just more unneccessary polarization. That's not what I said; I said, "stuff like Chris' writing [and yes, the Forge itself] has helped me identify what's happening with me and my friends and work at positive solutions." The "save your gaming" stuff is just a word trick, intentional or not, to paint me as a "One True Way-ist" against my will. in any case, the Forge did help by among other things saying (essentially) "Don't play with assholes," or more specifically describe aspects of the social dynamics of roleplaying groups that helped me examine my own group's behavior (including my own) to see ways to improve it.

Quote from: SpikeIn other words, you are welcome to YOUR opinions even if they disagree with some of us, but if all you do is say that this other guy's opinions are yours, you'll get the flamestick over and over again...

Well, what happened from my perspective is this:

JimBob "Hey, this guy's ideas are ridiculous!"

Me: "Well, here's how I've found them valuable."

[Big shitstorm]

Lee: "Hey, this guy seems like he's honest and wants to have an enlightening discussion."

Some others: "But we're not done lambasting him by linking him to an idea he's already renounced!"

Really, are you criticizing me for discussing someone else's ideas in a thread about someone else's ideas?

Quote from: SpikeWay too many people have no sense of perspective.  There is no such thing as 'disfunctional gaming'. I've never had it, and really I say no one else has.

Look, you game and this guy in the group, maybe he's the GM, maybe he's just a dominant player... he's an asshole and he's fucking up your game.

That's not a dysfunctional game, not a dysfunctional group. Its an asshole, don't game with him. If  you keep not having fun playing with that asshole, then YOU are exhibiting dysfunctional behavior (not gaming, just in general) by willingly subjecting yourself to an asshole over and over again.

I'm confused here, 'cause you're spot-on in your analysis of (one type of) gaming dysfunction, but for some reason you refuse to label it dysfunction. Are youscared of linking yourself to some wierd Forgey definition? 'Cause I'm approaching Dysfunction in a pretty straightforward way, like "disturbance, impairment or abnormality of functioning." You're describing a situation with an asshole, and someone willingly subjecting themselve sto the asshole. That's dysfunction. It's just a fancy word for "not working right." And you're exactly right that the person who keeps putting up with this shite is just as "dysfunctional." This topic, in Forgey circles or no, isn't a simple "poor me, the mean asshole picked on me, give me a hug." About every discussion of dysfunction that I can think of was focussed on "what can we do to make things better?" to even the brutal, tough-love extreme of "if this problem is unreconcilable, don't put up with it--leave."

Also, we're getting away from the fact that dysfunction doesn't have to be about assholes. There's also (f'rinstance) a well-intentioned clash of interests, or poorly-executed pursuit of shared interests. Chris' diagram seems to be getting at that--a lot of the elements are just matters of crappy play input, though his model is obviously attempting to demonstrate a state where this in-game crappiness is building group tension to a breaking point.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot buying this traumatized-by-continuity-expectations thing.

My experience is that even in situations where there is continuity-- long term campaigns-- people miss sessions all the time, without a problem. I know I've done it before when I was a player in someone else's campaign, and I know I've had players have to miss sessions of my campaign. It's no big deal. How is this long term campaign thing so traumatizing? If it is, why wouldn't you just drop out? I would. I dropped out of a not-so-great campaign last year..

I don't think it's so much whether, say, missing a session, is a big deal, as much as whether continuing to participate in general is a big deal. Like, if things are going badly, it's easier to cut out if your presence won't "kill the campaign," man. Which is not the same thing as saying long-term play leads dysfunction. Just that it exacerbates it.

Peace,
-Joel

So, Lee said that he wanted to discuss the actual merits of Chris' writing. Not sure what the interest level is, but I'll give it a shot. I think I'll confine myself to this one entry, for now at least. So, the chart and its accompanying text:

First, lemme say yes, the chart is a mess. Like Spike says, the information all makes some sense as individual statements, but as a visual or conceptual whole it just sort of loses you.

One thing that may help for undersanding the chart, though, is seeing that it comes on the heels of two other entries in a series, models of Coherent and Incoherent play:

(http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/files/17/21/DP.jpg)

(http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/files/17/25/Incoherent%20Design.jpg)

I only post the diagrams to give context. So in that context, the third diagram is a representation of the roleplaying process out-and-out breaking down, as opposed to more difficult or whatever. Remember that "incoherent" here is not meant to equate to "bad" or unfun play; it only refers to the fact that a lot of the group understanding (from goals to techniques to whobuys pizza) are unspoken or poorly defined. Susceptible to dysfunction, but possibly quite healthy and fun.

