You aren´t telling us any new things, Christopher. Don´t mix up Punditious extremism with all readers here. Brain damage is about Vampire, I have said that time and time again. Swine => Brain Damage

And at least for me, Ron explained all the stuff of his theory in the Rifts thread so I could understand without referring to other articles.

But it is a given, that there are articles, which aren´t a machete in the jungle of unclearness, but a clumsy net that you have to shlep through the woods further to a small crystal clear lake in the rainforesty mountains. Then you have to wiggle all twigs out of it, repair it, and throw it into the pond.
When the odd delicacy special fish is actually caught, you will see that this is in no way a sensible way to feed a city.

"But the fish is delicous, it´s unlike those canned sardines!", you might say.
But practical, it is not.

Hi Set,

This is one of my frustrations with the group internet discussion... I say one thing, about something one person said, and then people who didn't say it feel slighted or wronged, as if I was accusing them of having said it. But I didn't. I was saying the people who said the thing I'm talking about said it.

Again, as stated in the last post, my main concern is the folks who really have no direct contact with the Forge or games designed by the folks who post at the Forge and who might take the Pundit's high-flyin' verbal fantasies of at face value.

You, obviously, are not such a person.

As for the articles, I have my own confusion about them: I read the GNS essay and got it right out of the gate. I mean, really. I was referred to The Forge by someone. Poked around. Started reading the essay. Thought, "this makes sense." Printed it out. Carried it around that weekend at a local game convention, reading the pages inbetween sessions. Looked around observing what Ron had written about all around me (which, by the way, was a clarification of stuff I had observed years ago on my own). I finished reading the essay on Saturday afternoon. Kept it in the back of my head through Sunday night. At the end of the weekend at the con I thought, "Yup."

Keep in mind, I had read a couple of threads on the Forge (this was back three years ago...) But no one explained the concepts to me. I read the essay. It made sense. I wasn't confused. I frankly find the confusion confusing. But that's just me.

So, while I appreciate that getting through the essays is as arduous a matter as you describe for many people -- that simply wasn't my experience.

Nonetheless, your post only confirms what I was saying, which is that Ron doesn't hate explaining things... In fact, he's passionate about explaining things... (which was a point I was making to people who were buying the whole "Ron doesn't like explaining things" folks... Not the folks who already know this, like you and Levi....)

Christopher

:forge:

Quote from: Christopher KubasikRon doesn't hate explaining things... In fact, he's passionate about explaining things...

Perhaps, but he is not demonstrating much skill in explaining RPG Theory.  Look at the Forge Provisional Glossary... it's a train-wreck.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnyway, Ron's point is that if you train yourself in storytelling by playing say, Vampire, you're going to have a pretty warped idea of what storytelling is how to make stories. The ability to think in terms of story -- a natural, human ability -- is actually impaired.

There's absolutely no basis for this claim.  It's ridiculous in the extreme.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikA game "book" doesn't create the damage -- but how we play can. And if we shoe-horn rules like the Vampire rules -- as written -- into expectations of getting good story, Ron thinks (and I think) there's going to be trouble with understanding how story works.

People believe all sorts of strange things.   (eg. Pseudosciences)

Vampire may not be the best game, but this claim that it "damages" people is foolish.

Hi Stuart,

Cool. You think Ron's terrible at explaining things and you think what he has to say is foolish.

At least you're addressing the actual style and content of his writing, which is all I was concerned about.

Christopher

:forge:

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAt least you're addressing the actual style and content of his writing, which is all I was concerned about.

I've seen nothing to suggest Ron doesn't like explaining things... quite the opposite.  I think he likes explaining things, naming things, and building models to explain things.

He's just not very good at it.*

This wouldn't be a problem except so many people want to evangelize his essays, and use his poorly conceived jargon whenever possible.

It's ironic that Ron claim's a text can actually damage people's minds.

Look at the Forge Provisional Glossary and consider how it asks people to use bizarre terms instead of simple ones, and use common language in an altogether uncommon way. Does that honestly seem like a good thing?  Wouldn't simple, straightforward language be superior to obtuse, convoluted language?

Which text is more damaging?  Rein*Hagen's or Ron Edward's?

Edit: * In relation to RPG Theory.  I haven't read his other academic essays, and they may be very well done.

He is indeed the greatest bat-penis guy who ever was.

RPGPundit

Bizzare as this may be, my girlfriend (a teaching assistant at the U of A) is running a lab tommorrow on the reproductive systems of rats.

This has no bearing on anything, really, but I fell over laughing when she told me this.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOur normal society doesn't act as a "peer review community" in the academic sense.  It's too big.

A community of peer review where some things aren't open to debate is easy to spot.  It slowly builds up a tendency towards the hidebound, dogmatic, and repetitive.

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I think I can see where you're coming from.

Quote from: wikipediaPeer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.

Someone setting up their own website / forum / blog and posting their theories, but saying they are not open for debate...

