TheRPGSite

It has been brought to my attention that there is a thread on Storygames (the SECRET part of Storygames, which can't be accessed publically) talking all about strategies to get your storygames more attention by negative threads on forums like this one.

Apparently, several of the people involved in the current "commentaries" threads, "Q&A" etc that have sprouted up were people involved in that thread.

I take this just as seriously if not more than any declaration of a "board war", and it changes my perspective on those threads.

The question is what to do about it.

Also, to Andyk and the Storygames people: if you asswipes thought your "secret" wall would protect you from me finding out about this, you clearly underestimated me, you fucking goons. But that's just par for the course for you people, isn't it?

RPGPundit

With free speech comes the distinct possibility that someone will say something that pisses you off.  So these Story Games people might be stirring the shit pot for the purposes of driving interest in what they say and do.  And this is different from you stirring the shit pot to drive interest how, again?

Listen, if this is really their strategy it is amazingly impolite and *will* bite them in the ass.  If this is really just them pulling shit then just point it out and let us as a community judge them and their motives.  


TGA

Then it sounds like those threads should be shuffled off to somewhere else on the forums or maybe some special dediting done to them so we know which ones are the suspicious threads.

Something like "Not an Honest thread start" or "StoryGames Propaganda suspected"  attached to the title of those threads... maybe ?


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditI take this just as seriously if not more than any declaration of a "board war", and it changes my perspective on those threads.

Uh ... well ... you shouldn't.

'sa humorous thread, with a dose of good solid "get a grip, criticism ain't gonna kill anybody" thrown in for good measure.

Basically, some folks were saying "Oh me, oh my, I don't feel right complaining publically about someone's game, because it might hurt their sales."  Ben countered that by saying "Uh ... no.  It'll help their sales, so ... don't sweat it.  In fact, please critique my games!  Here!  I'll give you a guide to doing so!"

Now Ben is absolutely right.  This is part of the wonderful win-win of posting in a positive way:  If someone gleefully agrees with you, it's good publicity.  If someone passionately disagrees with you, it's good publicity.  This has been known for ... well ... quite some time.  Certainly I know it, and I revel in it.  It's not meant to be news ... just a reminder for folks who weren't applying the well-known lesson.

"Sabotage" ... heh.  You think everything's about you.  That's funny.

Er, are you talking about that "guide to talking bad about my games"? Because that was pretty darn obviously written with a tongue in cheek.

That isn't what I heard, Tony.  And since you guys make Storygames' important threads invisible to people who aren't in the club, that means I have to assume the worst.

And what I've heard is that the thread discusses specific strategies about how to subvert other sites in order to cause controversy and draw attention to Storygames.

As such, I've changed my mind about what I previously thought were "borderline" cases.

From now on, any thread that I think is an attempt by the Storygames people to SPAM the Main forum with stuff about Storygames will be sent to Off-Topic.

"Luke Crane" is not an RPG. Neither is "TonyLB".  Therefore, these Q&A threads and their commentaries? To Off-Topic they go.

And Sett's thread about the Siege or whatever the fuck he's ranting about now?
Sent to off-topic as well.

I'm sick of this shit.  From now on, the Main RPG forum is for talking about actual shit in RPGs.

RPGPundit

Seconded.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianWith free speech comes the distinct possibility that someone will say something that pisses you off.  So these Story Games people might be stirring the shit pot for the purposes of driving interest in what they say and do.  And this is different from you stirring the shit pot to drive interest how, again?

Because it is an organized intent to SPAM this site, organized from a secret section of their site. That's pretty fucking different than one guy posting something annoying here.

QuoteListen, if this is really their strategy it is amazingly impolite and *will* bite them in the ass.  If this is really just them pulling shit then just point it out and let us as a community judge them and their motives.  

You're welcome to judge these threads all you like, in Off-topic where these threads belong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause it is an organized intent to SPAM this site, organized from a secret section of their site.

Here's everything that the thread says about this site: "Where to complain? Talking bad is promotion, so I'd prefer you'd do it on high-traffic sites. It's also going to get you a better reception on places like RPGnet and the RPGsite which aren't swarming knee-deep with fans of the game... Talking points: swine swine swine. Rants work well here." It's a serious conspiracy, all right.

QuoteI'm sick of this shit. From now on, the Main RPG forum is for talking about actual shit in RPGs.

Rock on.  There's something I can agree on.

The post in question (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3774)

Factually, it's in public.

Also, if you can read that without realizing that it's tongue-in-cheek ... you are a very special sort of person.

Since you all seem to have Story Games accounts, I'm happy to talk about it over there. Or over here.

edit: stupid non-HTML allowing board.

The Tony Q&A should be moved to.

EDIT: It has been done, thanks.

This actually hurts to write...But close this thread.

That may or may not be the thread in question. I was told there was a thread specifically talking about theRPGsite, so who the fuck can say? Only people who are in Storygames could know for sure, couldn't they?

Sorry, if you have a problem with this, bring it up with AndyK. Storygamers can't have their cake and eat it too: if they want a secret little place to bitch out Regular Roleplayers, they don't get to be free of suspicion later.

In any case, that thread, the one you linked to Ben, includes such wonderful treats as someone recommending that you make a bunch of sockpuppets to flood a forum; and it includes our own TonyLB talking about how any thread where he himself is the center of discussion augments sales of his game (Capes, I suppose), and he said this just before the start of the "Q&A:TONYLB" thread on here... coincidence?

Fuck that. My ruling stands. Go complain about it in your secret hideout.

RPGPundit

Jesus fucking christ, Paranoid much, Pundit?

You know, if you want, I'll gladly repost that Sotrygames thread in its entirety just so you can see how badly you are overreacting.

But then again, you'd only see that as spam.

Your ruling? Uh, sure, man... Not disputing that. If you decide to moderate a discussion, that's not particularly an attack on me.

More facts for the curious:

The three categories of discussion which are invisible to non-members are "little ideas" and "game design help," the game design discussion categories, and "links to gaming discussions" which is links.

None of these contain "complaints about regular gamers." On the main page right now, I can find one thread even vaguely related to that, which is a newbie complaining that his group won't try indie games, and a lot of people (including me) saying that he should stop pushing them to do something that they don't want to do and find other people to play his indie games with, plus a lot of tips and support for doing so.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen threads complaining about indie/story games or their players.

AFAIK, Story Games has only ever turned down one application for membership, so it's not like it's hard to read those three categories.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanYour ruling? Uh, sure, man... Not disputing that. If you decide to moderate a discussion, that's not particularly an attack on me.

More facts for the curious:

The three categories of discussion which are invisible to non-members are "little ideas" and "game design help," the game design discussion categories, and "links to gaming discussions" which is links.

None of these contain "complaints about regular gamers." On the main page right now, I can find one thread even vaguely related to that, which is a newbie complaining that his group won't try indie games, and a lot of people (including me) saying that he should stop pushing them to do something that they don't want to do and find other people to play his indie games with, plus a lot of tips and support for doing so.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen threads complaining about indie/story games or their players.

AFAIK, Story Games has only ever turned down one application for membership, so it's not like it's hard to read those three categories.

yrs--
--Ben

Really?  Who did they turn down?  Anyone we know?

Quote from: Ben LehmanThe post in question (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3774)

Factually, it's in public.

Also, if you can read that without realizing that it's tongue-in-cheek ... you are a very special sort of person.

Since you all seem to have Story Games accounts, I'm happy to talk about it over there. Or over here.

edit: stupid non-HTML allowing board.

I don't have a Story Games account....and after reading that I'm not likely to ever want one. Staring artificial flamewars to hype a product is just underhanded and stupid.

 There are better things to do on the web. Like find maps or usable NPCs for my next game session.

- Ed C.

Quote from: James J SkachReally?  Who did they turn down?  Anyone we know?

Ask Andy.

Quote from: KoltarThere are better things to do on the web. Like find maps or usable NPCs for my next game session.

- Ed C.

Or post about how you're never going to get an account there, huh =)

Pundit,

If you want to move them to Off-Topic - hey man, it's your forum - Rock the Fuck On.

I'm saddened, a bit, because now I'll be violating Kyle's and J Arcane's posting rulez about posting in the RPG versus Off Topic...but I'll live.

I'm just using it as a golden opportunity, to, in public, get some answers and put people on the record in a more transparent way.  You can't do it at the Forge - the discussion's over there.  You can't do it at RPGNet, to try to accomplish anything in that sea of humanity is difficult at best - not to mention the moderation would be horrible.

I can't, actually, think of a better place to shine the light of reason and understanding on this entire conflict than here at TheRPGSite.  Not because I want to necessarily call anyone out or extend the conflict, but because, perhaps, we can get down to some root issues/differences, help people understand how this or that might be insulting, and perhaps move beyond the conflict.

Quote from: KoltarI don't have a Story Games account....and after reading that I'm not likely to ever want one. Staring artificial flamewars to hype a product is just underhanded and stupid.

 There are better things to do on the web. Like find maps or usable NPCs for my next game session.

I can't imagine you would ever want a Story Games account. I can't imagine that the discussions there would be of much interest to you.

As far as "intentional flamewars," I think that there's a big difference between "hahah! we'll falsely argue with each other whilst stroking our goatees evilly!" and "If you've got negative things to say, here are ways to say them that will get you a good reception."

Because I think a post about how much Polaris is a swiney game (or whatever) here is going to net a much more positive response here than it would on the Forge. Likewise, a post about how Polaris's pacing mechanics are too derivative of (I dunno) MLwM would be better received on the Forge than here. That's non-controversial, right?

edit: missing word "here" in the last graph.

I will say that the practice of starting flamewars or stirring shit or whatever you want to call it for the purpose of marketing does play into my suspicions of the entire GNS/Forge movement being nothing more than a marketing ploy from beginning to end...

I mean:

Quote from: Russell CollinsCreate a second login from another IP address. Post a few times with each login using a different voice (you're a roleplayer, figure it out.) Start a flamewar between your home self and your office self. Keep going until more people join the fight.

This is a bannable offense of course, but if it puts money in your wallet, do you really care? Besides, it earns you cred as a bad kid.

If you really don't want to be banned, coordinate with your new pal from some con to carry out the same plan. Then, after your sales boost, the two of you can be seen at GenCon, coming to terms with your differences and making out beneath the shadow of the WotC booth.

WTF?

There's a difference between soliciting legitimate feedback - good or bad - and creating false buzz in the manner described above for the sole purposes of "money in your wallet."

Where are you people taking your cues from, the Brittney Spears Lindsay Lohan Academy of Publicity?

James:  You mean the post that immediately garnered two "Don't do that" replies?  Quoting a bit out of context, aren't you?

Quote from: TonyLBJames:  You mean the post that immediately garnered two "Don't do that" replies?  Quoting a bit out of context, aren't you?

No Tony..I'm not.  The next quote, in fact, does not say don't do it. It says, specifically:

Quote from: Thunder_GodRussel, sometimes these things are found out. Hand puppets are the killer to sales, no matter what else happens.

So, ya know, it's not quite as clear cut.

Now in defence of Mr. Lehman, he is more direct in saying he would not reccomend what Russel does, so credit to him there.

Now, to be fair, I think the "Vibe" thread from Stumpydave should be moved.  I mean, after all, it starts:

Quote from: StumpydaveRight, where did this idea that games that emphasise the story are lesser than those that take a more (for want of a better word) Gygaxian approach spring from? Because this site has just left me cold for the past couple of months.

It started when there seemed to be a groupthink that unless a game was based upon a twenty+ year old system then it was a swine game designed to emulate chick flicks and rom coms and worthy only of the inverted snobbery one finds in working class politics.

So what happened?

No?

EDIT:  Referring to post #25.

Fair enough.  That's putting it in context ... which, honestly?  All I wanted.

With these "Let's talk about another thread" posts, so few people will actually read the other thread that it's always a dicey proposition to pick out a single post.  It runs the risk of implying that the post you pick is the exemplar of what the thread was about.

I mean, I was gonna pick out some of the uber-goofy ones, but ... same thing applies.  The thread is more nuanced as a whole than any one of its posts.

Seconded, move the vibe thread.

Quote from: James J SkachNow, to be fair, I think the "Vibe" thread from Stumpydave should be moved.

I sense a slippery slope here, folks...

So, any thread that includes actual *discussion* of a type of RPG (Story Games or whateverthefuck you want to call them) is now Off Topic?  On a general discussion RPG forum?


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI sense a slippery slope here, folks...

So, any thread that includes actual *discussion* of a type of RPG (Story Games or whateverthefuck you want to call them) is now Off Topic?  On a general discussion RPG forum?


TGA

Thanks for understanding, TGA.

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause it is an organized intent to SPAM this site, organized from a secret section of their site. That's pretty fucking different than one guy posting something annoying here.

It's your call to make, but in my opinion you would be better served scorching the shit out of them by pointing this asshattery out in public and letting it be properly ridiculed.  By intervening in this way you are accomplishing two things:

1.  You have just given yourself and the other moderators more work by now having to use your secret Motive Detector™ on every fucking thread having to do with Story games or involving certain posters.  You'll then open the floor to everyone here who has a grudge to bear (and there are many) to lobby for threads that they *personally do not like* to be arbitrarily moved.  This potential disruption of discussion is considerable.

2.  You will have given these assmonkeys some sort of legitimacy and feeling of persecution that they can wear on their sleeves.

On the other hand you can just skip all the work and heartache and just ridicule the fuckers.  It's your call, man...

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're welcome to judge these threads all you like, in Off-topic where these threads belong.

I guess I have more faith in this community's ability to see this shit for what it is and judge accordingly than you do, it seems...


TGA

Just to be clear, I would have no problem posting threads about my products in an Ads/Promo forum or in Off Topic. I often feel I should not be putting threads up about Shaolin Squirrel dice in the RPG forum.

So, should we move/direct designers posting about their own products to another forum?

Just wondering.

Bill

Edit: Also, my Alt-History threads, should I be posting those in Off Topic? They aren't about RPGing really. More about history. Thanks.