So I guess the Dysfunction diagram is meant to go all wierd and crazy by contrast. Not that this makes it anyless of a trainwreck. :D But my best guess is that it's meant to represent something teetering on the brink of collapse; hence the pentagon balancing on its tip. The "GM Fiat" labeling the tip doesn't signify to me "GM fiat is bad and dysfunctional," but rather that GM fiat is the only thing keeping this puppy upright in a precarious balancing act. In other words, nothing else, not rules support, or group understanding, is keeping the game afloat, just the decisions and personal magnetism of this one guy. And when the group stops responding even to this tenuous authority, the thing falls apart.

Now this is clearly a worst-case scenario. Does it happen often? Who knows! I can definitely identify problems described here creeping into my gaming group at varying times over the years. So I think the best purpose for this model, for all its flaws, is to help identify those things before they get to the crisis-point, and correct course to avoid all-out dysfunction. It's like driving: if you're madly spinning the wheel as you rush straight toward the tree, it's already too late. If you're making tiny course corrections as you head down the road, you'll do fine and won't even get into the situation of having to dodge the tree.

Does this make sense to anyone? Any constructive criticism?

Let me clarify that this is far from Chris Chinn's finest hour, but it is the topic at hand, and if we're going to discuss other writings with more merit that should perhaps be another thread.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: kregmosierthis is the same dumbass who apparently feels offended seeing nerds dressed up as "Drow" cause "it's black-face".

To be fair, the average LARPer in Drow facepaint looks more or less exactly like... a guy in blackface. Possibly with medieval costume, LARP-safe weapon, white wig and pointy ears, but it still looks to the casual observer like a guy in blackface.

Now, ye and me and everyone else at the LARP knows that it isn't mean to be blackface. Passers-by and random observers? Slightly less likely to know what Drow are.

I'm not offended by the "racism", but I can get offended by roleplayers who have absolutely no clue how what they're doing might be viewed by other people. Confidence and geek pride is all very well, but you don't want to give people the wrong idea.

I'd be far happier with even the bad diagram if it wasn't--if Chris wasn't--so down on "normal gamers." A diagram that shows "how things can go wrong" is very different when cast in the light of "how you are doing it wrong and don't know it."

Assertions that would be reasonable in one light ("this is how it happened to me") are un-reasonable in another: This is how it happened to you--and if you don't agree? Denial!

The latter just isn't honest communication. It doesn't have any integrity.

If you remove the prescriptiveness and the judgment from this part of the dialog, I get this from the diagrams:

1. All play must have a driving point. If you don't articulate that point you are incoherent.

2. Broad goals--or non-systematized approaches to what is essentially a creative endeavor--are bad.

3. Those games (meaning those I don't like--but happen to play--because he does) are inherently run on GM-as-little-tin-god. No matter what is said about the GM being a referee or being fair--or whatever--in those games it's all about peer pressure, denial, and cult-of-personality.

I don't think that *any* of this is defacto true or even reasonable. I can approach a game for the experience and then change my goals as they go along (I do this regularly with new games--when I played DitV I didn't know if I'd be battling with my fellow players, myself, the system ... I didn't come in with a goal that could be easily stated other than to see what the game/group was about).

And I do think playing with the "Right people" is very important. And I don't think that what gets called GM-Fiat (the GM being a dick) is part of traditional games: that's a handy bait-and-switch that theory-speak uses.

And so on ...

These diagrams are essentially a manifesto and the foundation for it--however well meant--is unnecessarily toxic.

-Marco

Melingor:

The disconnet we are having is this: I view gaming as I do almost any sort of activity, rather than something special.  It's a group activity, certainly.  I've got people that I'd rather not game with. Hey, imagine that, I also have people I'd rather not work with. Sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes they are different.

I don't see inherent value in getting together with other people and trying to develope an entire body of amature studies on why I do or do not want to game with Joe. Joe may be an asshole. Joe may think I"m the asshole. It doesn't matter.  Joe could be an awesome guy to go get drunk with and stare at strippers and still be the worlds biggest asshole at the table.  The answer isn't to talk about different creative agendas, the answer is 'don't game with Joe'.

You presented your pre-Forge gaming as something akin to RPG hell, and your post Forge gaming as 'enjoyable'. I won't try to exaggerate and say you claimed it was perfect, but it was most certainly 'not-hell'. But you haven't said anyone told you 'don't game with Joe'.  Of course, all this talk of Creative Agendas and shit is really just window dressing for 'don't game with Joe'.  Oh, he's got a different CA... whatever.