That's not very similar to the academic peer review process.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAs for the articles, I have my own confusion about them: I read the GNS essay and got it right out of the gate. I mean, really. I was referred to The Forge by someone. Poked around. Started reading the essay. Thought, "this makes sense." Printed it out. Carried it around that weekend at a local game convention, reading the pages inbetween sessions. Looked around observing what Ron had written about all around me (which, by the way, was a clarification of stuff I had observed years ago on my own). I finished reading the essay on Saturday afternoon. Kept it in the back of my head through Sunday night. At the end of the weekend at the con I thought, "Yup."

Hi Chris,

I think the thing about the GNS essay, and the rest of Ron's theory work, is that it makes a lot of sense to people whose gaming experiences parallel Ron's to an extent, a certain amount of sense to people whose gaming experiences don't especially match up with Ron's, and no sense to people who have had entirely the opposite experience of the gaming hobby.

This is probably why the subject of GNS is so divisive - it either synchs beautifully with people's experiences, or clashes with them horribly, or makes people say "maybe there's something to this, but this theory sure ain't airtight".

To put my cards on the table: I tend to occupy the middle ground here - I can see what Ron is trying to do with the creative agendas, but I tend to believe that there are as many unique creative agendas as there are gamers, and that the rec.games.frp.advocacy GDS theory that GNS borrows heavily from was more useful as a tool for examining particular in-game decisions. I feel that the categories of "gamism", "simulationism" and "narrativism" are sufficiently broad that if you look at any game for long enough you can force its various elements into those categories. Which doesn't mean they are useless as archetype, but does mean that their utility is, to me, highly limited.

Did anyone else notice it.  I mean, the point where someone from the Forge comes in to defend the Theory and the Great Creator?

This is what pisses quite a few people off.  Why come here to do this? I mean, if Pundit is crazy, and the people who have posted here aren't smart enought to just pick up GNS and get it, and people who post here tend not to play "Story Games," and Ron really didn't mean "brain damage," and a thousand other if's, Why?

OK, so you saw that people were harshing on Mr. Edwards. You saw the need to set the record straight. Your corrections, where applicable are duly noted.

But please, please, please don't start parading around your "I went to a Con and GNS is Truth Laid Bare," opinion.  As pundit has noted, Forge/GNS Theory is not an accepted fact in this forum.

Wurther,

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.


James,

Whatever. I didn't say anything about anyone being not "smart" enough. The conversation was about the clarity (or the lack of it) about Ron's writing. I said I was confused by the fact I didn't have problems with the GNS essay. That's all, and that was my only point.

I know you will see it however you want... Some folks are touchy and seek out offenses. I'm guessing you're one of them. But really, no offense was meant or even stated.


On another thread, John Kim provided clarification for some mistatements Pundit had made about Edward's writing. I don't think I did anything different. Certainly I'm not pushing anything but a few facts. I even said, "Attack him if you want, but do it for what he said."

I get it. I'm not welcome.  

The site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

But if someone comes here -- not contradicting the logic of the place, but simply setting a few misstatement straight -- he's an outsider who must be insulted ("Great Creator," my ass...) and admonished with over-elaborate emticons.

Riiiiiight... the Forge is a closed community where they only listen to themselves and can't take dissenting views... Unlike... uh... this place.... Ah, sweet irony...

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI'm only doing this because I know a lot of people make a point of "never going to the Forge," but picking up the random bits of unsubstantiated comments about the Forge by people who also, as far as I can tell, never actually read anything at the Forge...

The world is full of people who comment about unsubstantiated things. Do you go to all those forums too? I'm just curious why TheRPGSite gets this special visit.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThis thread is now entering a sub-discussion on whether teachers actually teach. All off the point that Ron Edwards apparently doesn't teach

Actually, I think it's entering a sub-discussion on whether teacher actually teach all off the point that shocked to find that Mr. Edwards is a teacher when he explains things so poorly and with so little patience.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikFirst, Warthur posts:
"In fact, I get the impression that Ron passionately hates explaining things to people, especially when he's already explained an idea once. His tendency to respond to questions with links to old essays and Forge threads seems to be another manifestation of this."

The bandaged logic on these sentences is so bloody it's disturbing to look at.

We begin with the fact that the statement is nothing more than... sort of made up: "I get the impression..."

Then Warthur goes on to state "Ron passionately hates explaining things..." except, of course, "when he's already explained things..." which means, apparently, he doesn't mind explaining things at all. And then we find out that he really doesn't like to explain things again. To which I can only add, "Is explaining the same thing over and over in a medium which allow for linking to previous discussions something you want to do with your time?"

To which I would reply – then why the fuck did you go and start a forum to discuss your theory?  If you didn't want to explain it, sometimes over and over and over, why the big fucking deal? You could have published a paper or talked it over with you friends.  Why the forum?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnd then Spike jumps in with this:

"Wait... This man, this Ron fellow.... He's a PROFESSOR right? I mean, he fucking teaches people for a living in his real job?

I weep for the youth. When a teacher can passionately hate explaining things in a coherent manner and still be considered a 'teacher'... that scares me."

