Why? Why choose names that are not disrespectful? They have no respect for us, and they show that constantly.

By giving them an inch, they will take a mile. You are admitting that Mainstream RPGs are not RPGs by calling them "adventure games" and asking them pretty please to do the same for their games.
And they'll nod and pat you on the head and call you a good boy for admitting that your brain damaged inferior lowest common denominator unwashed masses game is really just an "adventure game", and go right on calling their shit Roleplaying Games.

Your entire argument is the rhetorical equivalent of the omega dog rolling over on his back and showing his anus.
Its an act of submission, for no good reason, that gains you nothing.

MY hobby is Roleplaying Games.  Not "adventure games", that's some other thing.
And my hobby is not pretentious mental wankery in the faux guise of "Art" or "Academia". They are not RPGs, they never will be.

You're trying to solve something no one wants to solve in good graces but you.
Anyone else who tells you that they want co-existence, or to "live and let live", is lying to you. And using you.

RPGPundit

Paranoia?
That´s all? It´s not about describing reality, but about war strategy?

Mmm.

Why the Paranoia?
What makes you think, "they" would act like you insinuate?
And please no "because they always do!".

Elaborate on assumed reasons or provide links to signs of such behaviour, please.

Sorry, but they consistently have, and that's that. You have surely seen it, on RPG.net, in Forge lingo in general, when they say (in one environment) that they  just want to do their thing and have nothing against traditional gamers, and then in another context talk about mainstream gamers as "unwashed masses" and D20 as the "lowest common denominator".

Hell, the Forge swine spent YEARS claiming that the Forge's GNS theory was not derogatory, and that Forgeites themselves didn't think that traditional play was bad per se, and then, Brain Damage.
And even after that you saw a wave of justifications, apologetics, and rounds of "pay no mind to the man behind the curtain"...

And fundamentally, your move is a semantic one, and the Forge-ites are all about manipulating semantics to dominate the discussion. You see it all the time on message boards, where they dive in and manipulate the discussion to use THEIR jargon in order to posit as "already in evidence" all of the ideological foundation that goes along with their Jargon (ie. as soon as you start talking about Narrativism, in any capacity other than to outright shoot it down, you're automatically taking as a given that everything Ron Edwards said about Narrativism is true).
To hand them the ready-made potentially-derogatory term like "adventure games" and at the same time distance OUR hobby from the title of "Roleplaying Game" is like giving a whetstone to an axe-wielding maniac. Its just encouraging him.

RPGPundit

You are now diluting the war effort, by bombing everything indiscrimensately.

You should differentiate:

Brain Damage means: Swine
It´s basically the same. You get brain damaged by playing Vampire. That´s the whole deal. So brain damage hits the right persons: pretentious railroaders.

Ron Edwards

Forge Gamewrights

and

Swine Masses

Right now, you are fighting against all, even though their aims, methods and goals are very different.

Ron Edwards: He is just a guy. And he´s a nice person. He´s also an alpha person, who talks a lot (like many people, and most GMs). He´s also an academic. He saw that internet debate is screwed, and he formed a community to his liking to change

1) debate
2) the games being written

Those goals are working against each other, especially as he is also trying to change

3) the way RPGs are marketed

There is conflicts in his aims. None of his aims is destroying mainstream RPGs.

He´s a guy with conflicting visions, and he works for them. He doesn´t work against anything else than sometimes against himself. And he has come a long way, I´d say That´s really nothing to be afraid of.

Forge Gamewrights: Some are okay, some are pretentious fuckwits, but they are few, and they sell not very much. The last thing to fear is cannibalizing sales from D&D. Those games generated their own demand. Again, nothing to be afraid of. They aren´t even posting a lot on forae.

Swine Masses: Their aim is lessening the tragedy of their miserable lives. They are unhappy, unhappy with gaming, with their life, with the weather. Oh yes, and the government. Therefore, they elevate themselves above the other people. By being pretentious. By furthering a conspicious consumption culture. by gaining Mod Status. By being passive aggressive. By theorizing without designing a game. By playing what the kool kids play, without getting the point. By trying to be intellectuals through imitation of their habits.