I vote this thread be moved to Tangency.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt has been brought to my attention that there is a thread on Storygames (the SECRET part of Storygames, which can't be accessed publically) talking all about strategies to get your storygames more attention by negative threads on forums like this one.

Nope, it's public. It's the tongue-in-cheek thread that Ben posted above. Apparently some humorless jackass took it to be a call to arms.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat isn't what I heard, Tony. And since you guys make Storygames' important threads invisible to people who aren't in the club, that means I have to assume the worst.

How about you ask this secret ninja informant what the thread was? Then you can compare.

Quote from: Ben LehmanFactually, it's in public.

Facts don't work here.

Quote from: BenAFAIK, Story Games has only ever turned down one application for membership, so it's not like it's hard to read those three categories.

Two, actually. There was the indie designer who puts Satanic curses on people who don't review his game well, too.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianListen, if this is really their strategy it is amazingly impolite and *will* bite them in the ass. If this is really just them pulling shit then just point it out and let us as a community judge them and their motives.

Absolutely. What you see in Ben's thread is the one in question.

Quote from: RPGPunditStorygamers can't have their cake and eat it too: if they want a secret little place to bitch out Regular Roleplayers, they don't get to be free of suspicion later.

Plz PM me with all of your Freemason secrets. Email is fine, too. Handshakes to secret history, I want to see it all. KThxBye. ;)

Quote from: KoltarStaring artificial flamewars to hype a product is just underhanded and stupid.

It absolutely is. It's as underhanded and stupid as the acusations being levelled. Which is sad, because someone "informed" Pundy about a tongue-in-cheek open thread, Pundy starts spinning the Lie Machine without verifying, and even won't go back to ask his source. "I heard it once, nope, no need to check my facts or ask my source again" is the realm of TV-style punditr... never mind. :)

-Andy

Guys. Fuck this. It was me that highlighted this to pundit. I was fed up with seeing this shit on the RPG forum. I reported a thread on RPGnet to the mods there too. That followed the story games thread to a tee. Heh Ben, perhaps you want to head over there?

I don't apologise. This shit has been collecting on the board for a week. New posters who mention swine all the time in their opening posts? Ooh, mentioned in the SG thread as a key word for this site. All the q&a threads? Marketing opportunities. Simple. Read TonyLBs response to the SG thread and then wonder why he was so keen to have his own q&a here.

There is no idealogical war as pundit would have it. It's a war about fucking money and who buys what. Just fucking pony up and admit it.

Anyone who has read my posts here recently might have put two and two together already anyhow. But boy, has this place changed. Roleplaying threads dissapear within hours and all this shit about the war and story and all that crap attract the most replies?

I write games myself. For other people. So that is a difference, i guess. But really people, be honest in your dealings, please.

Bill. Keep on with the alt. history threads! Interesting stuff.

If you wanna blame someone, blame me, for this. I don't back down from it though. Honesty is the best policy. Full stop.

I dunno whether to stay or go to be honest. I found this place to be a breath of fresh air when i first came. If things are to improve, people need to stop mentioning the 'war'. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. You say it and they will come. The fact that they've said things before should be fucking ignored. It's gaming and we should talk about that.

Peace out. :cool:

IMO, Ben's thread wasn't a secret plan to organize spamification.

I take it mainly as a way to shore up the morale of storygame fans & designers who feel bad about having their games slammed, by looking at the bright side. "No such thing as bad publicity."

Unfortunately it comes off as a taunt, and it also could encourage some of the less mature storygamers to deliberately "keep the flames burning" instead of accepting the criticism as a window into the conceptual foundation of the critic. (E.g., by insisting that all RPGs are about producing story when the critic says they dislike Game X because it's about producing story.)

One-Horse....


 Stay.
Hang around here ....please.


- Ed C.

Quote from: James J SkachPundit,

If you want to move them to Off-Topic - hey man, it's your forum - Rock the Fuck On.

I'm saddened, a bit, because now I'll be violating Kyle's and J Arcane's posting rulez about posting in the RPG versus Off Topic...but I'll live.

I'm just using it as a golden opportunity, to, in public, get some answers and put people on the record in a more transparent way.  You can't do it at the Forge - the discussion's over there.  You can't do it at RPGNet, to try to accomplish anything in that sea of humanity is difficult at best - not to mention the moderation would be horrible.

I can't, actually, think of a better place to shine the light of reason and understanding on this entire conflict than here at TheRPGSite.  Not because I want to necessarily call anyone out or extend the conflict, but because, perhaps, we can get down to some root issues/differences, help people understand how this or that might be insulting, and perhaps move beyond the conflict.

Except I've seen nothing in either of the current threads that has any indication of "moving beyond the conflict".

Instead what I've seen is a lot of Luke hyping Burning Wheel, and Tony hyping Capes, just like they apparently said they would in a Storygames thread.

In terms of the actual "conflict", Luke wants to pretend that GM fiat is the source of all evil and anyone who doesn't like the Forge is only doing so because they're an ignoramus; while Tony has stated that the War is all just a "misunderstanding" because somehow Ron Edwards saying "Most RPG gamers are miserable because of Regular RPGs" was just a big misunderstanding.

Neither of them are owning up to anything.

So these threads won't solve anything. Its just giving them a soapbox to sell their theories and their products, with the "rules" of your thread being one where they can do this without people being able to directly criticize them. Fuck that.

RPGPundit

hehehe...it's almost as if someone in the Story Games crowd said something, and it was completely misunderstood.  That sounds vaguely...I don't know...familiar....


BTW, Pundy - Here's (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6932) another thread that should be moved, yes?

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept I've seen nothing in either of the current threads that has any indication of "moving beyond the conflict".

Instead what I've seen is a lot of Luke hyping Burning Wheel, and Tony hyping Capes, just like they apparently said they would in a Storygames thread.

In terms of the actual "conflict", Luke wants to pretend that GM fiat is the source of all evil and anyone who doesn't like the Forge is only doing so because they're an ignoramus; while Tony has stated that the War is all just a "misunderstanding" because somehow Ron Edwards saying "Most RPG gamers are miserable because of Regular RPGs" was just a big misunderstanding.

Neither of them are owning up to anything.

So these threads won't solve anything. Its just giving them a soapbox to sell their theories and their products, with the "rules" of your thread being one where they can do this without people being able to directly criticize them. Fuck that.

RPGPundit

wow?  really?  I mean, I agree that I think Luke has now officially gone on record here and saying GM Fiat is inherently bad and corrosive to the hobby - and said without any more proof than his instincts and anecdotes and some, what I would consider, really...umm..well..interesting...theories on players and their goals and the health of the industry. All of which amounts to - Luke doesn't like GM Fiat because...he doesn't.  Which is great to get out in the open.

Tony - push Capes?  I mean, he's spent far more time answering my questions on Theory/The Theory crowd than  he has on Capes.

And to be honest, I've learned a lot more than in the "pistols" thread yo had with him.

I'd rather get them on record as best I can, and then crank on them in other threads that you can source back to their own words...when deserved...

Quote from: HinterWeltJust to be clear, I would have no problem posting threads about my products in an Ads/Promo forum or in Off Topic. I often feel I should not be putting threads up about Shaolin Squirrel dice in the RPG forum.

So, should we move/direct designers posting about their own products to another forum?

Just wondering.

Bill

Edit: Also, my Alt-History threads, should I be posting those in Off Topic? They aren't about RPGing really. More about history. Thanks.

For the record, Bill, none of your posts were part of the problem.

If a game designer comes on and openly talks about his product; I don't have a problem with that, as long as its not underhanded and so long as he's not flooding the forum.

Its up to you to use your better judgement as to whether a thread belongs on the main forum, or in the Theory forum, or in off-topic.

The Alt-history threads technically aren't talking directly about RPGs, but I was assuming they were for an RPG-related purpose.  If you want, we'll move them to off-topic, but so far no one has complained about it.  They've been pretty interested.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFor the record, Bill, none of your posts were part of the problem.

If a game designer comes on and openly talks about his product; I don't have a problem with that, as long as its not underhanded and so long as he's not flooding the forum.

Its up to you to use your better judgement as to whether a thread belongs on the main forum, or in the Theory forum, or in off-topic.

The Alt-history threads technically aren't talking directly about RPGs, but I was assuming they were for an RPG-related purpose.  If you want, we'll move them to off-topic, but so far no one has complained about it.  They've been pretty interested.

RPGPundit

Mostly I just do not want to be part of the problem. I have no problem where they are but just wanted some clarification. You have provided some and I will try and keep it in mind when posting in the future. I tend to be in RPG forum more than the others and it leads to border line topics (like the squirrel dice) going in there as opposed to OT.

Thanks,
Bill

The "Vibe" thread and the thread that Temple started are going to stay on the main forum, for now, assuming that the original posters don't ask for it to be moved.

I'll be carefully watching any new threads that come out: If I think they're a product of the Storygamers following their plans for attention, they will be moved to.

I'm sick of this. I'd rather lose every fucking storygamer from this board than lose a single guy like One Horse Town, who's worth 500 of those fuckers.
I really hope he stays, because if not the Swine are getting exactly what they want: they're driving away the regular gamers and subverting this place into yet another one of theirs.

So you fuckers want to play dirty? FINE. Don't worry too much about my "secret-motive detector"; it works fine and quick.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's posting about what, and with which motives.

And will there be a double-standard? If there will be, that double standard will show favour to Regular Roleplayers, who are here with good intentions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWeltMostly I just do not want to be part of the problem. I have no problem where they are but just wanted some clarification. You have provided some and I will try and keep it in mind when posting in the future. I tend to be in RPG forum more than the others and it leads to border line topics (like the squirrel dice) going in there as opposed to OT.

Thanks,
Bill

You know that you and I don't always agree, but I cannot think of a time when I've had any serious problem with anything you've written or where you put it; or reason to question your motives for doing so.
I know you've voiced these concerns before, but trust me that this is not about you, there's no problem with you, and if you just carry on the way you're doing things right now there won't be any problem with you on this site.  You're doing fine and are a valued poster to theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you fuckers want to play dirty? FINE. Don't worry too much about my "secret-motive detector"; it works fine and quick.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's posting about what, and with which motives.

As always, this is your prerogative as the owner of the site.  I just hope that all of this additional moderation will not lead to a slow whittling of topics that are acceptable, and will not encourage the Internet Warriors amongst us (notably the "I was banned from RPG.net and all I got was this stupid t-shirt" crowd) to constantly lobby to restrict anything or anyone that they don't approve of.

Good luck with that.  Seriously.  No snark intended.  I genuinely enjoy this site and I am worried that the direction that you are going is not sustainable, and will fundamentally change the nature of the site in the long run.  I hope that you prove me wrong.


TGA

I think the bigger risk was that the huge influx, artificially created by the storygames crowd, of threads that were talking about storygames or whatever would have done more to permanently change the nature of this forum, especially if it would lead to posters like One Horse Town leaving this forum in frustration.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think the bigger risk was that the huge influx, artificially created by the storygames crowd, of threads that were talking about storygames or whatever would have done more to permanently change the nature of this forum, especially if it would lead to posters like One Horse Town leaving this forum in frustration.

RPGPundit

Your point is well taken.


TGA

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm sick of this. I'd rather lose every fucking storygamer from this board than lose a single guy like One Horse Town, who's worth 500 of those fuckers.
I really hope he stays, because if not the Swine are getting exactly what they want: they're driving away the regular gamers and subverting this place into yet another one of theirs.

RPGPundit

Thanks for the kind words. It's not really warranted, however. I'd rather people were upfront about their motives though. I've been getting more and more annoyed by the front page of the RPG forum. If you wanna shill, then do so, but be upfront about it.

In fact, how about a dedicated ads/promo forum? There's a sticky thread at the moment, but i think a sub-forum would be better. Maybe this would serve better?

I find the title of this thread incredibly ironic considering who started the four Q&A/Commentary and the "I declare the Swine Wars to be Over" threads that were moved to off-topic.

Settembrini, Alnag, and Abyssal Maw aren't usually considered swine, are they? Maybe it was more Russian roulette than sabotage.

Besides, that was more activity on this message board than I've seen.....well, ever! I would think Pundit & Co. would see all the traffic, members, and discussion as an opportunity rather than something they need to hide in a corner.

Tim

We are going through something of a growth spurt right now; that's going to happen regardless, so it'll be nice to guide that growth toward what will be most productive for the benefit of theRPGsite, rather than for the benefit of Storygames and its posters.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWe are going through something of a growth spurt right now; that's going to happen regardless, so it'll be nice to guide that growth toward what will be most productive for the benefit of theRPGsite, rather than for the benefit of Storygames and its posters.

You don't like peanut butter in your chocolate, do you?

Well, that explains the crazy way the site's gone for the last week or two. I couldn't understand what the fuck had happened. It was just a big old shill.

You know Andy &co, there are better ways to promote your games. Lots of people have talked about them, saying how you can post about the design process and get people's input to your game, which gives you good ideas and gets people invested in talking about it, and so on. You don't have to go on in and stir shit up, or try to swamp another forum in your threads.

Sure, it'll get you a few sales, but really we're talking about a few sales - less than 10 - and so just a few tens of bucks. Are you really that hard up for attention and cash? Come on, surely it's not that bad.

Incidentally, I was refused membership of Andy K's forums. I assume it was refused because there was never a reply, and Andy's on record insulting me personally. But hey, not everyone likes everyone, that's fine, no hard feelings. Another poster here hated me, too, until he met me, and now he is just indifferent.

But I'm really curious about this indie game designer who puts satanic curses on people who won't review his game. Who's that? :confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditInstead what I've seen is a lot of Luke hyping Burning Wheel, and Tony hyping Capes, just like they apparently said they would in a Storygames thread.

Pundot,

You're a tool. I undertook that thread in good faith with Alnag and other posters. It was a simple dialogue. Not something you're interested in, I know.

