Quote from: James McMurrayThe source for that CV is here. It's a college website which is presumably either his job or it was his job. In other words, it's a resume. How many people put "I Play D&D" at the top of their academic resume? That it's on there at all says to me he's very serious about games. You'll certainly never see D&D at the top of my resume unless I write something for it and am applying for a job that it applies.

I agree with this 100%.  I've worked with a lot of Academics and IT Professionals, and looked at hundreds of resumes over the years -- and never seen someone put "role-playing games" on there in any way.

Quote from: James McMurraya theory that is often quoted as an industry standard.

Really?  The only time I saw a D&D product that quoted GNS it was in a joke Dragon article.  Am I missing the GNS talk among the industry veterans?  I've not seen Mike Mearls make much of it, or S. John Ross.  Nor has Gygax, Kuntz, Ward, or Mentzer, as far as I can tell.  Is Greg Costikyan using GNS nowadays?  Robin Laws?

Quote from: James McMurrayIs Ron Edwards really such an unhittable target that he had to ignore reality to get a jab in?

Pundit takes every little opening he can find.  No matter how ridiculous.  It's just how he rolls.

From this interview.

Quote from: RPGPunditA Swine is, fundamentally speaking, someone who prefers to give off airs of superiority rather than actually trying to be superior. Someone for whom appearance matters more than reality, and who will always choose the easier way out of picking the false over the true, so long as the false can look good. It's people who have no claim to arrogance trying to be arrogant. People who care more about others thinking them smart than actually being smart, or people who care more about appearing artistic rather than being an artist. Swine are frauds, in other words. In gaming, the Swine are the ones who use gaming as a substitute for something else in their life to generate a sense of self-importance. I've found that usually, people who game to just have a good time are people who have jobs, who have a family, who have a sense of purpose in their life, and who therefore don't need gaming to provide that purpose; so an RPG can be just a game. Whereas the swine, on some level, NEED RPGs to be "art" or to be "academic" or to be "the elite" or to be "the industry" or whatever,because they have nothing otherwise. And they need others to think like they do and to agree with them,or else this illusion falls apart.

And the Pundit is not a Swine because:

QuoteYou have to understand, as Ive mentioned before, that my goal is to use the Swine's own methods against them.  
 
The difference between them and me, and the key reason I'm NOT a swine (as per the definition of Swine above), is that I'm talking about the TRUTH, whereas what they're talking about is false, and they're lying.
 
To the Swine, their own agendas are more important than the truth; perception and appearances is more important than the truth.  Hell, most of their activity on the net is a desperate effort to create a web of lies that allows them to nestle comfortably in a delusion about what the "gaming world" is like.  
 
The stuff I talk about as  "the pundit" is usually not IMPORTANT, but it is TRUE.
 
RPGPundit

Wow.  Not what I thought he meant when he said Swine at all.

I hope my use of the word Swine is clear. If not, I´ll be happy to elaborate. Ironically, I´m sort of an orthodox Punditrian: I use his old definition from the BlueRose Wars era.

double post

Quote from: jrientsReally?  The only time I saw a D&D product that quoted GNS it was in a joke Dragon article.  Am I missing the GNS talk among the industry veterans?  I've not seen Mike Mearls make much of it, or S. John Ross.  Nor has Gygax, Kuntz, Ward, or Mentzer, as far as I can tell.  Is Greg Costikyan using GNS nowadays?  Robin Laws?

I didn't say who was quoting it. Nor do I really care what their names are. If nobody was paying it any attention it wouldn't be "the enemy." Ergo, someone of importance must be talking about it, or pundit's panties wouldn't be so wadded up about the idea.

Theories are fun to debate at times, but don't belong in actual games. The only real measure of success for a game is not whether it matches category X with method Q, but if it sells and the people that play it want more. You can fit the theories perfectly and be crap, or you can not even care if they exist and rock.