Forge gamewrights and Ron Edwards happen to be intellectuals. Some pretentious most not. Therefore, their level of reflection is relatively high. When they speak, they know how to speak intellectually fair (most of the time). Thusly, a lot of other reflecting people will drink their kool-aid, as it is  the only real reflecting discussion going on. Look at Dr. Rotwang!, he surely is a prime example. He had to do a lot of thinking to come full circle and realize the ill workings of the Swine Masses behind the fog of reasoned discourse.

So in conclusion, if thematic games and adventure roleplaying games come to be known as seperate, then the swine masses will loose their current  main weapon:

GNS-Trashtalk.

You yourself have said many a time, that the Swine will follow whoever gives them the feeling of being special.

Take that away from them, and they are a huge confused mess of ill-beings, caught between the high and mighty fortress of manly man adventure roleplaying games, and the no-bullshit-let´s-work on some hippy-navel-gazing-thematic-games crowd.

They will realize their loneliness and seek out whoever else is giving them fuzzy feelings.

The swine masses are the enemy, not the flavour of the season they use as an excuse.

Dude, what the fuck was going on off-screen in that fucking interview?? Did Ron Edwards suck your cock? Did he tie himself up with leather and let you spank him and call you Grandma?

I mean, shit, how the fuck do you end up so utterly ensorceled by this fuckers powers of charisma that you honestly end up trying to claim that the guy who WROTE the Brain Damage comment is somehow not the "real enemy" and that he's not responsible for, say, the Brain Damage comment?!
I mean FUCK's SAKE, the real question is why the fuck is Edwards' wasting his life being a biologist and running the Forge, when his power is so astounding that he could easily be running a complex in california teaching "kabalah" to millionaires and living a life of luxury?

Jesus shit.

Let me clear something up for you bucky, the fact that you've met Ron Edwards, and that he "seems nice enough" doesn't actually mean that you can magically shift the responsibility for the Forge over to anyone other than him.

First: There are no "Swine Masses". They are, by definition, an anti-masses group. They hate the "unwashed masses", the crowd.  They like to think of themselves as the small "elite", run by an even smaller "elite".  So the idea that Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, and co. are just hapless intellectuals who's benign ideas have been stolen and manipulated for evil instead of good by the filthy evil masses of hook-nosed villains is absurdity.

The guy who said GNS applies to ALL roleplaying games? Edwards.
The guy who said that most normal gamers are secretly miserable about their Gaming? Edwards.
The guy who said playing mainstream games makes you brain damaged? Edwards.

You can't shift the responsibility to some nonexistant invisible supermass. Are there some individual swine who take things even further, or say things that are even dumber than Edwards & co? Sure. But that doesn't preclude the fact that Edwards & Co. have led the Swine there in the first place; and it doesn't preclude the fact that Edwards and Co. have said some MONUMENTALLY stupid things all by their little selves.

To say "the Swine masses are the real enemy" is like saying that Jim Jones was just a humble god-fearing preacher man, and the real badguys were all the cult members who wanted him to lead them. It ignores the fact that he, in the end, led them to the jungle and fed them the kool aid.  It doesn't absolve the cultmembers of their own responsibility, but your point of view tries to absolve Edwards of his.

Finally, Edwards & Co are NOT intellectuals. They are pseudo-intellectuals.  There is a profound difference.  Edwards might teach biology, but that's a little like the Creationist dude who claims he's qualified to talk about the age of the earth or the truth/lie of fossils because he's a trained and qualified anesthesiologist.

The fact is, they have all the hallmarks of pseudo-academics: obsessive and excessive use of jargon, theories born ab ovo without any grounding in REAL research, anecdotal evidence twisted around to fit one's theory, theories that try to account for everything and which they choose to defend blindly against all and sundry evidence to the contrary.  In other words, looking and sounding intelligent is more important to them than actually making anything productive or being intellectually honest.

I have to say though, Edwards is a flim-flam man of the best kind, if just one meeting with him was enough to turn you into a gibbering fawning fanboy who can't see the forest from the trees about him, to the point that you're willing to twist around sanity and reason itself to try to make Dear Leader blameless for the website, theory, and movement he FUCKING CREATED.