I don't think I mentioned my own game except for in passing. I tried to avoid it, in fact. What's more, I posted no links to my own site, didn't identify myself as the author of a game and don't even promote with a link in my .sig.

A pretty piss poor promotional stunt if it doesn't reap me those delicious sales, eh? And if you're going to counter that people know me by name or know who I am, I ask you, which is it? Am I insignificant or not?


Good faith, you paranoid child, I posted in good faith. You going to call me names now and stamp your foot?


What's more, don't think so highly of yourself. I do not need your site for promotions. I post here because it's an interesting mix of opinions -- a look into the "other side."

But now you're turning more and more into that which you preach against. Discussions you don't like get ghettoized. I remember the young idealistic Pundot of six months ago crowing about how this site was for free speech and wouldn't use the aggressive modding tactics of "those other sites."

-L

Quote from: lukeBut now you're turning more and more into that which you preach against. Discussions you don't like get ghettoized. I remember the young idealistic Pundot of six months ago crowing about how this site was for free speech and wouldn't use the aggressive modding tactics of "those other sites."

-L

I would rather not have to take the measure of moving entire threads; but given that the other side has no intention of acting in good faith and have clearly tried to swamp the main forum, there are pretty well only three responses to this:

1. start banning the shit out of everyone and censoring posts: I don't want to go that way.

2. Bend over and let this site become the new Storygames-focused site: no chance I'm going that way either.

3. Continue to allow people, even people who really have no love or good intentions to this site, to be able to speak freely, but assure that the mission statement of this site is not disrupted.  The way to do this is to move the swamping threads in question to an area where they can still be discussed without any problem, but anyone who was only posting there to try to swamp theRPGsite will end up feeling vexed.

RPGPundit

Honestly, you're not going to win that fight. Anyone determined to promote on your site is going to look for the biggest, busiest forums and then post in there. If you move, delete or ghettoize posts, it's just going to go underground. People will actually start stealth promoting.

And stealth promoting is really, really easy. Much easier than a Q&A thread.

-L

Wow, that´s an open threat. Tell me something about good faith...

Come on Sett. Play the game.

Personally, i don't have any doubt that there's been an effort to 'spread the word'. Not just on this site incidentally. It may be that this has been subconscious on the part of those involved. You read something and before you know it, it's lodged in the back of your mind where you can't see it. But it's there. Joke or not, that SG thread has led to an identikit thread on RPGnet following the advice given about Polaris. It even starts with the words "The one by Ben Lehman". Is there another Polaris? The OP then states that he thought this was what Ben wanted, having seen that SG thread. That my friends, is stealth marketing. Add that SG thread to lumpley's comment about threads = money and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Many of the same people were in both threads.

I don't see Luke's involvement in this Pundit. Done it before, but not this time, not here.

I ain't no poster child for this place and i don't want to be either, but i will say two more things.

1) Passive shilling please, or do it in any forum that might be set up for it.

2) I think that the threads moved to off topic should be put in game design & theory. They're not off-topic, they just aren't in the right place. Luke's q&a has been pretty interesting, but i reckon that as it has more to do with design opinions, it should be in Game Design & Theory as well.

Quote from: One Horse Town2) I think that the threads moved to off topic should be put in game design & theory. They're not off-topic, they just aren't in the right place. Luke's q&a has been pretty interesting, but i reckon that as it has more to do with design opinions, it should be in Game Design & Theory as well.

I agree with Dan.  I have no particular objection to moving threads to appropriate forums.  I also think that the Q&A threads have been pretty interesting and belong in Game Design & Theory rather than Off Topic.  They are not about preferences in laundry detergent, but are addressing different approaches to playing RPGs.  They don't belong in Off Topic.


TGA

Quote from: One Horse TownIs there another Polaris?

Yep ... french RPG about submarine crews, if I recall correctly.

Pundit, I disagree entirely with your stance on this.

The Q&A: Luke Crane thread had two parts, one rocked and the other one sucked. Luke Crane answering questions about his games and gaming in general was cool, and it should be in the Roleplaying forum, or at least in the Game Design forum. On the other hand, I'm completely fed up with swine wars, roleplaying theory, GNS, GPS (:D ), and all that shit. :mad:

I just want to talk about roleplaying games, damn it, and not about castles in the air or imaginary wars. :rant:

Besides, if some author wanted to promote his roleplaying game, what's the problem?

Quote from: SettembriniWow, that´s an open threat. Tell me something about good faith...

:confused:

Quote from: ClaudiusI just want to talk about roleplaying games, damn it, and not about castles in the air or imaginary wars. :rant:

Are you dissing Jorune?!

Quote from: lukeHonestly, you're not going to win that fight. Anyone determined to promote on your site is going to look for the biggest, busiest forums and then post in there. If you move, delete or ghettoize posts, it's just going to go underground. People will actually start stealth promoting.

And stealth promoting is really, really easy. Much easier than a Q&A thread.

-L

That´s a threat in my book.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s a threat in my book.

Or a statement of fact. Actually, its whatever you want it to be; and you seem to want it to be a threat. Most likely because you want a war.

Because your projecting.

I don't believe in the Swine War, and even I thought it was a threat.

I mean, a pretty weak and woolly geekboy sort of threat, but still a threat.

Quote from: TonyLBYep ... french RPG about submarine crews, if I recall correctly.

Truly? I stand corrected, if that's the case. Doesn't change fuck all, but i stand corrected.

Quote from: One Horse Town2) I think that the threads moved to off topic should be put in game design & theory. They're not off-topic, they just aren't in the right place. Luke's q&a has been pretty interesting, but i reckon that as it has more to do with design opinions, it should be in Game Design & Theory as well.

What the fuck do those threads have to do with "theory"?! They aren't threads about designing RPGs.

You are thinking of putting them in "Theory" because Luke and Tony claim to be "Theory" people, as if they OWN "theory", as if "theory" must be GNS and only Forge-people are theorists. Fuck that.

Their theories are lies. My Theory forum is for real theory and real game design; so I've made a conscious effort to not allow the place to be a place where Forgistas come in and take over.  Moving the stuff the Storygamers have made to that forum would grant them exactly that.

Their threads aren't REAL "theory", and they aren't about RPGs, they're just self-promotion.  They belong in Off Topic more than anywhere else currently on the board, since we don't currently have a "Self-promotion" Forum, or an "Irrelevancy" forum, or whatever.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditTheir threads aren't REAL "theory", and they aren't about RPGs, they're just self-promotion.  They belong in Off Topic more than anywhere else currently on the board, since we don't currently have a "Self-promotion" Forum, or an "Irrelevancy" forum, or whatever.

RPGPundit

In the interest of accuracy, I vote that we call it the Jerk Off forum.

How can a theory be a lie?

Quote from: TempleHow can a theory be a lie?

It sure doesn't describe anything resembling what's gone on at any of my gaming tables in the last decade plus worth of gaming.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt sure doesn't describe anything resembling what's gone on at any of my gaming tables in the last decade plus worth of gaming.

Well, thats one thing. But a theory cant be a lie. The very concept of a theory prevents it, because there is uncertainty implicit in the term. A theory is a poissible explanation, yet unproved.

A claim, on the other hand, can be a lie. And many people proclaim GNS and Big Model as fact. But when prefaced with theory, the accusation of lies makes no sense, atleast to me.

Quote from: RPGPunditTheir threads aren't REAL "theory", and they aren't about RPGs, they're just self-promotion.  They belong in Off Topic more than anywhere else currently on the board, since we don't currently have a "Self-promotion" Forum, or an "Irrelevancy" forum, or whatever.

RPGPundit

If they're so irrelevant, why are you reacting out of fear?

Quote from: TempleWell, thats one thing. But a theory cant be a lie. The very concept of a theory prevents it, because there is uncertainty implicit in the term. A theory is a poissible explanation, yet unproved.

A claim, on the other hand, can be a lie. And many people proclaim GNS and Big Model as fact. But when prefaced with theory, the accusation of lies makes no sense, atleast to me.

It's a lie because it purports to be all inclusive but isn't.  It's a lie because bby using the term theory it implies a scientific rigor, when in fact it wouldn't even hold water as a freshman term paper at a community college.  

And it's a lie because it doesn't actually even manage to describe the way the vast majority of people actually play, and is in fact, openly hostile to it.

If the big bang theory turned out to be false, but we kept teaching it in schools, that'd be a lie, right?  Why should RPG "theory" be given a pass when it's effectively doing that very thing?

Quote from: J ArcaneIf the big bang theory turned out to be false, but we kept teaching it in schools, that'd be a lie, right?  Why should RPG "theory" be given a pass when it's effectively doing that very thing?

I dont actually see how its doing that very thing. While many people experience what youre describing, many others are experiencing the exact opposite. Games are being designed according to the theories, and they observably do their thing
for many players.

If anything, Id say the theories are incomplete. I wouldnt call them lies though.

Quote from: TempleI dont actually see how its doing that very thing. While many people experience what youre describing, many others are experiencing the exact opposite. Games are being designed according to the theories, and they observably do their thing
for many players.

If anything, Id say the theories are incomplete. I wouldnt call them lies though.

The thing is, these aren't even theories.

No, a theory can't be a lie. But a philosophy or an ideology or a dishonest marketing plan can be called twisted, or inaccurate, or wrong.

Or all three.

Quote from: TempleI dont actually see how its doing that very thing. While many people experience what youre describing, many others are experiencing the exact opposite. Games are being designed according to the theories, and they observably do their thing
for many players.

If anything, Id say the theories are incomplete. I wouldnt call them lies though.

This is a cop out, and bogus logic to boot.

There's a difference between a theory being falsifiable, and being proved false.  

If I write a theory which says that all people are black based on a visit to Africa, that doesn't mean later I get to say upon a visit to Europe or Asia that, "Oh well, my theory is still true for Africa!"

My theory is wrong, period.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is a cop out, and bogus logic to boot.

There's a difference between a theory being falsifiable, and being proved false.  

If I write a theory which says that all people are black based on a visit to Africa, that doesn't mean later I get to say upon a visit to Europe or Asia that, "Oh well, my theory is still true for Africa!"

My theory is wrong, period.

Good point.

I still think the theory can be revised though.

Quote from: TempleWell, thats one thing. But a theory cant be a lie. The very concept of a theory prevents it, because there is uncertainty implicit in the term. A theory is a poissible explanation, yet unproved.

A claim, on the other hand, can be a lie. And many people proclaim GNS and Big Model as fact. But when prefaced with theory, the accusation of lies makes no sense, atleast to me.

If you continue pushing a "theory" long past the time its been proven to be false, it is a lie.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you continue pushing a "theory" long past the time its been proven to be false, it is a lie.

RPGPundit

Has it really been disproven though?

Another good point is that in many ways, its not really theory at all. Its a design philosophy. Seeing it as such renders my own point irrelevant though.

QuoteHas it really been disproven though?

The concept of "incoherence/coherence" as a value judgement is inherently and directly contradictory to the play of the vast majority of RPGs and their players.

Therefore, the theory is incorrect.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe concept of "incoherence/coherence" as a value judgement is inherently and directly contradictory to the play of the vast majority of RPGs and their players.

And its supported by the ad hoc argument that players retroactively edit their experiences, that the dysfunctonal fun only happens after play.

Good point.
I really hate that "dysfunction" bullshit.

Quote from: TempleAnd its supported by the ad hoc argument that players retroactively edit their experiences, that the dysfunctonal fun only happens after play.

Good point.
I really hate that "dysfunction" bullshit.

The "retroactive edit" slur really pissed me off. They were clearly using it to delegitimize/deny people who were clearly enjoying themselves and trying to take part in the hobby.

But note: even that idea hasn't really gone away amongst many of the story-gamers.  To make it even more absurd-- some of the chief proponents of the idea that gamers "retroactively edit their experience to report fun, when they didn't actually have fun" were people who have let slip reports that they get to game maybe once or twice a year at most.

Quote from: RPGPundit"Luke Crane" is not an RPG. Neither is "TonyLB".  Therefore, these Q&A threads and their commentaries? To Off-Topic they go.

And Sett's thread about the Siege or whatever the fuck he's ranting about now?
Sent to off-topic as well.

I'm sick of this shit.  From now on, the Main RPG forum is for talking about actual shit in RPGs.

Fucking A.

Thanks a bunch, Pundit: you might have seen on the thread I started in the main forum that these War threads are beginning to get me down a bit, so it's nice to see that threads will be shunted to off-topic if the actual RPG content gets stupidly low; at the same time, I wouldn't want to kill off the War discussions, because I do like to dabble in them when I'm feeling bullish and they occasionally stray into genuinely interesting territory. This is a fair compromise.

I'm interested to see if "Clash" is an rpg.

And he apparently is.  I wish I were surprised.

Quote from: BrantaiAnd he apparently is.  I wish I were surprised.

I'm not going to take the bait of some little test.

At the end of the day, I moved the Q&A threads because they were cross-forum spamming. That may or may not have been what the OP intended, but its what they were turned into thanks to that Storygames thread and the way that Luke and Tony chose to address the thread, abusing the "rules" of the Q&A process in order to propagandize without having to answer any of the difficult questions or respond to any criticisms.

Thus far, from what I've seen Clash hasn't abused the process in the same way.

In any case, I don't really give a fuck what you think; Its like I said before, if this board is going to be discretionary, its going to do so erring on the side of Regular Roleplaying.

RPGPundit

At what price freedom?

Temple, you drongo, it's an rpg discussion board. Perspective!

Quote from: Kyle AaronTemple, you drongo, it's an rpg discussion board. Perspective!

Hehe. True.

But still,this is the board that was supposed to be "unmoderated" and "free."
And now its moderated and oppressive, just like every other message board out there.

Sweep that as far you want under the rug, its still now officially true.

Quote from: TempleHehe. True.

But still,this is the board that was supposed to be "unmoderated" and "free."
And now its moderated and oppressive, just like every other message board out there.

Sweep that as far you want under the rug, its still now officially true.

Oh c'mon thats a load of bullshit!!