As for my comments about bringing your own ruckus to the table rather than just defending other peoples ruckus: I'm not talking about just in this thread. It seems like every time I see you post you are busy claiming someone else is misunderstood, and that their ideas saved your gaming.   Peachy, I'm glad you are having fun. Really.  But if Ron or Chris or whomever needs to defend themselves, let them come in and defend themselves.  Bring YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions, not theirs and I'll be happy to talk to you.  I can go read their ideas all over the Forge and elsewhere.  More, I can't debate their ideas with you. You didn't come up with them, and all you are doing is 'spreading the good word'... that same shit is annoying when the Jehovah's Witlesses do it on Saturday mornings in the real world.

Spike pretty much speaks for me here.  It's not that I deny Melinglor's experiences, I'm happy to discuss those.  I just don't see why we should do so in the context of a shitty table from Chris.

If we must discuss Chris, let's discuss the cool stuff he posted about, not this old crap.

Or, if Melinglor want's to talk about his experiences, let's do that but in a thread about that, rather than in a thread justifying some prejudiced crap from somebody who doesn't even post here.

I don't get why this is being kept alive.  People were happy to move on and had accepted that this was old news, why keep it going?  It just creates ill will.

Quote from: MelinglorLet me clarify that this is far from Chris Chinn's finest hour, but it is the topic at hand, and if we're going to discuss other writings with more merit that should perhaps be another thread.

Peace,
-Joel

I think Chris was competent to make his own points, and did so.

I think if you need to make a longer post explaining his comments than his original post, then that suggests to me you're trying too hard to make the unacceptable acceptable.

I think you're working really hard to find useful content where there ain't any, but I also think if you walked away from that and advanced your own ideas there might be more to usefully discuss.

Seriously, let's let this thread die.  If you have spinoff ideas that it has sparked in you let's discuss those, but not in the context of putting words in Chris's mouth to make his posts seem other than how he wrote them.

Quote from: BalbinusSeriously, let's let this thread die.

If you want a thread to die, Balbinus, then you should stop posting to it, even if those posts are saying (as yours have the last several times) that the thread should die.

Melingor, if you think Bankuei has some good ideas worth discussing, then I recommend that you start a new thread. Once a thread hits 100 posts, it's rare that anyone will read all the way through it. Either the mass of discussion puts them off and they don't respond to it at all, or they find something in the first 20 posts to respond to. So they won't see your post trying to set a different tone around #120.

Just start a new thread, if you want to discuss some different aspect of Bankuei's ideas.

Quote from: JimBobOzOnce a thread hits 100 posts, it's rare that anyone will read all the way through it. Either the mass of discussion puts them off and they don't respond to it at all, or they find something in the first 20 posts to respond to. So they won't see your post trying to set a different tone around #120.

I have been catching up on some of this over the last few days (yes, I have too much free time) and thought I should plunge in here...

One thing that makes it hard to want to dig through these charts and theories is the implications of the terminology used, namely stuff like "incoherent" vs "coherent" play. Despite the folks claim that incoherent isnt necessarily a bad thing; that its a valid and fun play style, etc; that word has clearly negative connotations. Like comparing the high art of "coherent" games to naive art, if you will. Would you rather read a coherent book or an incoherent one? If both play styles are valid, more neutral terminology is needed. Otherwise it seems to say more about the prejudices of the authors of said theories than it does about gaming styles.

Secondly, there's no need to reinvent the wheel here. I'm sure there are books and studies about group dynamics and personality politics that could give gamers insight into their groups issues. The approach that seems to be taken by these would-be "theorists" is to lift anecdotal evidence from their games and make presumptions about the way everyone else plays from that. Then they reverse engineer a kind of pop-psychology approach to fixing the "problems". Are the folks doing this social workers? I dont think the people who are doing this have the expertise, frankly. There seems to be a need to sound academic, but without applying academic standards.

No doubt, there are some lessons one can learn from some of these attempts at gaming theory, (I still learn something every now and then, but I have been DMing for over 20 years now so I have it figured out for the most part...:D ) but it's obfuscated by the high-falutin theory-speak. Either theorists need to apply the rigorous standards that a University would to back up all that jargon, or they need to acknowledge that what they bring to the table is just good old "DM advice" like Gary used to give, some of it more useful than others. Quit trying to sledgehammer everyones playing styles into some big paradigm when you don't really know how the other half plays, as it were.