RPGPundit

QuoteDid Ron Edwards suck your cock? Did he tie himself up with leather and let you spank him and call you Grandma?

Usually I´m being insulted as being up so high in your ass, so that only my feet show.

QuoteI mean, shit, how the fuck do you end up so utterly ensorceled by this fuckers powers of charisma that you honestly end up trying to claim that the guy who WROTE the Brain Damage comment is somehow not the "real enemy" and that he's not responsible for, say, the Brain Damage comment?!

He is responsible for the brain damage comment. And it´s basically the same as the term Swine. And if anything, I got to know a very nice person, whom I do respect less as an authority on RPGs in general, but more as a human being.

QuoteI mean FUCK's SAKE, the real question is why the fuck is Edwards' wasting his life being a biologist and running the Forge

Do you really want to go that way? Do you really want to discuss private life decisions about people who spend a lot of their time online for RPGs? I can see only bad things coming out of this.
Everybody can check out Ron´s academic publication list and his gaming publication list and compare, but what´s the point? Do you really wanna engage in that kind of mud slinging? Again, especially you insulting someone for spending too much time online is a ballsy move indeed. See Pundit, we all like the emperor naked, in that we don´t question how everybody comes up with the time needed for online discussions, DMing three times a week, or writing  RPG supplements.

QuoteThere are no "Swine Masses". They are, by definition, an anti-masses group. They hate the "unwashed masses", the crowd. They like to think of themselves as the small "elite", run by an even smaller "elite".

If they are many, if they are swine, they are swine masses. If they are few, we wouldn´t have to care about them.

QuoteThe guy who said GNS applies to ALL roleplaying games? Edwards.
The guy who said that most normal gamers are secretly miserable about their Gaming? Edwards.
The guy who said playing mainstream games makes you brain damaged? Edwards.

See, here we are at the heart of the matter. Those are things Ron actually did imply or say. And brain damage was diagnosed for Vampire players. And they are wrong. (which many Forgeites have acknowledged many a time)
The whole trick is, to get the basic message to be known far and wide:

GNS doesn´t apply to all RPGs.

That´s the point of it all. If it is consensus, barring what Ron wants or says, that Adventure RPGs don´t benefit and aren´t designed according to the big Model, than immeadeately even your hate against Ron will cease. His claim on the hobby as a whole is already threatened a lot.

You, Pundit have drunken more Kool aid, than I ever will. Because you accept Ron´s claim. If you want to do good, you have to be smarter than Ron, not louder or more funny.
The reality of fun (for some), successful Thematic Games is non-debatable.
So obviously Ron did a lot of stuff right, and the forge is indeed a functional thing. If looked at closely, it produces Thematic Games, and it furthers reflection upon these games.
Everybody can see, that games from the forge are all alike somehow, and are all different from what are RPGs that came before. So it´s basically a new branch of the hobby.

There is no single proof, where the Big Model was in any way applicable to the Adventure Gaming Hobby, or RPGs as you would say.
Although, once in a while a Forgeite, being a reflecting person who used to play Adventure RPGs, they might say a smart thing about them. This happens to Clinton R. Nixon quite often. But be reminded: his gaming background is totally different from Ron´s for example.

Intellectualism: Sure most Gamewrights and Ron himself are indeed intellectuals. But not many of them are authorities on textual analysis, sociology, psychology or media discourse.
And you are right, that that basically makes them laymen. But they are smart laymen.
Especially the brain damage comment is an excellent example of a reflecting laymans thinking:
Recently, I had to dig up some stuff on spatial cognition. The methods used therein, where a carbon copy (actually the original) for GNS thinking and the brain damage comment. In cognition research, you come up with a theory of how the cognitive process at hand could be divided into atomic functions. Those functions are then atrtributed to certain areas of the brain. The only way to find out, is by way of examining brain damaged patients, and compare there cognitive abilities to healthy, undamaged individuals.
So, when Ron the biologist sees a deficit in somebodys cognitive ability, his training and intellectual upbringing leads him to cognition sciences and their methods.
And that´s why I can´t buy the Big Model. RPGs and instances are texts which are received and formed in an interactive process, which need textual analysis, criticial literary discourse and the like. In short: methods from the humanities. The forge has nothing in that regard.
This is their main failure, and Ron´s main failure.