Of the 4 gamer forums that I am on this is the LEAST moderated of the 4.
 There  is nothing so far "oppressive" about how Pundit and Jeff (and the others) moderate. Hell, they even let us in on their thought processes when a big issue comes up.

- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditabusing the "rules" of the Q&A process in order to propagandize without having to answer any of the difficult questions or respond to any criticisms.

Technically, isn't "not responding to criticisms" obeying the rules of a Q&A process?  The rules say that the guy on the spot answers questions, so if someone comes in with a hard-core statement ... well, that's a statement, not a question.

If you wanted to "stick it to me" (or whatever your metaphor of the day is) you really couldn't ask for a better opportunity:  Figure out the question that will reveal my Swinish ways, phrase it without assumptions and launch it into the mix.  I'll answer it.

You're an intelligent guy.  Think you can manage to phrase something in the form of a question?

Quote from: RPGPunditAt the end of the day, I moved the Q&A threads because they were cross-forum spamming. That may or may not have been what the OP intended, but its what they were turned into thanks to that Storygames thread and the way that Luke and Tony chose to address the thread,

Wow!  I can turn threads into spam just by posting my opinions in them.  I hadn't noticed that?  I shall now revel in my new-found power.  I'm gonna go out, find some roleplaying threads, and post insightful stuff in them.  How long does it take before those threads turn into sales pitches for online prescription meds?

In case you didn't get the subtext, I'm laughing at you so hard my ribs hurt.  It's your board, you can (and should) do what you think is right ... but your justification is pathetic.  I'm spamming an RPG discussion board by heartlessly discussing RPGs?  Uh-huh.  Pull the other one, it hath got bells upon it.

If you want to moderate something, just moderate it.  You don't need a reason, and when you spout these nonsense reasons it just undermines your credibility.

Quote from: TempleBut still,this is the board that was supposed to be "unmoderated" and "free."
And now its moderated and oppressive, just like every other message board out there.

Sweep that as far you want under the rug, its still now officially true.

Utter bollocks.

Moving threads to the appropriate forum is not "oppressive moderation", it's "having your shit together." If I post a thread, "ZOMFG BUSH SUXXORZ" and they move it from Roleplaying to Off Topic, or if I post, "D&D IS TEH BESTEST" and they move it from Amber to Roleplaying, that's not oppressive moderation. It's just the right thing in the right place.

Don't be a cocksmock.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMoving threads to the appropriate forum is not "oppressive moderation", it's "having your shit together."

Seconded.  Both the Luke and TonyLB Q&A threads ceased to be about roleplaying as more and more folks jumped in with questions about "The War", and the history of internet discussion.  The threads evolved into something that makes more sense in the Off-Topic forum (or, really ... in "The War Forum", if such a thing were to be created ... it's a topic all its own).

Clash's Q&A has stayed much more on point, with folks asking him about how he designs games and how he plays and GMs.  It belongs where it is.

Quote from: KoltarOf the 4 gamer forums that I am on this is the LEAST moderated of the 4.
 There  is nothing so far "oppressive" about how Pundit and Jeff (and the others) moderate. Hell, they even let us in on their thought processes when a big issue comes up.

- Ed C.

This is true. But still, discussions that arent "approved by the Pundit" are being banished to ghetto forums.

Quote from: Kyle AaronUtter bollocks.

Moving threads to the appropriate forum is not "oppressive moderation", it's "having your shit together." If I post a thread, "ZOMFG BUSH SUXXORZ" and they move it from Roleplaying to Off Topic, or if I post, "D&D IS TEH BESTEST" and they move it from Amber to Roleplaying, that's not oppressive moderation. It's just the right thing in the right place.

Don't be a cocksmock.

Huh, the apropriate forums eh? Then how come that Clash Q&A thread is still in the apparently "wrong" forum?

Well, for a start clash didn't post to multiple other boards (well, a board and an LJ) about how threads on RPG boards put money in your pocket and how a good flamewar does it even better. Or how being the centre of attention on a thread reaps even bigger benifits...before begging to get a q&a thread here. In fact, good egg that he is, Mr.Mice seems rather embarrassed at his own thread! ;)

I might be totally off base here, but i'm afraid that's too much coincidence for me. Trouble is, because of this mess, now i have trouble believing a word that Tony says and that is a loss to me. I've given this advice before, but it really does help if you don't change outfits when you visit other places. Wear what you're comfortable in. You might stick out for a while, but it will be much less of a shock seeing someone wearing a bright blue suit, if you see it every day, than discovering that he's wearing that suit under a hoodie or something.

Quote from: One Horse TownTrouble is, because of this mess, now i have trouble believing a word that Tony says and that is a loss to me.

Uh ... why? :confused:  I've tried to be open and straight-forward about being a rampant attention-slut.  Have I, at some point, said "Oh, no, I don't like people paying attention to me, I'm really very humble"?

I suppose I might have said it, but I'd be surprised ... it would seem so out of character for me.

You wanna talk, then PM me. I've put a whole bunch of folks on ignore.

Anyone notice how entertaining liquid blue whirlpools can be?

Quote from: RPGPundit"Luke Crane" is not an RPG. Neither is "TonyLB".  Therefore, these Q&A threads and their commentaries? To Off-Topic they go.

But the guy who's publishing your game is an RPG, so he shall stay in the appropriate forum for such!

Quote from: James McMurrayAnyone notice how entertaining liquid blue whirlpools can be?

(http://linuz.sns.it/~fvenez/galleries/poe-maelstrom.jpg)

That looks like my front yard this morning...we had to get at least 4" of rain last night.  At 3 AM I was out in the rain digging trenches to get the over abundance of water away from my foundation...

If you look closely at the picture, that's me being swept away when the storm drain got unblocked....

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, for a start clash didn't post to multiple other boards (well, a board and an LJ) about how threads on RPG boards put money in your pocket and how a good flamewar does it even better. Or how being the centre of attention on a thread reaps even bigger benifits...before begging to get a q&a thread here. In fact, good egg that he is, Mr.Mice seems rather embarrassed at his own thread! ;)

That is actually a pretty good point.

I wasn't aware Luke had begged Alnag for a Q&A thread.

Quote from: BrantaiI wasn't aware Luke had begged Alnag for a Q&A thread.

I did though ... 'cuz I love attention :D

I know you did, Tony.

Quote from: BrantaiI know you did, Tony.

Well, personally, i did mention that i don't think Luke had anything to do with this particular tea-cup storm, but i guess that pundit thought otherwise.

Quote from: TonyLBTechnically, isn't "not responding to criticisms" obeying the rules of a Q&A process?  The rules say that the guy on the spot answers questions, so if someone comes in with a hard-core statement ... well, that's a statement, not a question.

Yes, you see, what I'm saying is that the "rules" of the Q&A thread skirt on being counter to the free speech principles of the site. Or, rather, they would if I had any intention of enforcing these  made-up "rules".

You see, the Q&A rules are no different than the double standard rules that other sites use in all their moderation: "If you want to ask nice fawning questions of the Forge Theory All-Stars, of course you can, and they'll answer; if you ask a tough question they're not required to answer, but if you try to insist or if you address them with any criticism you're NOT ALLOWED!"

QuoteIf you wanted to "stick it to me" (or whatever your metaphor of the day is) you really couldn't ask for a better opportunity:  Figure out the question that will reveal my Swinish ways, phrase it without assumptions and launch it into the mix.  I'll answer it.

Only if you actually bothered to answer it.  Instead, you provide non-answers that conveniently ignore the question.
Your Q&A are about as helpful and sincere as the Bush Administration's Press Conferences.

QuoteIf you want to moderate something, just moderate it.  You don't need a reason, and when you spout these nonsense reasons it just undermines your credibility.

Sort of like when you try to claim that you're a nice guy with no ill-will toward this site or Regular Roleplaying and then go on threads in Storygames talking about how you could abuse this site's free speech rules for the promotion of Storygaming?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, you see, what I'm saying is that the "rules" of the Q&A thread skirt on being counter to the free speech principles of the site. Or, rather, they would if I had any intention of enforcing these  made-up "rules".

Yes, but surely I can't violate the principles of free speech by obeying those rules myself.  I just don't understand why you would ever have expected me to respond to your statements in a "Question and answer" thread.

Am I somehow violating your right to free speech by not responding to your rants?  Do you expect your "right to free speech" to come along with a "right to demand that people listen and respond"?

Quote from: TonyLBYes, but surely I can't violate the principles of free speech by obeying those rules myself.  I just don't understand why you would ever have expected me to respond to your statements in a "Question and answer" thread.

Am I somehow violating your right to free speech by not responding to your rants?  Do you expect your "right to free speech" to come along with a "right to demand that people listen and respond"?

It would have been enough for you just to answer my questions. But of course, you weren't going to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt would have been enough for you just to answer my questions. But of course, you weren't going to.

Y'know what, it's true ... there was one question I didn't answer, for reasons I explained at the time.

But then ... you aren't answering my question either.

In fact, it looks very much like you're trying to dodge the question by instead attacking me on the basis that I ... dodged a question.  Ironic, that :D

So, since you're the one arguing that answering questions in a straightforward way is every citizen's duty and honor, I'm sure you'll want to answer mine:  In what way did my choice not to field your question as written impinge upon your freedom of speech?

Quote from: TonyLBSo, since you're the one arguing that answering questions in a straightforward way is every citizen's duty and honor, I'm sure you'll want to answer mine:  In what way did my choice not to field your question as written impinge upon your freedom of speech?

If you control the terms of the conversation, you get to control the argument that is made.

So if one side is only allowed to ask questions, questions which the other side can choose to answer or not, with as much or as little commentary as they wish, but the first side is not allowed to criticize those answers, you end up with a situation where the second side is completely dominating what gets said and told.

That's not a free and open forum for debate.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you control the terms of the conversation, you get to control the argument that is made.

So if one side is only allowed to ask questions, questions which the other side can choose to answer or not, with as much or as little commentary as they wish, but the first side is not allowed to criticize those answers, you end up with a situation where the second side is completely dominating what gets said and told.

That's not a free and open forum for debate.

RPGPundit

So I assume that you'll be held to the same standard, then?


TGA

They both needed a moderator in that debate to knock off points for all the logical fallacies and personal attacks and dodging the question and irrelevant rants they engaged in. Like David R said, it was like that Hugh Grant / Colin Firth fight in Bridget Jones. It's not really possible to say which was the worse.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you control the terms of the conversation, you get to control the argument that is made.

So if one side is only allowed to ask questions, questions which the other side can choose to answer or not, with as much or as little commentary as they wish, but the first side is not allowed to criticize those answers, you end up with a situation where the second side is completely dominating what gets said and told.

You, sir, are dodging the question.

How does my choice to voluntarily follow a set of guidelines impinge upon your right to free speech?  I didn't demand that you follow the same guidelines ... I just ignored you when you violated them.

As far as I'm concerned, nobody on this forum has the power to impinge upon anyone else's rights of free speech.  We can speak, but we cannot silence others ... except for moderators, who conscientiously don't.  So free speech is completely safe.

That being the case, why all the hubbub about defending it?  If someone tells me "We must reduce our dependence on synthetic granite in order to SAVE THE EARTH'S CORE!" then I want to hear their reasoning for why the earth's core is in any way at risk.  Likewise, when you say "Question and Answer threads are an attack on freedom of speech!" I want to hear your reasoning for why freedom of speech is in any way at risk.

It looks to me like you use the cry of "Save free speech!" to try to rally people emotionally around whatever trivia you want to spout about today.  You know that most everybody here supports freedom of speech in principle, and so you frame the argument in those terms to rouse their patriotic feeling.

Precisely because I value free speech so strongly, I object strongly to you reducing it to a sound-bite in support of your whim of the moment.  It's no different from the loons who claim that moderation in an internet forum is fascism.  You disrespect the importance of the concept by connecting it with such trivia.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you control the terms of the conversation, you get to control the argument that is made.

So if one side is only allowed to ask questions, questions which the other side can choose to answer or not, with as much or as little commentary as they wish, but the first side is not allowed to criticize those answers, you end up with a situation where the second side is completely dominating what gets said and told.

That's not a free and open forum for debate.

RPGPundit

The trick of course, is to phrase the question in such a way that "no answer" is the most damning answer of all.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianSo I assume that you'll be held to the same standard, then?


TGA

Same standard for WHAT?! You mean if I make a Q&A?! In that case, no standard has been followed, has it?

Or do you mean in general?  I mean, what the fuck was your statement even supposed to mean there? Did you even think it through, bucky?

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBYou, sir, are dodging the question.

How does my choice to voluntarily follow a set of guidelines impinge upon your right to free speech?  I didn't demand that you follow the same guidelines ... I just ignored you when you violated them.

As far as I'm concerned, nobody on this forum has the power to impinge upon anyone else's rights of free speech.  We can speak, but we cannot silence others ... except for moderators, who conscientiously don't.  So free speech is completely safe.

That being the case, why all the hubbub about defending it?  If someone tells me "We must reduce our dependence on synthetic granite in order to SAVE THE EARTH'S CORE!" then I want to hear their reasoning for why the earth's core is in any way at risk.  Likewise, when you say "Question and Answer threads are an attack on freedom of speech!" I want to hear your reasoning for why freedom of speech is in any way at risk.

It looks to me like you use the cry of "Save free speech!" to try to rally people emotionally around whatever trivia you want to spout about today.  You know that most everybody here supports freedom of speech in principle, and so you frame the argument in those terms to rouse their patriotic feeling.

Precisely because I value free speech so strongly, I object strongly to you reducing it to a sound-bite in support of your whim of the moment.  It's no different from the loons who claim that moderation in an internet forum is fascism.  You disrespect the importance of the concept by connecting it with such trivia.

Because with the Q&A threads you guys were starting a precedent.  A precedent of Forge Swine being able to propagandize here in a format where they couldn't be challenged.