OH AND I used to LARP with a guy who played a Drow. He wore blackface the first time, but quit doing it after that. His explanation was something along the lines of "WTF, I'm black..."  :haw:

Pretty classic forge speak here -

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2430&page=1#Item_0

obviously it is creatives vs. consumers, instead of people Who Do vs. people who theorise, or grumpy old men vs. The Kids.

Humility people, humility...

Seriously though, if anyone doesn't see the distain dripping from that thread:- you are retarded.

Quote from: SpikeThe disconnet we are having is this: I view gaming as I do almost any sort of activity, rather than something special.  It's a group activity, certainly.  I've got people that I'd rather not game with. Hey, imagine that, I also have people I'd rather not work with. Sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes they are different.

I'm not sure I understand you here. I'm not saying gaming is anything "special." I don't think it has to be to apply the concept of dysfunction. I've dealt with dysfunction in family relations, the workplace, choir, student newspaper, and church, to name a few. I think it's useful to look at the reasons for those dysfunctions and how to aviod or mitigate them. There are more helpful ways of looking at them, and less helpful ways. But the base value of looking at them at all still stands, and I'm calling that "Dysfunction.

Now, different people's tolerance for analyzing different topics varies greatly. If you're just saying that you don't have much tolerance for digging deeply into this particular subject, then OK, fair enough. But there's no need dump on a perfectly good word to make that point.

Quote from: SpikeI don't see inherent value in getting together with other people and trying to develope an entire body of amature studies on why I do or do not want to game with Joe. Joe may be an asshole. Joe may think I"m the asshole. It doesn't matter.  Joe could be an awesome guy to go get drunk with and stare at strippers and still be the worlds biggest asshole at the table.

Quite right. The set of people I would enjoy drinking with is probably a lot larger than the set of people I would enjoy gaming with. :toast:

Quote from: SpikeThe answer isn't to talk about different creative agendas, the answer is 'don't game with Joe'.

[SNIP]

Of course, all this talk of Creative Agendas and shit is really just window dressing for 'don't game with Joe'.  Oh, he's got a different CA... whatever.

I'm a bit confused here. You presented the advice, "don't game with [someone you don't enjoy gaming with]" as an alternative to CA, then a bit farther down you said that this advice is thereal core of CA. I mean, without going into whether CA is accurate or useful, which is it? If you're saying that the analysis doesn't need to go deeper than "don't game with Joe," then let me assert that (whether CA/Big model is the answer or not) looking into the reasons why gaming with Joe isn't fun is valuable to me. Especially since there's a much broader spectrum of solutions than "game with him"/"don't game with him."

Quote from: SpikeYou presented your pre-Forge gaming as something akin to RPG hell, and your post Forge gaming as 'enjoyable'. I won't try to exaggerate and say you claimed it was perfect, but it was most certainly 'not-hell'. But you haven't said anyone told you 'don't game with Joe'.

I don't recall saying anything about it one way or the other, aside from mentioning some techniques I've gleaned. Why is the absence of a statement, "They told me 'don't game with Joe'" being repeatedly taken as evidence that they didn't tell me that? Hell, we haven't really even begun to discuss my experiences with the Forge and related blogs. It seems to me that  there's a certain profile (I hesitate to type this as it seems a laughable understatement!) of "The Forge" and its denizens that's current around here, that gets applied in the absence of evidence to any reference to interacting with it. In fact, I have recieved advice akin to "Don't game with Joe" on several occasions, though it was more like "I wouldn't play with Joe if he acted that way" or "maybe you shouldn't game with Joe if you have that much frustration with him." (I find the shorthand we've created to describe this rather amusing, by the way, since the player I've had the most trouble getting along withis in fact named Joe. :D )

Quote from: SpikeAs for my comments about bringing your own ruckus to the table rather than just defending other peoples ruckus: I'm not talking about just in this thread. It seems like every time I see you post you are busy claiming someone else is misunderstood, and that their ideas saved your gaming.   Peachy, I'm glad you are having fun. Really.  But if Ron or Chris or whomever needs to defend themselves, let them come in and defend themselves.  Bring YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions, not theirs and I'll be happy to talk to you.  I can go read their ideas all over the Forge and elsewhere.  More, I can't debate their ideas with you. You didn't come up with them, and all you are doing is 'spreading the good word'... that same shit is annoying when the Jehovah's Witlesses do it on Saturday mornings in the real world.

I, uh, don't think this is coming up as often as you say it is. I did dive into a subject like this related to Ron when I first came here. . .and now this. In both cases I was genuinely trying to understand where people were coming from and offer my perspective. I am new around here and still getting a feel for what conversations are worth having, and how best to have them. Now that this thread has becoem completely unraveled I'll just have to regroup and consider the best avenue for dialogue to approach next.