This is not an apology of the stupid brain damage thing. It´s an explanation nonetheless. We are all humans who see nails for our hammers, even when there might be different tools better suited.

That´s why you are way more correct with the term Swine: The reasons are reasons of socialisation and psychological motivation. Hunter was deep into political debate, and criticism of society. All with the methods of the humanities in their trivialized/popularized form of Journalism. Your hammer is a better fit than Ron´s for the discussion of gaming habits.

But again, it´s more valuable to see through this, than to get into a raving maniac, while the other side just shrugs and proceeds with intellectual discussions with the wrong methods at hand.
By being a raving maniac, you polarize. Which means you can never ever show the true failings of Ron or the Forge to themselves.

Quote from: SettembriniDo you really want to go that way? Do you really want to discuss private life decisions about people who spend a lot of their time online for RPGs? I can see only bad things coming out of this.
Everybody can check out Ron´s academic publication list and his gaming publication list and compare, but what´s the point? Do you really wanna engage in that kind of mud slinging? Again, especially you insulting someone for spending too much time online is a ballsy move indeed. See Pundit, we all like the emperor naked, in that we don´t question how everybody comes up with the time needed for online discussions, DMing three times a week, or writing  RPG supplements.

What kind of mud slinging is this, how is it mudslinging? Are you talking about the "he ought to run a cult" business? That's just a statement of clear sense given that he's obviously got the astounding charisma for it.
I mean fuck, he was able to take you and turn you over from a hardcore mainstream gamer and enemy of the Forge and turn you around into a guy who starts using Jargon like "thematic games" and "Method of Roleplay" like you're one of them, and making up excuses for why Ron isn't really to blame for the Theory Swine, all in one afternoon.

Or are you talking about the fact that I posted his C.V. on my blog? Hey, if he didn't want people to know that he's a self-proclaimed expert on Rat Copulation and Bat Penises, and that this is what he was using as his justification for considering himself an "academic" of Roleplaying, he shouldn't have put up his C.V. in a public webpage in the first place.
I sure as fuck wouldn't.
 

QuoteSee, here we are at the heart of the matter. Those are things Ron actually did imply or say. And brain damage was diagnosed for Vampire players. And they are wrong. (which many Forgeites have acknowledged many a time)
The whole trick is, to get the basic message to be known far and wide:

GNS doesn´t apply to all RPGs.

But your own dude Ron claims they do. You can't argue that it doesn't and then claim that it does still apply to "some" RPGs. Ron knows that, which is why he's going for the all-or-nothing.
You see, if GNS is not a vast theory for dividing EXISTING RPGs into different criteria, then its entire origin is senseless, and its foundations are meaningless. In other words, its not talking about Roleplaying Games at all, if you had to create a whole new hobby of games for it to make sense and fit to. And that's exactly what happened.

QuoteYou, Pundit have drunken more Kool aid, than I ever will. Because you accept Ron´s claim.  

I don't accept his claim. You're the one accepting it halfway, opening the door for them to push it all the way in.
My position is that GNS is entirely and TOTALLY wrong as a theory of Roleplaying Games.  If it applies to other kinds of games, a genre of game that was created after-the-fact in accordance with the theory, that's fine. But those games are BY FUCKING DEFINITION not RPGs.

QuoteThe reality of fun (for some), successful Thematic Games is non-debatable.

I disagree.

QuoteSo obviously Ron did a lot of stuff right, and the forge is indeed a functional thing. If looked at closely, it produces Thematic Games, and it furthers reflection upon these games.

And what the fuck are thematic games? Why should I care?
Except that there are fuckwits out there trying to imply that these things are somehow RPGs.

QuoteEverybody can see, that games from the forge are all alike somehow, and are all different from what are RPGs that came before. So it´s basically a new branch of the hobby.

No, its a new hobby, that branched out from the old. Saying that Storygames are a "kind of" RPG is like saying that RPGs are a "kind of miniature wargame".