It would clearly and obviously be a violation of free speech if it had moderator support, but even with out it, it was a conscious and organized (via Storygames) effort to try to impose a new way of debating on here that would not be the "Open forum" that this place usually is, and would rather create a new style debate that gives the interviewee a distinct advantage and control of the truth from the interviewer.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe trick of course, is to phrase the question in such a way that "no answer" is the most damning answer of all.

Yes, perhaps, but we shouldn't be forced to have to figure out how to do that; we shouldn't have to try to squirm our way into getting them into a tough question, and then having the most to show for it being the ability to say "see? They didn't answer!! Ooooohh shame!".

No. This site is for being able to beat the shit out of them.

If you prefer to fight with the handicaps all against you, go try to debate people on RPG.net.  Over here, we do the fair fights.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt would clearly and obviously be a violation of free speech if it had moderator support, but even with out it, it was a conscious and organized (via Storygames) effort to try to impose a new way of debating on here that would not be the "Open forum" that this place usually is, and would rather create a new style debate that gives the interviewee a distinct advantage and control of the truth from the interviewer.

So a voluntary Q&A thread is not, in any way, an attack on the principles of free speech then, right?  You were just unequivocally wrong on that point?

Cool.  I understand.  You ventured into hyperbole.  It happens.  Now I don't have to worry that you actually believe what you said there ... because that would be a little wacky.

Now, if you don't, personally, enjoy having such threads on the board ... well, you're pretty well out of luck, aren't you?  The downside of championing human rights is all the people who will use their rights in ways that you don't, personally, find pleasant.

But if your only problem is that the "Answer" portion of a Q&A thread is so much the cat-bird seat ... do you want one?  I'd make "Q&A: Pundit" in a heart-beat.  I suspect that people would have some really interesting questions.

Seeking to have an artificial format by which you CONTROL speech is an attack on free speech. Its just a particularly weak attack when it doesn't have moderator support.

And on that note, I'm not really out of luck, am I? Because I can set the example of making it very plain that IN NO WAY will the moderation be enforcing the supposed format of these Q&A threads, unlike say the "pistols at dawn" threads.  The mods will NOT be deleting threads that aren't questions, or anything else.  And, quite the contrary, the mods might often be going onto those threads and making commentary that the Interviewee doesn't want to hear.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSeeking to have an artificial format by which you CONTROL speech is an attack on free speech.

And since it's perfectly clear that nobody was trying to do that, this is just you blowing smoke.

Voluntary limits are good.  Putting a subject on a thread, for instance, and saying "I'd appreciate it if people would use this thread to discuss how to make villains more spiteful and emotionally charged, rather than some other subject," and then having people come in and voluntarily do that thing is good.  Even ignoring people who come in to talk about other subjects is good.  There are plenty of ways that you can act to support a structure without forcing anybody into anything.

Putting a subject on a thread is not an assault on free speech, not even a weak one.  It is using your right to free speech in a considered way, toward a purpose.  Same thing with Q&A threads.

It is true that Q&A threads are not a good format for a knock-down, drag-out brawl of duelling rants.  I believe that this is by design.  Some people on this board want to have discussions that are not knock-down, drag-out brawls ... it's as simple as that, really.

The Q&A threads, as they are now, are of no practical use at all except for one thing: allowing the person being Q&A'ed to say anything they want to unchallenged and have absolute control over the information flow.  In other words, its good for their own propaganda, and nothing more.

If you want to see a Q&A format that actually means something, you'd have to have it set up so that the person being interviewed MUST answer all questions posed directly and unequivocably, or the thread gets closed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you want to see a Q&A format that actually means something, you'd have to have it set up so that the person being interviewed MUST answer all questions posed directly and unequivocably, or the thread gets closed.

Oh wow, that sounds hard-core!  Let's do it!  "Q&A: Pundit" with those rules.  Sound good?

You want it in the Pundit Forum, or somewhere else?

Quote from: TonyLBOh wow, that sounds hard-core!  Let's do it!  "Q&A: Pundit" with those rules.  Sound good?

You want it in the Pundit Forum, or somewhere else?

No, I don't think so. Do you think I'm an idiot? You and Luke have just gotten two free passes to spew your propaganda any way you like without opposition, and now you want me to go into a thread that has the format absolutely reversed?

Not until you or some other Swine does it first.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOr do you mean in general?  I mean, what the fuck was your statement even supposed to mean there? Did you even think it through, bucky?

RPGPundit

I gave it some thought before posting it, even though it was before my morning caffeine.

Let me put it to you this way: Any discussion in which one side has the ability to declare by fiat that the other side's points are not relevant is perilously close to not being a free discussion.  

In my opinion, you are not aquitting yourself well here.  You are the owner of the site and you have declared that you place the highest value on freedom of speech, right?  Then you move threads that are about roleplaying games to the Off Topic forum where they clearly do not belong largely because *you* think that's where they belong.  Now you didn't delete them or lock them down, which is good, but don't get touchy because people are pointing out that you seem to think that you know better than we do what we want out of this site.

And what exactly is that all about?  You don't seem to trust this community to make make its own judgments.  Do you know what's best for us?  Does the site need you firm, father-like guiding hand?  Do you think that we need you to save us?  How's that for some questions, bucky?

Listen, this is your site.  You can manage it however you want.  But I would suggest that you don't go on and on about free speech and then act in an arbitrary manner and explain it as "I know best what's good for you".  If you want this to be a site about exactly what you want it to be about, then don't hide that.  If this is supposed to be a site about what *we* want, then get the fuck out of the way and let us be the judge of that.


TGA

Quote from: RPGPunditNot until you or some other Swine does it first.

I'll happily do it if jrients is the moderator/judge.


EDIT:

Quote from: RPGPunditDo you think I'm an idiot?

Now, now ... save the fun questions for the Q&A :D

I gotta better idea.  How about we just skip the Q&A, and the Pistols at Dawn, and all the rest of the similar shit.  It's wankish bullshit, and not a one of you is important enough to warrant your own goddamn press conferences.

How about instead, we just talk about fucking games, not what Mr. Cult of Personality #1053 has to say about X.  If I wanted that shit I'd go watch Fox News or listen to Air America.

Quote from: J ArcaneI gotta better idea.  How about we just skip the Q&A, and the Pistols at Dawn, and all the rest of the similar shit.  It's wankish bullshit, and not a one of you is important enough to warrant your own goddamn press conferences.

How about instead, we just talk about fucking games, not what Mr. Cult of Personality #1053 has to say about X.  If I wanted that shit I'd go watch Fox News or listen to Air America.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: TonyLBVoluntary limits are good.  Putting a subject on a thread, for instance [...]

Yes but don't expect it to have moderator support. You may recall on Levi's GameCraft forums, he said that if a thread's original poster asked person X not to participate in their thread, he'd back it up with moderator action. I said that would stifle discussion overall, and be a bad idea.

Given that the GameCraft forums are basically stagnant, if not dead, I think there may have been some truth in what I said. Of course they may be stagnant for other reasons, instead. But...

Quote from: The Good AssyrianIn my opinion, you are not aquitting yourself well here. You are the owner of the site and you have declared that you place the highest value on freedom of speech, right? Then you move threads that are about roleplaying games to the Off Topic forum where they clearly do not belong largely because *you* think that's where they belong.

That's not oppression, my Good Assyrian. That's categorisation.

By your reasoning, we should have no Dewey Decimal system. Each person coming to the library should look on a huge pile of randomly-piled books and "make their own judgment" about where each should go.

How the FUCK would anyone find anything?

Categorisation is not oppression, nor is it "ghettoisation". It's just categorisation. It's just putting things in their proper place so we can find them. Sure, sometimes we'll feel that this thing should have gone in this other place. But someone has to make these decisions. RPGPundit is the Chief Librarian here.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's not oppression, my Good Assyrian. That's categorisation.

By your reasoning, we should have no Dewey Decimal system. Each person coming to the library should look on a huge pile of randomly-piled books and "make their own judgment" about where each should go.

How the FUCK would anyone find anything?

Use hyperbole, much?  Last time I checked, those threads had discussion of roleplaying games.  How hard is it to categorize that?  In my opinion there is some validity to the question of whether they belong in the main RP forum, but it is a stretch to put them in Off Topic.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronCategorisation is not oppression, nor is it "ghettoisation". It's just categorisation. It's just putting things in their proper place so we can find them. Sure, sometimes we'll feel that this thing should have gone in this other place. But someone has to make these decisions. RPGPundit is the Chief Librarian here.

Yep.  He is the ultimate arbitrator of where things go.  I disagree with his methodology in this case.

It is not oppression, a word that should be reserved to describe the real thing.  But I believe that it does not fit the supposed mission of the site and may bode ill for the future.


TGA

Quote from: Kyle AaronYes but don't expect it to have moderator support.

If I expected voluntary limits to have moderator support then I wouldn't have used the word "voluntary," now would I?

Quote from: TonyLBOh wow, that sounds hard-core!  Let's do it!  "Q&A: Pundit" with those rules.  Sound good?

You want it in the Pundit Forum, or somewhere else?

Sounds like bollocks to me, I disagreed with Luke on a fair few points he made, but not once did I think he was dodging around or being dishonest.

I think people mistook disagreement for evasion, I agree with Luke on some stuff and disagree with him on other stuff, I'm fine with that and should he ever turn his mind to it I'm confident he'd be fine with that too.

The trouble with Pundit's challenge here is who decides what is an honest response?  Would any response not including the words "you're right, I'm a failed human being, I hate your traditional gaming fun because I sucked at it and I only pretend to play indie games to feel better about myself, I'm sorry and you were right all along" ever be honest enough?

Either we take people on what they say or we don't, that's our choice.  I choose to take people on what they say and decide that sometimes they're being honest but are simply wrong.  Or I am.  Either way I don't lose much sleep over it.

There are exceptions, but my standard for someone convincing me they are not an honest player is pretty high and I like it that way.

Quote from: BalbinusThe trouble with Pundit's challenge here is who decides what is an honest response?  Would any response not including the words "you're right, I'm a failed human being, I hate your traditional gaming fun because I sucked at it and I only pretend to play indie games to feel better about myself, I'm sorry and you were right all along" ever be honest enough?

In the cockles of my heart, probably not.

But on a more practical level, that's not what I was asking for.  What I was asking for was honest non-evasive answers about, for example, the causes of people's issues with the Forge.  Tony refuses to deal with the fact that the conflict began when Ron's GNS essays shat on regular gaming.
He has evaded answering the question, yes or no, about whether that was the starting point of the conflict between regular roleplayers and forgites.

He should be able to answer that "yes" that was the first traceable source of the conflict, or that "no" it wasn't (and of course in that case would be required to show some other historical source that showed that regular roleplayers were attacking Ron Edwards and the Forgites even before the GNS essay).

RPGPundit

Fair answer Pundy.

I'm not sure Ron's brain damage stuff was the start of the conflict incidentally, I think it started years before that with other comments of his, that was the worst but it was a continuation of a consistent theme.

I recall being informed that sim was an act of cowardice for example, and doubts way before brain damage of our mental health.

All that said, one thing that really annoys me in this debate is when you mention Forge hostility to a certain form of gaming and some fucktard will challenge you to quote chapter and verse with links, then if you do so argue that that was years ago, unless it wasn't at which point the debate shifts again.  Like I'm some fucking stalker who stores up past links to pull them out when useful, I don't because I'm not, what rational person can on demand point to all the shitty Forge threads over the years attacking forms of gaming some guys there feel uncomfortable with.  Anyone who has paid attention knows there is a history of hostility from that group, I don't feel the need to store up citations which are never paid attention to anyway.

And if I don't feel that need, I don't feel the need for Tony to go back and cite previous issues either, quid pro quo.  As far as I'm concerned it predates brain damage, but that crystallised the whole thing and to a degree made the past history irrelevant.  That's when we saw what Ron really thought, and that's why I no longer post at all at the Forge.  But to be honest, though they may be friends and they may have drawn ideas from him I don't see Ben Lehman or Tony or Luke or any of those guys standing up agreeing with him.  Nor do they distance themselves, and perhaps they should, but there are worse failings than standing by friends, even delusional friends.

I wasn't talking about "Brain Damage"; I was talking about the first GNS essay, the original one where Ron says that "most rpg gamers are secretly miserable" and unhappy playing the games that they're playing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI wasn't talking about "Brain Damage"; I was talking about the first GNS essay, the original one where Ron says that "most rpg gamers are secretly miserable" and unhappy playing the games that they're playing.

RPGPundit

The sense I get is that there are a lot of people from the opposite side of the spectrum from you, Pundit, that believe GNS was nothing more than another in the long list of attacks and counter attacks in one long war about Role Playing Games.  They point to the age old role versus roll as an example.

So they see it as a response, not a shot across the bow.

I don't agree, but I wanted to explain the thinking to you, FWIW. And please please please don't ask me to defend it or to explain it.  I can't, because I don't agree with it.

Have there been other Wars in Roleplaying?

Of course. Bigger ones, too.

But the GNS essay was what started THIS war. The Forge as a group and Ron Edwards as its leader conscienciously started a conflict with Regular Roleplayers everywhere when Ron claimed that Roleplayers were secretly miserable playing the "incoherent" regular games and needed to be shown how to play happiness-inducing Narrativist Micro-games.

So trying to pretend that the Forge has always been about fostering the spirit of co-operation and giving absolute respect to Regular RPGs and Gamers when FROM THE VERY FUCKING BEGINNING it has been shitting all over regular RPGs and all over the intelligence of the average gamer, is what strikes me as the biggest lie of them all and the most hypocritical and slimey attitude one can take.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI wasn't talking about "Brain Damage"; I was talking about the first GNS essay, the original one where Ron says that "most rpg gamers are secretly miserable" and unhappy playing the games that they're playing.

RPGPundit

My mistake, in that case I take your point.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut the GNS essay was what started THIS war.

Which is always my reponse. You don't understand the "war"? you don't think I've got a reason to be "against" you?