Quote from: James McMurrayTheories are fun to debate at times, but don't belong in actual games.

I love it when an author puts his pet theory in the designer notes.  It's one of the things that's great about Sorcerer, for instance.  It wears its agenda on its sleeve.

It's still two more games then Pundit's written, making his claim that there's a lack of credentials an outright lie.

Sad really. I've only read a little of Ron's stuff because his writing style annoys me, but there's other holes available. By resorting to this sort of stupidity Pundit weakens every other point he makes because you can't be sure if he's lying again.

But as I've theorized before, I'm sure he knows this and does it because he doesn't want to "win." Doing so will lose him the following of the three people that think he's cool, returning him to nobody status (instead of nearimperceptible blip status like he has now).

Quote from: James McMurrayBut as I've theorized before, I'm sure he knows this and does it because he doesn't want to "win." Doing so will lose him the following of the three people that think he's cool, returning him to nobody status (instead of nearimperceptible blip status like he has now).

You say that, and yet here you are...

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's still two more games then Pundit's written, making his claim that there's a lack of credentials an outright lie.

I'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

Quote from: SettembriniI hope my use of the word Swine is clear. If not, I´ll be happy to elaborate. Ironically, I´m sort of an orthodox Punditrian: I use his old definition from the BlueRose Wars era.

That would be helpful / interesting to me at least.

Quote from: jrientsI'd say that a claim that Edwards lacks academic credentials on the subject of RPG theory is obvious to any non-partisan.

Whether the lack of credentials matters is a far different question.  Does he browbeat people with his PhD?  Does he claim some insight into gaming because of his biology background?  If not, his lack of academic credentials is irrelevant.

I don't think Ron Edwards ever brings it up, but every once in a while one of the followers would do it. "You call him DOCTAH EDWARDS!!"

This has fallen out of vogue in recent years, but it was always kind of fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPeronally- I don't think just playing or liking anything makes you particularly swiney.[...]It's really only when you turn it into some kind of supremacist ideology

I agree.

There are at least two problems with gaming discourse, neither of which GNS solved, in fact arguably GNS made them worse.

1. People unable to express their opinions of certain styles of play, without attacking the aesthetic judgment of others. Or at least being seen to do so. For example the guy who says that exploring themes is superior to overcoming tactical challenges.

2. People "agreeing to disagree" about aesthetic judgments, while reserving a priviledged aesthetic interpretation (which implies an aesthetic judgment after all). For example the guy who says "How wonderful for you that you enjoy playing games with a traditional GM!" but adds, "Good on you for enjoying being led through the GM's story. I personally don't like that stuff."  Basically it's a version of the Loaded Question.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen2. People "agreeing to disagree" about aesthetic judgments, while reserving a priviledged aesthetic interpretation (which implies an aesthetic judgment after all). For example the guy who says "How wonderful for you that you enjoy playing games with a traditional GM!" but adds, "Good on you for enjoying being led through the GM's story. I personally don't like that stuff."  Basically it's a version of the Loaded Question.

I personally experienced that one a lot, and it eventually made me into the merciless caveman I am today.

I hasten to add, saying "X is crap" ought to be preferable to saying "I think we can agree that X is an unoriginal rehash without any surprises, so I'm sure our difference is only a matter of taste. De gustibus, you know! I like original, challenging works, you like unoriginal rehashes. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not my cup of tea."

Edit: But with RPGs the problem is that differences in taste really are informed by differences in interpretation, and those in turn are related to differences in practice (how your group plays Stormbringer, for example). I can't seriously look at Monopoly: Star Wars Edition and say, "That's a really bad simulation of a galactic rebellion." I suppose I can say, "Isn't it kind of dumb to have a Star Wars edition?" but I'm missing the point that the game really isn't intended to connect with Star Wars on anything but a shallow level. Similarly someone who points to a game on modern tank warfare and complains about lack of balance because a T-72 isn't able to stand up to an M-1 is obviously missing the point.