QuoteThere is no single proof, where the Big Model was in any way applicable to the Adventure Gaming Hobby, or RPGs as you would say.
Although, once in a while a Forgeite, being a reflecting person who used to play Adventure RPGs, they might say a smart thing about them. This happens to Clinton R. Nixon quite often. But be reminded: his gaming background is totally different from Ron´s for example.

Your position is so intellectually confused it baffles reason. You admit that Ron was either wrong or lying in his claim that GNS is universal, yet you don't want to reject GNS. You recognize that what you call "thematic games" are not like RPGs, yet you want to still call them that. You recognize that the "big model" is a farce, but you want us to stop calling ourselves RPGs and hand them the white flag anyways...

I mean, what the fuck are you on??

QuoteBy being a raving maniac, you polarize. Which means you can never ever show the true failings of Ron or the Forge to themselves.

But my point is that I don't want to show them their failings. I want to show their failings to the Roleplaying Games Hobby. I couldn't give a flying fuck about their moral betterment; I just want them stopped.

RPGPundit

Quoteyet you don't want to reject GNS.

Huh? I reject it wholeheartedly. It does stuff I don´t care for and it doesn´t adress adventure roleplaying gaming.

QuoteWhat kind of mud slinging is this, how is it mudslinging?

Well, again: You question his private career success in relation to his investment into the hobby. I don´t think this leads anywhere good. But go ahead, I will not participate though. This oughta be about gaming and nothing more, at least if you ask me.

QuoteMy position is that GNS is entirely and TOTALLY wrong as a theory of Roleplaying Games. If it applies to other kinds of games, a genre of game that was created after-the-fact in accordance with the theory, that's fine. But those games are BY FUCKING DEFINITION not RPGs.

So it remains, we see the facts as the same, but argue about the definition of RPGs.

I say: Any leisure activity which uses the method of Roleplay can call itself rightfully RPG.
You say: Only D&D derivatives are RPGs

You have a gigantic paranoia, that not one inch can be conceded to the enemy, definition wise.
Sadly, as reality doesn´t concur with your definition, nobody buys your kool aid in that regard. People mock and scorn Thematic Games, but they still see them as RPGs. Because they are RPGs.
You can dislike them as much as you want, for all the good reasons that might exist. But RPGs they remain.

So your strategy of denying them RPG-hood is not working. Actually one could say it´s way too late for this to work. And so, strategies have to be adjusted to reality, not to wishful thinking. I can loathe and hate what DSA did to mindfuck the German gaming scene, but I cannot deny it´s existence or it´s RPGness.

The question is: Do you want to preserve your personal pride at all costs (as everybody seems to agree you never ever admit when you were wrong), or do you really want to make an impact on internet discourse?

See, when the ENNies guys showed up at the forge, I pointed out that those games didn´t belong there, as they are structurally different. And people backed that statement, forge people. If you had gone there, crying about how those games aren´t even RPGs, you would never have anyone adjusting to or sharing your view.

The oversimplification of denial is actually reinforcing the self delusions in the swinish masses. Being attacked with silly claims makes them feel stronger, and smarter. This is what they crave, feeling smarter than other people, although they actually aren´t.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, again: You question his private career success in relation to his investment into the hobby. I don´t think this leads anywhere good.

I don't question his "private career success", though. As I've said on my blog, I'm sure he's the best rodent-penis-guy who ever was.

QuoteI say: Any leisure activity which uses the method of Roleplay can call itself rightfully RPG.
You say: Only D&D derivatives are RPGs

The way you put it sounds almost derogatory of D&D...

Technically, its not untrue, since every RPG is by default a D&D derivative if only in the sense of "inspired by", and most go much closer than that.
But really what I say is that RPGs are games that follow certain hallmarks that put together define an RPG. That without those hallmarks, a game is NOT an RPG, its some other kind of game, or some other kind of roleplaying activity.

By your logic, we should let all the furries who go to online chats to masturbate at each other's fantasies into Gencon and give them a centre booth as a vital part of our hobby, since according to you what they're engaging in is a "Roleplaying Game".

QuoteSo your strategy of denying them RPG-hood is not working. Actually one could say it´s way too late for this to work. And so, strategies have to be adjusted to reality, not to wishful thinking. I can loathe and hate what DSA did to mindfuck the German gaming scene, but I cannot deny it´s existence or it´s RPGness.