Here, read the first few lines of GNS.  Read the rest of the basic essays.  Look how loaded terms are used to describe the way I, and a bunch of other players, play.

That's the "war" you don't recognize or mock.

If you want to talk about role versus roll, or OD&D versus 3.5? Sure, we can have that discussion.  We can even call that a "war" if you want.  But it's not this "war".

Just because some people told some other people they were evil and stupid and playing wrong before doesn't give license to come along later, make outlandish, unsubstantiated claims and draw silly conclusions all under the guise of some pseudo-intellectualist elitism and then say "Look, I'm no different that those asswipes!" Unless, of course, you're subtly admitting you, too, are an asswipe.

But then, you could, if you didn't care if you were being honest and were really just trying to market games.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat I was asking for was honest non-evasive answers about, for example, the causes of people's issues with the Forge.

Like I said, I got no problem with a thread where Jrients judges what's evasive and what's just honest disagreement.  I'm back from GenCon, I've got plenty of time.

You say that I refuse to "deal with" the truth as you present it.  Okay.  You refuse to "deal with" the idea that your whole War idea is made of crap and stupid.  You consistently refuse to answer questions that are written so as to require that you agree to that premise.  Like "Given that your whole War idea is nonsense, what consequences does that have for the future of this board?"  You don't respond to questions like that in a straightforward manner:  You ignore the main question in order to attack the assumption.

But I don't call that evasive ... I just think that you disagree with me on that point.  If I want to have a good conversation with you, I need to start the questioning from a place where we can both agree on the premise.

How did your D&D game go?

You can find Vincent Baker's summary of a least one of Tony's games here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24609.0)

QuoteI never played D&D. I played some AD&D 2E in college but it was hardly even a thing, it was all GM handwaving and role-, not roll-. But now it's the Embassy Suites at GenCon and Ben comes up to me and hell yeah I want to play D&D with him. Basic set Tom Moldvay (ed) D&D, vintage 1981, red cover, saddle stapled AND with holes punched for your 3-ring, baby.

Ben's the DM. Alexis' character's the elf. Julia's character's the fighter. Rich's character's the fighter too, and the self-proclaimed leader of the group, and Rich is the caller. (Yes, the caller. It never really came up, but if it had we'd've been ready.) Tony's character's the halfling.My character's the magic-user. I had intelligence 14 but wisdom 4 and I played that bastard subtle. I was the leader's advisor and I gave not a single one piece of wise advice, just butt-stupid smart advice.

In no particular order:

1) Tony used his high-pitched halfling voice. We were arguing whether to kill the helpless scary monster-people and Tony said, "it's okay that we're fighting, families always fight, like when my family gets together for Thanksgiving or Second Thanksgiving." A halfling! Second Thanksgiving! My favorite.

2) Apparently the scary monster-people were goblins, but I have no idea what that means. Ben made them scary monster-people, with this creepy crossbreeding/inbreeding/miscegenation thing going on, like that one Lovecraft story. I'm not thinking too hard about the politics of it, because they're treacherous, and I like that feeling.

3) We rolled our stats in order and then chose our class, no do overs and no fiddling. I got 2 hit points and 120 gold. I chose magic missile for my spell, after discussing charm, sleep, and light. Alexis chose sleep for her elf. My guy and Tony's halfling were lawful (no good or evil in this game) and everyone else was, like, neutral at best. This mattered and was funny, when we were arguing whether to kill per (1).

4) Know what? That's a fun game. It has some nonunity quirks, like "wait, to sneak I roll a d6 and try to get low, while to throw my flask of oil I roll a d20 and add my dex bonus? Okay..." but dude whatever. "As a group, you can a) talk, b) flee, c) fight, or d) wait. Which are you doing?" AWESOME. (And Julia's like, "fight! Fight! Fight!") And then we fight and first, movement; second, missile; third, melee; fourth, magic. Tidy and clear as you please, no room for IIEE fuckery or DM handwaving to rob you of your relevance.

5) My magic-user got killed by a witch's arrow, same as Rich's fighter. Tony's halfling and Julia's fighter went down under the goblin chieftain's guards' meat cleavers. Ha ha! A funny joke: the DM's girlfriend's elf character was the only one who escaped the TPK, and she got the magic sword. It was the WHOLE D&D experience.

6) I was telling Drew about it in the elevator. I was waving my arms and telling him about the time Julia rolled a natural 20. He stopped me with this look. "Hold on Vincent, this wasn't a nostalgia thing for you, was it?"

"Nope."

"Not ironic either, was it?"

"Nope."

"Just plain, genuine enthusiasm, huh? Just because it was a fun game."

"Yep."

"You indie guys are weird."

The end.

-Vincent

I once went to a rave where i was 'kicking it' and 'getting down' with my 'homies' innit? Respect.

Quote from: SettembriniHow did your D&D game go?

I played Basic D&D again at GenCon, after years away from it, and it was a blast.  Christopher has already found some of the description of the marvellous adventures of Frizz Fernwater, the most heroic halfling in the room!

Mostly, that was like riding a bike.  The old skills are rusty, but still solid.  Get yerself 50' of rope, because you're either going to need to climb something or tie something up ... in this case it was tying up goblin captives.  Sleep rocks the house ... that's how we got the goblin captives.  Remind your party leader that early successful encounters shouldn't make him feel cocky, but don't expect him to listen ... that's how we ran headlong into the goblin throne-room and earn ourselves the TPK-1.  It was glorious!

What with GenCon eating my life, I haven't yet gotten a chance to give 3.5 the same go, but I'm prepping it and I hope to have more to report soon.

EDIT:  Important to note, however, that Vincent got the cause of my character's death wrong.  Frizz was the only adventurer to be killed personally by the goblin chieftain himself!  Fileted me like a trout ... but that cost him the round of action he'd have needed to capture the elf and the magic sword.  Frizz the crucial sacrifice for MVP!

Quote from: One Horse TownI once went to a rave where i was 'kicking it' and 'getting down' with my 'homies' innit? Respect.

:haw:
:haw:
:haw:

Quote from: James J Skach:haw:
:haw:
:haw:

Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but i couldn't resist. I just had flashes of endless TV footage here in the UK where a politician or member of the royal family is trying to pretend they understand the 'yoof' of today and try language they wouldn't use otherwise. :D

Quote from: TonyLBthe marvellous adventures of Frizz Fernwater, the most heroic halfling in the room!
.
.
.
Sleep rocks the house ... that's how we got the goblin captives.  Remind your party leader that early successful encounters shouldn't make him feel cocky, but don't expect him to listen ... that's how we ran headlong into the goblin throne-room and earn ourselves the TPK-1.  It was glorious!
.
.
.
EDIT:  Important to note, however, that Vincent got the cause of my character's death wrong.  Frizz was the only adventurer to be killed personally by the goblin chieftain himself!  Fileted me like a trout ... but that cost him the round of action he'd have needed to capture the elf and the magic sword.  Frizz the crucial sacrifice for MVP!

Careful, Tony. That almost sounds like you could make a Story from that session. :D

Quote from: James J SkachCareful, Tony. That almost sounds like you could make a Story from that session. :D

Oh!  Not merely a "story" but a pretentious-capital-S "Story" ... oooooh.  Yeah, I probably could.  The brave halfling (whose very stature is a physico-fictional manifestation of inner issues of self-worth) facing the Big Question "How far will you go to prove yourself?", and coming to a climactic decision with far-reaching ... whassis ... uh ... thematic resonatifications.

Heh.  Sorta faltered at the end there. :sweatdrop:

Boy, I could really piss some people off, huh?  Tempting ... very tempting!  :D

Quote from: TonyLBOh!  Not merely a "story" but a pretentious-capital-S "Story" ... oooooh.  Yeah, I probably could.  The brave halfling (whose very stature is a physico-fictional manifestation of inner issues of self-worth) facing the Big Question "How far will you go to prove yourself?", and coming to a climactic decision with far-reaching ... whassis ... uh ... thematic resonatifications.

Heh.  Sorta faltered at the end there. :sweatdrop:

Boy, I could really piss some people off, huh?  Tempting ... very tempting!  :D

I'd love it...you should do it.  Just like I love to see posts where people discuss the technical/mechanical gaming of the DitV system in such a way that it looks like to D&D geeks talking about min/maxing a character...

But do it in a serious way - none of this physcho-ficational bullshit.  Just a flat out story.  Show how with a system like D&D and a good session you can create a good story.

And then I triple dog dare you to post it on Story Games, The Forge, and RPG.Net without telling them the system. :haw:

Quote from: One Horse TownI once went to a rave where i was 'kicking it' and 'getting down' with my 'homies' innit? Respect.

This one time, I actually slept with a girl who makes minimum wage.  I felt so dirty!

Quote from: James J SkachAnd then I triple dog dare you to post it on Story Games, The Forge, and RPG.Net without telling them the system. :haw:

Uh ... why? :confused:

Quote from: J ArcaneThis one time, I actually slept with a girl who makes minimum wage.  I felt so dirty!

:D  Takes ages to get the smell of the streets off doesn't it?

Quote from: One Horse TownI once went to a rave where i was 'kicking it' and 'getting down' with my 'homies' innit? Respect.

An English geek trying to do American slang on the internet is about the saddest thing I have heard in quite a while.  I feel like I should send you money to take classes or buy a TV or something.

Quote from: chucklesAn English geek trying to do American slang on the internet is about the saddest thing I have heard in quite a while.  I feel like I should send you money to take classes or buy a TV or something.

Christ, you've never been to some parts of England have you Mr.Mystery Guest? But send me the money anyhow. (OS, is that you?)

Quote from: chucklesAn English geek trying to do American slang on the internet is about the saddest thing I have heard in quite a while.  I feel like I should send you money to take classes or buy a TV or something.

Methinks someone missed the joke.

Quote from: J ArcaneMethinks someone missed the joke.

Yup. I even explained a couple of posts later for the hard of thinking.

Maybe if you tilt your head back real quick chuckles you'll get a glimpse of what just flew over your head.

Quote from: TonyLBLike I said, I got no problem with a thread where Jrients judges what's evasive and what's just honest disagreement.  I'm back from GenCon, I've got plenty of time.

You say that I refuse to "deal with" the truth as you present it.  Okay.  You refuse to "deal with" the idea that your whole War idea is made of crap and stupid.  You consistently refuse to answer questions that are written so as to require that you agree to that premise.  Like "Given that your whole War idea is nonsense, what consequences does that have for the future of this board?"  You don't respond to questions like that in a straightforward manner:  You ignore the main question in order to attack the assumption.

But I don't call that evasive ... I just think that you disagree with me on that point.  If I want to have a good conversation with you, I need to start the questioning from a place where we can both agree on the premise.

We can negotiate anything else you want to negotiate, as soon as you acknowledge that the Forge were the ones who attacked regular gamers before regular gamers ever attacked the Forge, starting with Ron Edwards' publication of his GNS essay and the anti-gaming statements therein.

Or, alternately, you can find me some proof of regular gamers attacking the Forge prior to that event.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWe can negotiate anything else you want to negotiate, as soon as you acknowledge that the Forge were the ones who attacked regular gamers before regular gamers ever attacked the Forge, starting with Ron Edwards' publication of his GNS essay and the anti-gaming statements therein.

I call you coward.

I'm offering you the chance to come after me, on this very question if you so desire, in exactly the structure of Q&A thread you claimed that you so wanted.  Talk with jrients, post up a thread.  I'll be there.

Now the risks that would pose to you are manifold:  You might end up looking like a nutjob.  I would almost inevitably get publicity that you'd rather I didn't have.  I might actually have answers that persuade yet more people that there's more to the current situation than a unilaterally declared War of good vs. evil.

But, whatever the risks, that's the conflict you asked for.  That's the conflict you claimed nobody would want to take on ... the conflict you claimed you would obviously WIN.

Personally, I don't think it's a matter of winning and losing ... but I know that you do.  To you it's a challenge, a battle.  And now you're too spineless to actually follow through.  So you wimp out, and say "Welllll ... before I step up to that challenge you need to either surrender or PROVE to me the very idea I'm determined never to consider."  Neither of those is going to happen ... you know neither of them is going to happen.  You just want an excuse to avoid admitting that you mouthed off, and that now you don't have the backbone to stand by your tough talk.

As usual.

Or will you prove me wrong, and show some guts?

It would almost be worth it to get Pundit to GenCon to see him argue this in-person with TonyLB.

GenCon could charge a regular generic ticket for this....or helll, charge for it and have the proceeds go to charity.


 I'd ask for a small break time from my Jailing & Arresting duties just to see you two debate this live, in-person.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarIt would almost be worth it to get Pundit to GenCon to see him argue this in-person with TonyLB.

I honestly think a lot of these discussions would be more fun and more productive in person.  I get to see all my online friends so seldom :(

QuoteOr will you prove me wrong, and show some guts?

Yawn.  Kinda empty and pathetic rhetoric, considering you ninnies have done the "pistols at dawn" shite already.  

And that pathetic excuse for a retard fight was boring enough as it was.  Could we instead refrain from flooding this website with another one?

Yeah, Tony already made himself a carricature with that one.

I'd rather we had no more threads on all this crap - if TonlyLB agrees to help get Pundit to either Gencon '08 or ORIGINS '08 in person where they can talk this out in a public event .

 Either a scheduled seminar or panel discussion.


Actually for next year's GencOn that wou8ld be a good idea for a planned event - get various game designers and personalities in the industries to argue out stuff onstage and in person.

Find out why the Indie/Forge folks don't consider Hinterwelt to be "Indie".

Get all this "war stuff" out in the open.
 We could see if the general gaming public even acknowledges its existence - or would look at it all as a car wreck they didn't know even existed.

Considering there could be many there that are unhappy there with the FORGE-influenced 4th edition D&D  - this might get pretty interesting.


- Ed C.

Apparently some forgies (including Tony) tried out some Basic D&D at GenCon this year and had a good time. Well, thats a step towards understanding us at least. But listen to this quote:

"...It's really interesting the number of people who really, emotionally need our play of D&D to be "just nostalgia."
--Ben Lehman.