And who says you can't have a debate about ideas that didn't originate with yourself? That seems. . .awfully limiting.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardOH AND I used to LARP with a guy who played a Drow. He wore blackface the first time, but quit doing it after that. His explanation was something along the lines of "WTF, I'm black..."  :haw:

Personally, I like my Dark Elves better in grey, anyway.:cool:

Peace,
-Joel

I deny the very premise of your arguement melinglor.


Please tell me, what you think the point of a chart is?

I'm rather curious. Because I learned in Pre-K that a chart was a "graphical depiction of complex data so that data becomes easy to understand."

Later, perhaps 3rd grade, I learned about more complex, flow-charts, which are a graphical depiction of a complex process (usually with multiple steps) so that it can be easily understood.

If you have to sit down and explain the meaning of a chart for me, the chart ain't doing shit! Your ideas are complete bunk!

Quote from: MelinglorQuite right. The set of people I would enjoy drinking with is probably a lot larger than the set of people I would enjoy gaming with. :toast:

If I can't game with you, I won't drink with you :D

Edit: Bad phrasing on my part

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KashellI deny the very premise of your arguement melinglor.[/B]

Umm, I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to here. I've said a lot of things in this thread, some about the chart, some not.

What is the "premise of my argument" that you're referring to here?

Peace,
-Joel

From your first post on this thread.

QuoteAnyway, about the diagram and accompanying prose:

I'm not for a minute going to try to say anyone might be right, wrong or sideways about whether the setiments are an accurate picutre of the majority of gamers. Or whether this represents hate/bile/contempt on Chris Chinn's part. But consider: What if, just if, someone came to Deep in the Game or the Forge or wherever, and read descriptions of gaming like this, and instead of saying "Oh my God, what hateful bullshit! My gaming isn't like that at ALL!" what if instead, they said "Oh my God! This is exactly the kind of shit I've been going through in X years of gaming! Someone's seen the same problems,and maybe has some sort of useful analysis and solution!"

That person exists. Me, for one.

For another 5 posts and 3 pages, you essentially repeat yourself and attempt to defend your orginal statement.

So let me summerize your original premise:

"This diagram helped me, and therefore it should help someone else too!"

After you realized that Chris did post that he believed most gaming play was disfunctional, you wrote...

QuoteNo, I didn't see this before. Or the other quote. I was only reading the post at hand. So Chris Chinn does say that most gamers aren't having fun. The vast majority even. This is stupid. I'm entirely comfortable saying that.

The reason that this is stupid is that it may well be true, but how can we really know? It may well be not true.As I said upthread, there's a bunch of internet folks reporting the experience, and a bunch of other internet folks reporting its absence. And my personal beliefs or philosphy are not dependent on dysfunction being the majority. To some degree they are dependent on it being a significant presents, but hell, even 1 in 10 is significant enough for this purpose. Common enough to be worth dealing with in group discussion is my benchmark.

So let me summerize your second point:

"I think Chris' opinion about the majority of dysfunctional play is stupid...I mean, it could be right, but I don't know, but I think it might be OK."

Until your very last post, you do nothing but repeat yourself senselessly in addition to try to defend yourself from namecalling.

Let's recap, shall we?

"This diagram helped me, and therefore it should help someone else too!"

"I think Chris' opinion about the majority of dysfunctional play is stupid...I mean, it could be right, but I don't know, but I think it might be OK."



Now, from the mere walls of text you created, I can figure out one of a few things things:

1) You personally detest "labels" and thus, made a bunch of derailed posts just to defend your "no label" status.

OR

2) You really enjoy making fruitless arguements

OR

3) You don't know how to make an arguement

OR (finally)

4) You are Hulk Hogen.


You fail to understand that this thread is not about you, your experiences, your life, or anything else pertaining to you. It is about a retarded diagram and an obviously incorrect statement about all gameplay being disfunctional.

い所。

(http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/4894/importantrpgdiagramva9.gif)

:D

Quote from: kregmosier:D

Your pyramid is upside-down. ;)

Quote from: John MorrowYour pyramid is upside-down. ;)

OMG it's the brain damage, i swear. :p

More fun with charts. :)

Science and faith: two flowcharts (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html)

Stuart - hahaha fantastic.  i <3 graphs and flowcharts when they're used for silly effect.  (which on the internet is actually more often than not...)  thanks for the link.