And again, what the fuck is your "strategy" aside from bending over and taking it in the ass? Because that is what you're doing, or what it amounts to anyways.

QuoteThe question is: Do you want to preserve your personal pride at all costs (as everybody seems to agree you never ever admit when you were wrong), or do you really want to make an impact on internet discourse?

You mean by "getting to" the Forgites? Are you daft?
Do you know how many times in the history of the internet anyone actually ever managed to convince anyone else of changing their position?
Do you really think you will be able to magically convince them to stop being Swine, or to stop attacking mainstream RPGs, by saying "pretty please"?
That, my friend, is the fool's errand.
I would prefer to try to reach the reachable, the middle ground, especially people who may have been feeling subtly pissed off about what the swine were doing in RPGs and on internet fora for a long time and just hadn't been able to formulate it, or thought they were alone in their sentiments.
That's why my blog has been so successful, it latched on to a wave of discontent.

QuoteThe oversimplification of denial is actually reinforcing the self delusions in the swinish masses. Being attacked with silly claims makes them feel stronger, and smarter. This is what they crave, feeling smarter than other people, although they actually aren´t.

I don't think they look stronger or smarter when confronted with the truth. I think compromising that truth because its more comfortable is something that ends up making them much stronger, on the other hand.

RPGPundit

I daresay the discussion is over. It has been made obsolete by no lesser being than the RPGPundit himself, that is to say: you.

Why?

Let´s look at some recent things you wrote:

In your recent review of "Don´t Rest your head", you implicitly argue, that there are two different styles of RPGs.

mainstream traditional Roleplaying games
story Roleplaying Games

QuoteThis is why I say that Hicks is trying to create a compromise game. Rather than clearly stating that the players have the control, or that the GM does, he suggests that this game can go both ways, the great bisexual of the RPG world.

Even in the Punditverse, it´s acknowledged that both belong to the RPG World.

Sure, they are different. But RPGs they are.

If you want to keep on using the utterly convoluted:

mainstream traditional Roleplaying games

which means the exact same thing as Adventure Roleplaying Games, short Adventure Games, then go ahead.
It´s just a different word.

mainstream, traditional

Those are terms that not only invite being looked down upon, it also feeds the swinish longing for being non-conformists and beat-poet-like.

Another instance of your use of words, and implied RPG-ness of the mentioned styles:

QuoteTo me, one of the main things that differentiates Mainstream RPGs from "storygames" is that Mainstream RPGs are usually designed to allow for very long campaigns, whereas storygames are almost always designed to be ideally played for only a few sessions at most, if not for one-shots.

If there is mainstream, there is avantgarde. If there is tradition, there is art-noveau, there is evolution, advancement and all the other shit the Swine want to claim for themselves.

By using these terms, you are helping them. You are playing their game of feeling smart, by reinforcing our alleged conservatism.

Thusly, my reduction on the stuff that is actually done with the different games is superiour.

But, if you still want to use Mainstream and Story, have fun. It is akin to walking into a trap the swinish masses have laid for you.

Thematic Games are neither an evolution, nor are their authors avantgarde. And story is also not what is created by most Thematic games.  They create  a thematic (navel gazing, if you want to stay  disrespectful) experience.

This is definitely different, but not out of the bounds of the RPG world, as you have put it so nicely.

I think my points have been made, and I see no use in discussing it further, as you are already acting, writing and thinking along the lines I have tried to give new names to. And this is because it describes reality, not because Settembrini is so smart.

Or do you see any remaining points of discussion?
If not, I am eager for your closing remarks.

Quote from: SettembriniI daresay the discussion is over. It has been made obsolete by no lesser being than the RPGPundit himself, that is to say: you.

Why?

Let´s look at some recent things you wrote:

In your recent review of "Don´t Rest your head", you implicitly argue, that there are two different styles of RPGs.

You take one line, where I'm making a joke at that, and miss the fact that in other parts of the review I repeatedly refer to Don't Rest Your Head as an "alleged" RPG, or as a "Game".  
You also miss the conclusion to that same review, where I write:

But I think that any attempt by the author to try to bridge the gulf that divides story games from mainstream RPGs was ill-planned, and ultimately unsatisfying, as it only served to highlite just how different these two types of games are from each other.