Did you catch that? Really. Emotionally. Need.

This is the essence of the 'war', Tony, and whether you accept it or even realize it, you are now and have always been a full participant. That "real emotional need" is not just something "we" notice. There really are people who are so concerned about how other people game that it actually physically affects them. And they make a point of showing up here to do battle (like this Chuckles kid, who I guarantee you has an account from Story-Games and came directly here from there).

Two years ago it seemed like every single indie blog was about how disturbing and dysfunctional we "trads" were, and how our "dysfunctional"  games (which basically amount to some magic swords and gold pieces) could make you actually brain damaged. Meanwhile, the celebrated themes over on your side of the fence involved players descriptively brutalizing each other in far more enthusiastically descriptive and disturbing ways than most of us  would every tolerate in gaming or even casual conversation. And little by little it became real clear, your side's actual experience with most traditional (aka, normal, mainstream, actual) gaming post 2000 is minimal at best.

In any case, didn't you already argue this exact thing with Pundit and get served a few months ago?

...and the actual adventure gaming experience is also very, very slim pre 2000.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn any case, didn't you already argue this exact thing with Pundit and get served a few months ago?

In case it hasn't been made clear:  I believe that Q&A threads, of any sort, are kryptonite for arguing.

You just can't "argue."  You can ask questions.  You can answer questions.  But "argue"?  Like, where two people yell their views at each other without really listening to what the other person's saying?  Uh ... no.  It just sort of falls apart in a Q&A format.

That is, in fact, why I find them interesting.  They encourage listening, on both sides.  I credit Alnaq with having thought up a really good way to get productive discussion going, and I'd be happy to see the tool get more use.

Look, AM, how he dodges the Elephant in the Room!

Actually, I was PMing AM about what he meant on that.  Now that he's responded, I can speak without fear of misinterpreting his intent.

Anyway ... are there people who want or expect our D&D play to have not been enjoyable on its own merits?  I wouldn't be surprised.  People get some odd ideas about what a person can or cannot enjoy, based on how they see them.  In fact, it seems to me we've had a fair number of snide comments on this thread that didn't-quite-explicitly accuse me of just faking enthusiasm and interest.

To which?  I shrug.  If you're trying to say that the Forge insiders, as a monolithic group, have contempt for the game-session that was played by (among others) myself and Vincent Baker, and DMed by Ben Lehman ... well, I think you need to do some work redefining your set of people you consider Forge insiders.  You're stretching your own logic horribly in order to continue to pretend that you can treat that community as an undifferentiated mass.

And, to pull it back around to my favorite topic:  There's another reason I'm in favor of Q&A threads.  Get to know some of the individuals, and their individual opinions.  It'll do you good.

:D :D

Tony, do me a favour. Read Chris's report quote again and tell me that it doesn't sound awkward. Which was the point of my piss-take. It was a piss-take, not to be taken too seriously. I don't give a fuck what you play and enjoy. Go for it. Just don't crap where you eat. It's unsanitary.

Quote from: TonyLBActually, I was PMing AM about what he meant on that.  Now that he's responded, I can speak without fear of misinterpreting his intent.

Anyway ... are there people who want or expect our D&D play to have not been enjoyable on its own merits?  I wouldn't be surprised.  People get some odd ideas about what a person can or cannot enjoy, based on how they see them.  In fact, it seems to me we've had a fair number of snide comments on this thread that didn't-quite-explicitly accuse me of just faking enthusiasm and interest.

To which?  I shrug.  If you're trying to say that the Forge insiders, as a monolithic group, have contempt for the game-session that was played by (among others) myself and Vincent Baker, and DMed by Ben Lehman ... well, I think you need to do some work redefining your set of people you consider Forge insiders.  You're stretching your own logic horribly in order to continue to pretend that you can treat that community as an undifferentiated mass.

And, to pull it back around to my favorite topic:  There's another reason I'm in favor of Q&A threads.  Get to know some of the individuals, and their individual opinions.  It'll do you good.

Well, to be clear: Ben was talking about other forgies who really. emotionally. need. a certain "enemy" game to be seen a certain way. They really. emotionally. need. it to be ironic or critical or nostalgic or something similar because they don't accept that it can just be fun, as the original poster *also states* when he is talking about  
his recounting of it in the first post.

And I personally do actually think you have a habit of faking enthusiasm and interest at times. I'm willing to accept that's just my perception, but man, my spidey sense is tingling, and I have run across it before. And I'm not the only one who has noticed things like false enthusiasm. Didn't you guys just finish discussing this over at SG? Overuse of certain words and phrases, etc? "Rocking out"? Wasn't there like.. a guy who was advising people to make a lot of noise when gaming so that other people would think that indie games were "more fun"? I mean you guys are hilarious in certain ways.

But don't take my word for it: check out the guy who talks about how  sad is he was that he only took pictures in the room he was "avoiding" (the D&D gameroom where the giant beholder statue and stuff was), or GMS relating his encounters, and someone saying "well, we just don't like mainstream gaming because it's full of racism, sexism, and militarism".

You guys have been at war for years.

Who are these worthless fucks to lecture us for just gaming?

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd I personally do actually think you have a habit of faking enthusiasm and interest at times. I'm willing to accept that's just my perception, but man, my spidey sense is tingling, and I have run across it before.

You have a "spidey sense"?

I'll float a different hypothesis:  You really. emotionally. need. to believe that I'm faking my enthusiasm. :D

Quote from: TonyLBYou have a "spidey sense"?

I'll float a different hypothesis:  You really. emotionally. need. to believe that I'm faking my enthusiasm. :D

It's just my perception. I can't really apologize for it.

Quote from: One Horse TownIt was a piss-take, not to be taken too seriously.

That's fine.  People say things that aren't meant to be taken seriously.  Unfortunately, sometimes folks grab them out of context and magnify them into something huge and ridiculous.  I will endeavour not to be one of those people.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's just my perception. I can't really apologize for it.

There's a double-standard here, is all.  If Mike Holmes expects that a D&D game played by me would be ironic or nostalgic then (according to you) he's actively and maliciously perpetuating a War-state.  If you expect that a D&D game played by me would be unenthusiastic then (according to you) that's just your perception and it's a morally neutral fact of life.

Make up yer mind.

ffs

"I wanna live like common people . . ." (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F39RS3I0D0Y)

Quote from: TonyLBThere's a double-standard here, is all.  If Mike Holmes expects that a D&D game played by me would be ironic or nostalgic then (according to you) he's actively and maliciously perpetuating a War-state.  If you expect that a D&D game played by me would be unenthusiastic then (according to you) that's just your perception and it's a morally neutral fact of life.

Make up yer mind.

Well, no.. I probably wasn't clear here. I think you really were sincere on the AP mentioned here. But every once in a while I think you come across a little.. I dunno.. "promotional".

When I lived in Lubbock most of the local television commercials for cars and air conditioner repair and whatnot are done by local people who weren't actors, but were kinda halfway there. You kinda remind me of that, sometimes.

Quote from: J Arcane"I wanna live like common people . . ." (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F39RS3I0D0Y)

I prefer the Shatner version, myself; but ,yeah, you're dead on.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's fine.  People say things that aren't meant to be taken seriously.  Unfortunately, sometimes folks grab them out of context and magnify them into something huge and ridiculous.  I will endeavour not to be one of those people.

I'm not gonna pull that "the responsibility is the readers" crap. It was meant to be a piss take and ever so slightly 'hitting the nail on the head' as well. As with most piss-takes, a kernel of truth makes for the best ones.

I've got to confess Tony, i have no idea why you come here and continue to be such a prolific poster. I'll admit that you must have the skin of a rhino and the front of eastern Europe, but given you know who the site is run by and the focus, why are you here?

Quote from: One Horse TownI've got to confess Tony, i have no idea why you come here and continue to be such a prolific poster. I'll admit that you must have the skin of a rhino and the front of eastern Europe, but given you know who the site is run by and the focus, why are you here?

Two reasons.

One, there's good gaming discussion to be had here.  I learn a lot from the discussions here, even the ones I only lurk in.  I value the very distance it has from the other communities I'm in ... different perspectives give different ways to approach the truth of what we are actually doing at the table.

Two, when gaming discussion gets rolled under the steamroller of The War, that's fine with me too.  I find the war and its advocates endlessly amusing.  If they could actually hurt me then they'd be a source of distress.  But since all they can do is trash-talk me (which does me no harm and may well do me good) I just find them funny.

The silliness here is reaching astounding proportions.

AM is now tossing out:

QuoteWasn't there like.. a guy who was advising people to make a lot of noise when gaming so that other people would think that indie games were "more fun"?

When, as far as I can tell from a quick skimming of the thread, no such thing was said.

But, of course, in two months time it will be conventional wisdom here that such a thing was said, and it will be passed on through the written history of "The War" as truth.  

Moreover, notice AM's neat trick: "one guy" says it, but now it's all "you guys."  So even if some lame-brain came up with such a stupid plan (and maybe someone did -- but I didn't see it), it's suddenly everyone who's saying it.

In the same way Pundit somehow ferreted out the "super secret" thread that requires the super-secret registration, and discovered that one guy noted you could create sock-puppets to drive up sales through controversy about your game.  This somehow became an agenda from Story Games.

My point: People are crazy. It's just that crazy people are crazier.

Tony, AM, and the bunch of you, nothing worth while is going to happen on this.  The hatred is too deep, too much is invested in it. People are combing though straws of hay to find that one needle that supports their anger/feeling wronged/whatever -- and ignoring the actual hay stack.

Tony, I don't know you -- but dude, let it go.  Nothing you say here will matter.  Pundit is going to keep dragging over rants from his blog -- whether they're based in reality or not.  Such blogs will drive you nuts, but make the people who love them happy.  That's all it is, and all it will be.

Yes, it's frustrating to read that Ron said that anyone who played D&D has brain damage. But what can anyone do? On this very website people commented that's not only not what Ron said, but clarified what Ron said, and gave examples from their own play history showing how Ron's comments lined up with their play history and how Ron's comments gave them perspective to change their gaming.  

And what did the Pundit say about this? What did almost anyone who's a regular around here say about this? Nothing. Because it doesn't fit the narrative of "The War."

There are going to be two kinds of conversations at this website: Those that deal with actual games, and those that deal with "The War." The Pundit is going to keep the conversations about the "The War" alive as long as he can, and Tony, you will never, ever get anything to budge on that front.  Facts and logic are not his ally, and I don't see him changing his ways soon.

But you don't have to add to the nonsense by trying to engage. There are people who want to be actually focusing on games. Everything you're doing is only one more distraction to that.

Let it go.

Go play.

Ha!

CK

Quote from: TonyLBTwo reasons.

One, there's good gaming discussion to be had here.  I learn a lot from the discussions here, even the ones I only lurk in.  I value the very distance it has from the other communities I'm in ... different perspectives give different ways to approach the truth of what we are actually doing at the table.

That's a good reason.

QuoteTwo, when gaming discussion gets rolled under the steamroller of The War, that's fine with me too.  I find the war and its advocates endlessly amusing.  If they could actually hurt me then they'd be a source of distress.  But since all they can do is trash-talk me (which does me no harm and may well do me good) I just find them funny.

That isn't and is part of the problem.

Quote from: TonyLBI call you coward.

I'm offering you the chance to come after me, on this very question if you so desire, in exactly the structure of Q&A thread you claimed that you so wanted.  Talk with jrients, post up a thread.  I'll be there.

Now the risks that would pose to you are manifold:  You might end up looking like a nutjob.  I would almost inevitably get publicity that you'd rather I didn't have.  I might actually have answers that persuade yet more people that there's more to the current situation than a unilaterally declared War of good vs. evil.

But, whatever the risks, that's the conflict you asked for.  That's the conflict you claimed nobody would want to take on ... the conflict you claimed you would obviously WIN.

Personally, I don't think it's a matter of winning and losing ... but I know that you do.  To you it's a challenge, a battle.  And now you're too spineless to actually follow through.  So you wimp out, and say "Welllll ... before I step up to that challenge you need to either surrender or PROVE to me the very idea I'm determined never to consider."  Neither of those is going to happen ... you know neither of them is going to happen.  You just want an excuse to avoid admitting that you mouthed off, and that now you don't have the backbone to stand by your tough talk.

As usual.

Or will you prove me wrong, and show some guts?

Look, either you can answer this without needing some kind of specially protective thread (in which case the Q&A is un-necessary) or you obviously won't be any more willing to answer it in such a thread than here.

So the coward, I'd say, is YOU.

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Was it Ron Edwards who first attacked regular gamers, or do you have some kind of proof of regular gamers attacking the Forge before his GNS essay where he claimed that regular RPGs made everyone secretly miserable?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLook, either you can answer this without needing some kind of specially protective thread (in which case the Q&A is un-necessary) or you obviously won't be any more willing to answer it in such a thread than here.

It's a thread with rules, and not ones that are particularly biased toward the answerer.  In fact last I heard, you were too scared to be the subject of such a thread yourself, because you thought the rules were disadvantageous to the person being asked the questions.  You said you wouldn't do it until some SG-folk had done it.  Sadly for you, at least one SG-folk is more than happy to volunteer for a little structure, whatever the "advantage" or "disadvantage" of it.

"Specially protected"?  That's an intriguing way to revise history.  This was your idea, Pundit ... your good, if hardcore, idea for making people answer questions.  

If you want to be in the answerer's seat then I'll happily set you up.  If you want to be in the questioner's seat then I'm fine with that too.  You've cut the cake and you get to pick which piece you want.  Quit bitching that I'm trying to take advantage of you.  This is your idea from the get-go, I'm just eager to make it happen, whatever way makes you feel least afraid.

Quote from: RPGPunditANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

But I want another Q&A thread... :D  one where, when you say "You didn't answer the question!  You dodged it!" some other party (jrients, say) can come in and give the final, authoritative word.  That sounds much more productive for everyone.