He takes Warthur's "impression" [not scare quotes, just quoting] at face value, without any support for Warthur's impression, and then leaps to a criticism of Ron's ability as a teacher?

And then, improbably, people actually continue and extend this critictism of Ron.

For a man who has endeavored to tell people to fuck off, as has Mr. Edwards, you think it's improbable that on the Internet people would extend an (in your view) unfounded criticism? Which Internet have you been on?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikNow, I know this is hard for some, but if you actually go to the Forge, you'll find Ron explaining things right and left. You may find his explanations cantankerous? You may find his explanations horribly flawed. You might think that what he is explaining is a pile of shit. But he is explaining all the time.

Here are some links to examles:

Here explains how he set up the background material of his Shadows of Yesterday game, and talks at length about different kinds of "setting" material and what kind he finds valuable and what kind he doesn't.

Here's a thread where Ron and Levi talk about GNS stuff..

And here's the continuation of that conversation.

Again, you may not like the explanation, you may mind the tone grating, or wish Ron used more analogies involving clowns or whatever, but he is explaining.

If I can muster up the intestinal fortitude to go back to the Forge, I'm sure I could find links where Mr. Edwards chooses not to elucidate. Your examples, interestingly, include Ron talking about himself, and discussions with Levi, someone I would consider at least friendly to the concepts. Once things get – I'd say confrontational, but it's not quite right. Let's say when people start to question the foundation, the level of receptiveness decreases – and that includes explanations. I haven't been to the Forge in a while, so no links pop into my mind. But then, I didn't go rushing off into that forum to defend anyone.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikSo hate him if you must, use bandwidth disparaging a man who you've never met and really has no impact on your life if you really have that much free time in your life... but for cryin' out loud, let this particular bit of the thread go....

Why did you waste your time and bandwidth to defend a man I've never met and really has no impact on my life? Too much free time?

Now you could have left it at this, and I probably would have nodded my head and said, ya know, he's right, why are these guys obsessing over Ron Edwards academic leanings.  But no, it's like a compulsion...must...evangelize...GNS...must...spread...word...

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAlso, somewhere around here, the Pundit claimed that Edwards said that if you played traditional games, you'd become brain-damaged.

Do we really need to dredge this up again?  Cause I have to tell you, it's one of the first things I read, and I took away what most people I've read since did. WTF? It's hard not to harsh on Mr. Edwards explanation capabilities if you bring up that entire drama.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikNow, again, I don't know how much facts matter around here, but I thought I'd point out this simply isn't true.

What Ron said was, that if you play games that promise story, but the rules are designed to actually get in the way of story, you might well end up with a damaged brain in regard to constructing story.

No, actually what he said was:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIf someone wants to take issue with my use of the term "brain" when I'm talking about the "mind," I just shrug. As I see it, the mind is the physiological outcome of a working brain. Mess around with the input as the brain/mind forms, and you short-circuit it, messing up steps which themselves would have been the foundation of further steps. You could be talking about an experience such as I mention above, or you could be talking about sticking a needle into someone's head and wiggling it around. Brain, mind, damage. I don't distinguish.

All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title.

Now if you want to defend that, that's your business.  But I can't find one reference to Vampire in that.  And I checked the entire original post: a quote from a different thread that mentions Vampire, along with a reference to Champions. The best you can hope for is that some correctly interprets that games "represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years," does not include their game.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikDisagree with him if you think he's wrong. Think he's an ass for even giving time to this matter.  But at least take stock of what he actually said.

I do. I do. I did.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnd don't believe a man who says Ron Edwards says playing tradional games causes brain damage -- cause the man is, as always, either a willful liar or a lazy instigator of conflict whose statements about the Forge and the games designed by those who hang out there are often so wrong it's just nuttty. (My favorite so far? RPGPundit's constant instistance the in all these new-fangled games the players get to always just make up whatever they want. I mean... it'd be laughable, but that his audience has seldom read the texts of the actual games he's talking about.)

I'm trying to type, but your condescension is dripping on my keyboard. Who is the lazy one, the person who reads what is written as it is written, or the one who doesn't make himself clear enough to avoid the interpretation so many took from his comments?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikBy the way, if you read the original GNS essay (and god knows, who would? Better to read the glosses on the internet by people looking for reasons to be pissed off)

Because if you disagree with GNS or Mr. Edwards, the only rational explanation can be that you did not read GNS but are relying on glosses on the Internet. Or you didn't understand it, you moron.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikFinally, for the record, Ron thinks many traditional RPGs are great.

I have many friends who are gay/black/jewish/etc.

Quote from: Christopher Kubasik(By the way, that fact these and other threads blows the whole "people at the Forge don't play, Ron only talks about theory" nonsense out of the water is just icing on the cake. I swear, when I read what people write about the Forge, most of the time I look at it go, "But that has no connection to, you know, reality!")

You know – that's the same reaction I have to GNS/Forge Theory.