Don't rest your head tries to be both a Storygame and an RPG, and instead ends up PROVING that the gap between those two things is just too wide.

Quote
mainstream, traditional

Those are terms that not only invite being looked down upon, it also feeds the swinish longing for being non-conformists and beat-poet-like.

Actually, you will note that I rarely use the term "Traditional" (unless I am literally referring to a "tradition" in roleplay or a very old-school game, but NEVER for a new mainstream game), for precisely that reason.  We're not unchangeable dinosaurs.  Mainstream RPGs evolve and change all the time, just within certain boundaries.

As for the term "Mainstream" itself, its an aberration born from the fact that these fuckers are trying to present their wierd shit as "RPGs" rather than have the guts to go and try to create their own hobby (because they know it would never ultimately reach the same popularity that even tabletop RPGs have).  It isn't "mainstream" in the sense of "we are the mainstream, but those other games are still RPGs, just borderline ones"; its "mainstream" in the sense of "we are what most normal, good people consider RPGs, and other things are NOT".

QuoteIf there is mainstream, there is avantgarde. If there is tradition, there is art-noveau, there is evolution, advancement and all the other shit the Swine want to claim for themselves.

By using these terms, you are helping them. You are playing their game of feeling smart, by reinforcing our alleged conservatism.

Asked and answered, above.  The mainstream need not be conservative.  It just has to be definable as the hobby itself.  
I agree that its a mistake for people to try to refer to RPGs in comparison with storygames as "Traditional RPGs"; that's why I don't use the term myself except when its appropriate.  
Could there be better terms in general to be used than "mainstream" and "traditional"? Quite possibly, that would be something worth looking at.
Is your choice of surrendering to the Swine the answer? Obviously not.

QuoteThusly, my reduction on the stuff that is actually done with the different games is superiour.

But, if you still want to use Mainstream and Story, have fun. It is akin to walking into a trap the swinish masses have laid for you.

My truth can kick the shit out of their traps. Yes, my terms require me being capable of explaining and defending myself. I am confident I can do that, especially against their ilk.

But your terms? They're just APPEASEMENT. Please stop pretending that your terms are somehow a way of fighting the Swine. They're not. Not in any way, shape or form.
Instead, they are you opening up the front lines to them and saying, "we will be able to defeat you best by allowing you to march up and take what you want, surely after that, you will take no more". You're giving them the fucking sudetenland, convinced that somehow by doing so they will suddenly become "reasonable" people, and not ask for anything more.

You have, in other words, bought into the classic swine LIE that all they want is "a place to live", to have their little thing, and let us have ours, and not bother us anymore. But that's bullshit.
If that's what they wanted, they'd have had the intellectual honesty to try to create their own hobby in the first place. They didn't. Instead, they tried to subvert our hobby.
What your move does is just ask them "pretty please to stop subverting our hobby". Worse, its saying "promise you won't use RPGs as your term anymore if we promise to stop using it too?"

WHY THE FUCK should we have to stop using the term RPG for our game?! OUR GAMES ARE REAL RPGS!  That's the part you seem to not be getting here, bucky.
At the end of the day, however inelegant my position might be, my position is TRUE, whereas yours is an invention intended to create compromise. But the only things you end up compromising are the truth, and your own alleged side's strength to fight.

RPGPundit

I think your hatred of the terms Adventure Gaming  and Thematic Gaming  is  rooted in your misconception about their origins.

If you continue using "story-games"  you play their game, lose initiative. Their is a  "story-games" forum, you know? It also concedes the claim at story  to  them.  Which in turn  makes our games  somehow "not-about-story"  =  less meaningful.

Have you ever seen a forum called "Thematic Games"?

I tell you why: because right now, they swim on the wave of Adventure Games. All their efforts of branching out to other demographics were total failures AFAIK. So they need to blur the lines to keep threadcrapping and threadpodcasting (Sons of Kryos, I´m looking at you!)

If the clear cut division is made, any threadcrap can be met with a reference to the "we have to stay outside" sign at the entrance.

If you keep saying mainstream, than there must be something not mainstream, a branch or oxbow, that is part of the whole. And this is playing their game.

So it remains: We are of the same opinion:

A clear division must be made.

We happen to disagree who´s terms are more helpful to the other side. I don´t think we will clear that one up. But I can at least say that in the german internet scene Adventure Roleplaying (ARS = Abenteuerrollenspiel) has made quite some impact, and is adopted by posters all over to support our cause. Dungeon Design articles, Encounter logistic blogging, DM advice, grand discussions even on the Fanpro boards, all under that new/old umbrella.

I will continue using it, and I´d urge you to adopt at least another term as "mainstream RPGs". Even your fundamentalist denial of the RPGness of Thematic Games at all was more helpful than yourself talking about "mainstream" and "traditional".

The division must be clear, don´t murk the waters.

Quote from: SettembriniI think your hatred of the terms Adventure Gaming  and Thematic Gaming  is  rooted in your misconception about their origins.

If you continue using "story-games"  you play their game, lose initiative. Their is a  "story-games" forum, you know? It also concedes the claim at story  to  them.  Which in turn  makes our games  somehow "not-about-story"  =  less meaningful.

I don't see how being about things beyond "story" is less meaningful.
"Storygames" seems to me to be a very good term to describe the hobby they're participating in.  The games, from what I've seen of them, seem primarily obsessed with creating a story, and with everyone in the group collaborating to do that.
Its a perfectly understandable, if narrow, goal. One that RPGs are not well-designed to accomplish effectively, for reasons I've discussed many times before.

Meanwhile, RPGs are about plot, about characters and the actuation and simulation of character personas, about emulation of genre, about adventure and fun, and mainly about doing all of these things within the boundaries of a game (whereas with storygames, the "game" part is clearly subservient to the "story" part, which is why they try so very hard to create rules that will "create the story", and why ultimately the rules are strictly secondary to the creation of said story as a priority).

So the real issue I see is that "adventure games" is what devalues what we do, devalues RPGs.  The other guys finally admitting that they're playing Storygames and not RPGs is a step in the right direction, even though far too many of them aren't on board with that train of thought yet.

QuoteSo they need to blur the lines to keep threadcrapping and threadpodcasting (Sons of Kryos, I´m looking at you!)

I agree, but you do not solve the siege by surrendering the city, and accepting the idea that we can't call ourselves RPGs anymore, or that they can call what they do RPGs.

Either you're saying that BOTH "adventure games" and "thematic games" are RPGs, or you're saying that NEITHER are.
If you're claiming that they BOTH are, you do nothing to stop the blurring of lines.
If you're claiming that NEITHER are, then you're surrendering our right to our own name.

QuoteWe happen to disagree who´s terms are more helpful to the other side. I don´t think we will clear that one up. But I can at least say that in the german internet scene Adventure Roleplaying (ARS = Abenteuerrollenspiel) has made quite some impact, and is adopted by posters all over to support our cause. Dungeon Design articles, Encounter logistic blogging, DM advice, grand discussions even on the Fanpro boards, all under that new/old umbrella.

In germany, given the situation as you have explained it, and the fact that essentially, the Swine have been dominant there since day 1, this kind of tactic might even be called for. But because it might be a necessary maneuvre in German doesn't mean we need to take it up in English; what could be a step forward for you there would be a tremendous step backwards for us here.

QuoteI will continue using it, and I´d urge you to adopt at least another term as "mainstream RPGs". Even your fundamentalist denial of the RPGness of Thematic Games at all was more helpful than yourself talking about "mainstream" and "traditional".

The division must be clear, don´t murk the waters.

Your point here might be valid, but the alternative you are proposing is no better than the terminology we are using now. In fact, it is far worse.
If you can think up a better term than Mainstream RPG, one that doesn't leave us ass-up with our back to the Swine, then feel free to suggest it.

RPGPundit

My points have all been made, and I don´t see any new arguments coming from you either.
I´m no fan of coming up with totally unrelated subjects just to reach the postcount.

So this will be my final post in this thread.

Thanks for your time, the positions have become very clear. Which is of value unto itself, besides being the issue at hand.


All the best,

Settembrini

Hehe, your rendition is accepted.  

RPGPundit