Quote from: RPGPunditWas it Ron Edwards who first attacked regular gamers, or do you have some kind of proof of regular gamers attacking the Forge before his GNS essay where he claimed that regular RPGs made everyone secretly miserable?

Now, see, that's cute. :D   "Am I right, or do you have PROOF that I'm wrong?  There is no excluded middle there, it's either one or the other."  And people wonder why I find you so funny.

I disagree with you.  I'm not going to muster proof, because I'm not particularly interested in digging into decade-old internet rants.  I will, however, tell you what I believe, in case you're in the mood to listen.

I believe that Ron was responding to perceived attacks upon his preferred style of play, in much the way that you are responding to perceived attacks upon your preferred style of play.  I suspect (though this is pure speculation on my part) that the whole "roleplay vs. rollplay" wars of the mid-90s may have been the battleground on which a lot of these attacks were deployed.

I believe you're both equally (and in similar styles) guilty of having taken legitimate offense at something, and used that as an excuse to return offense, rather than shrugging it off and being a stand-up, positive guy.  I don't think either of you are uncommon in that respect ... I think that's been going on in our community (and others) for quite some time.  That's why I'm generally skeptical of the whole idea that such conflicts can be assigned bright and clear "starting points" in time.  The guy who took the putative "first shot" usually felt that he was just shooting back at someone who attacked him in the time before the starting line you choose to assign.  Such things are far more often a case of evolution than of revolution.

You're free to disagree, of course.  It's just what I believe.

And, seriously ... if you want to complain that I've dodged the question?  Just make the darn Q&A thread, get jrients on as moderator for it, and ask the question again.  This whole fol-de-rol is just getting repetitive.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat isn't and is part of the problem.

Hrm?  A good honest laugh is part of the problem?  Please elaborate.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThere are going to be two kinds of conversations at this website: Those that deal with actual games, and those that deal with "The War." The Pundit is going to keep the conversations about the "The War" alive as long as he can, and Tony, you will never, ever get anything to budge on that front.

Yeah, I know.  But these discussions are funny and fun, and bytes are near-enough free that I'm not actually worried about us running out any time soon.  

My take is, I entertain myself and I harm nobody.  I don't think that one type of talk really crowds out another in an infinitely expandable space of threads.  People who want to do the RPG discussions can (and do) go off and do them.  I do that too.  I like donuts and pie.  I don't see any reason why I should have to choose.

I appreciate your concern for my mental state, but I assure you ... I smile whenever I check in on this site.  It's a place of unvarnished happiness for me.

Tony. It's been well established that you think that negative threads on internet boards are benificial to you. You've just stated in the post i quoted that this is one reason you come here. End of story. From now on, to quote Pink Floyd, "Your lips move, but i can't hear what you're saying." Bye, bye.

Tony ,
 I talked to you for like less than 4 or 5 sentences at GenCon.
 You seemed nice and okay.

 What is so difficult about answering their questions directly?


 For my side of it - Pundit seems to have a point on all of  this - however much the vitriol around it may seem to be.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe silliness here is reaching astounding proportions.

AM is now tossing out:

When, as far as I can tell from a quick skimming of the thread, no such thing was said.

To be fair it was a few months ago, but it did indeed take place. "Make more noise so people will think you are having fun".

QuoteMy point: People are crazy. It's just that crazy people are crazier.

They keep calling us "crazy" and we keep turning out to be right... You'd get a lot farther in this argument if you admitted we have legitimate gripes. In the end it isn't just us getting pissed, as you may well have noticed.

QuoteYes, it's frustrating to read that Ron said that anyone who played D&D has brain damage. But what can anyone do? On this very website people commented that's not only not what Ron said, but clarified what Ron said, and gave examples from their own play history showing how Ron's comments lined up with their play history and how Ron's comments gave them perspective to change their gaming.  

Actually Ron didn't say that about D&D. Ron has next to zero experience with D&D, actually. I think his comments were much more focused on anyone who played White Wolf or any of the so-called "wrong kinda games".

Quote from: KubasikThere are going to be two kinds of conversations at this website: Those that deal with actual games, and those that deal with "The War."

Your war. Keep that in mind. It was always a forgie war before anyone even knew what was going on. So tell us, Chris, how involved are you in Dungeons and Dragons? Do you consider yourself someone really involved in D&D gaming? Now or even in the last 10 years?

Think about it. I'll get back to you on this one in a second.

QuoteBut you don't have to add to the nonsense by trying to engage. There are people who want to be actually focusing on games.

No, I suspect that the story-gamers really are focusing on the culture of gaming and how it can be subverted so that they appear more prominent.

Case in point:

Do you, Chris Kubasik, consider yourself much of a D&D fan?

...Because you've posted no less than 8 fucking times in a single thread about D&D 4e with such comments as "I'd tie it all up in a little bow". And that's just in the last week. You have actually posted about D&D more times than *I* have.

This is the ultimate proof.
You are at war, jackass. You have been at war for a long time..Longer than any of us have ever bothered thinking about it.

QuoteGo play.

Ha!

"Go Play", is it for all gaming?
...Or is it actually just a marketing ploy?

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x252/kats_whim/Gencon07/god03.jpg)

Here's an indie gamer getting some approved packaged fun.

You people are a hoot! Keep up the good work! :D

Quote from: James McMurrayYou people are a hoot! Keep up the good work! :D

James, we totally traded you for Dev. Sorry.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x252/kats_whim/Gencon07/god03.jpg)

Here's an indie gamer getting some approved packaged fun.

Oh god - that was on the second floor of the hotel I was staying in at GenCon. It was spooky when  first saw those in the hall.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarI talked to you for like less than 4 or 5 sentences at GenCon.
 You seemed nice and okay.

 What is so difficult about answering their questions directly?

Answering their questions directly is easy.

Getting anyone to agree that I have, in fact, answered the questions directly ... that's the bit that's hard.

Hence my interest in a thread where an impartial authority moderates that question.

Quote from: Abyssal MawJames, we totally traded you for Dev. Sorry.

I don't even know what that means. But your avatar and posting style more than make up for it. Keep the laughs coming! :)

Well Tony, I can't claim you didn't give it a shot!

And I hope you don't think I'm one of those people who didn't think you had fun.  The whole point of me saying you should tell that session as a Story was because:
[LIST=A]

• I thought it sounded like a good, fun story from your description.
• It would be a good example of how a system like D&D could tell a good story.
  

Which is why I said I enjoy it as much as hearing people talk about gaming DitV – it's an example of how people will find a way to game just about any system. So there we stand.  Games being gamed and creating stories - imagine that. Do they do it differently?  Hell yes. But that, unfortunately, has not been the "claim." So I just love your example for being more nail in the coffin of that "claim."

So I just wanted to make sure that even though we disagree about who/what started "the war," you don't think I'm one of those that needs you not to have fun playing D&D. I love that you did. My only argument or issue with Mr. Baker's post was the "WHOLE D&D EXPERIENCE" reference.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe silliness here is reaching astounding proportions.

Well, it wasn't until your post, anyway...   :p

Quote from: Christopher KubasikBut, of course, in two months time it will be conventional wisdom here that such a thing was said, and it will be passed on through the written history of "The War" as truth.

Eh.  I don't know if AM's got the time, but I, for one, would love to read that thread.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikIn the same way Pundit somehow ferreted out the "super secret" thread that requires the super-secret registration, and discovered that one guy noted you could create sock-puppets to drive up sales through controversy about your game.  This somehow became an agenda from Story Games.

Sock puppets was only one aspect of that thread. IIRC, the entire point was that even shit stirring was good for the bottom line.  Is that the thread where someone says they are hoping for a bad review from Pundit because it's like money in the bank?

Yeah, we're crazy.  You know, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a rather tacky marketing approach that should be brought into the light.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikTony, AM, and the bunch of you, nothing worth while is going to happen on this.  The hatred is too deep, too much is invested in it. People are combing though straws of hay to find that one needle that supports their anger/feeling wronged/whatever -- and ignoring the actual hay stack.

I'm not sifting - I know exactly where the needle is.  It's easy to find.  I'll quote it again if you like. No? The hay is all of the diversion built up around the needle so that people who are invested in the hay for marketing reasons  don't have to face it.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikTony, I don't know you -- but dude, let it go.  Nothing you say here will matter.  Pundit is going to keep dragging over rants from his blog -- whether they're based in reality or not.  Such blogs will drive you nuts, but make the people who love them happy.  That's all it is, and all it will be.

I'm not Pundit.  I don't particularly enjoy his tactics most times. What do you have to say to me? Are my issues not based in reality? I don't have a blog. In fact, most times, Tony and I have a good channel of communication, even though we disagree. Does that matter?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikYes, it's frustrating to read that Ron said that anyone who played D&D has brain damage. But what can anyone do? On this very website people commented that's not only not what Ron said, but clarified what Ron said, and gave examples from their own play history showing how Ron's comments lined up with their play history and how Ron's comments gave them perspective to change their gaming.

Yeah, as AM points out, I think we're all pretty clear on exactly what was said.  IIRC (it's hard to read Brain Damage, so I avoid it usually) he's talking about games that promised one way of playing and then had rules that at the very least made it difficult to that way, if not downright blocked it. How does that change his opening line of GNS? How does that change Luke Cranes belief that the way many of us play is actually damaging the hobby? How does that change the use of loaded terms like "Incoherent?"

Quote from: Christopher KubasikAnd what did the Pundit say about this? What did almost anyone who's a regular around here say about this? Nothing. Because it doesn't fit the narrative of "The War."

Umm...we play old school.  We don't have a preplanned Narrative.  Isn't that the point?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikBut you don't have to add to the nonsense by trying to engage. There are people who want to be actually focusing on games. Everything you're doing is only one more distraction to that.

Let it go.

Go play.

Ha!

If Mr. Kim responds to my points in the Go Play thread, I think I'll use this as yet another example of people who use the Go Play sillyness to say "stop talkinng about games and play more," even if it wasn't originally intended to mean that.  So thanks!

That Ron Edwards feels that WW-Swine touched him in a bad place is pretty much indisputable. It also wasn't what I asked. He didn't attack White Wolf (which would have been fine, I do that on a regular basis), he attacked Regular Roleplaying as a whole.

I'm sure that a lot of serial killers were beaten up as kids; it doesn't mean that their victims were the ones who "started it".  Nor does it mean that the people that beat up said serial killer were the ones responsible for his psychotic actions.

And yes, I'm comparing Ron Edwards to John Wayne Gacy here.

RPGPundit

The intellectuall poverty is greater at the Forge than I had thought a year ago.
Every week they embarass themselves some more.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm sure that a lot of serial killers were beaten up as kids; it doesn't mean that their victims were the ones who "started it".  Nor does it mean that the people that beat up said serial killer were the ones responsible for his psychotic actions.

And yes, I'm comparing Ron Edwards to John Wayne Gacy here.

And in one fell swoop you've exceeded anything and everything negative that Ron Edwards has ever said about gaming.

Forget that your insult is against an individual rather than a group. Forget FtA!. THIS is what you'll likely be remembered by in gaming circles for a long time to come. I suggest you do some quick editing before it becomes a millstone heavier than the whole "baseball bat nut torture" crap of the last couple of years.

The pathetic sound of middlebrow text-reading ability and trivialized "liberal" ideology, paired with a lack of experience with RPGs. I call it "Sophomore Suck".

The Forge seem to attract those.

Drew's right. Forgers as serial killers? For fuck's sakes.

Brain-damage, serial killers - they're just other versions of the Nazis. It's all a Godwin - a sign that the person can't think of anything intelligent or reasonable to say.

You can argue against Uncle Ronny and the Forgers without such absurdity. You can do it with reason, with humour, and common sense. You don't need to Godwin it out. I've managed without Nazi comparisons for some time now, and I'm no rhetorical genius.

This has now become the most hilariously retarded thread on gaming I've ever read. In this case I'm totally with McMurray, please continue, but do be sure to continue to ratchet up the rhetoric.

Here are some more issues and activities Forgers and Story Gamers could be considered in league with:

Incest
Cannibalism
Rape
Genocide
The Darfur Conflict
The Chinese Manufacturing Complex
Animal Torture
Juggling

Mimes.

Quote from: JamesVThis has now become the most hilariously retarded thread on gaming I've ever read. In this case I'm totally with McMurray, please continue, but do be sure to continue to ratchet up the rhetoric.

Here are some more issues and activities Forgers and Story Gamers could be considered in league with:

Incest
Cannibalism
Rape
Genocide
The Darfur Conflict
The Chinese Manufacturing Complex
Animal Torture
Juggling

I torture animals and juggle, and I have nothing to do with the forge. I for one, and most of the animal torturning jugglers I know, for that matter, do not appreciate being tarred with the same brush. It reighnes on/in our pharahde.

I think a lot of them are actually communists which are, as you all well know, karmically equivalent to mimes.

Tony,

We had this exchange a few pages back, and I wanted to answer but got side tracked...

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: James J SkachShow how with a system like D&D and a good session you can create a good story.

And then I triple dog dare you to post it on Story Games, The Forge, and RPG.Net without telling them the system. :haw:

Uh ... why? :confused:

A large part of what I wrote was meant to be a joke to point out things using irony with no intention of you actually doing it. But part of that joke is the sense that it would end up as a "gotcha" to some folks of the opinion that D&D simply can't produce a good story.

And this is the point, Tony: the entire "intellectual" debate about GNS/TBM is severely flawed and something as simple and seemingly insignificant as a game of D&D that produces a good story shows it.  According to that theory, you should not be able to tell a good story using D&D.  Not without "drifting" it, anyway.

Because, you see, it's fine to play D&D as a game. But it's a Gamists game, not a Narrativist game.  So how is that you got a good story?  Accident, I suppose. Or you Drifted.  Or you just happened to have this rare, magical, gifted group that was able to fight through the Incoherence of the rules and remain aligned and focused on the one Creative Agenda of Story Now.

Otherwise, I have to assume that you started with the Gamist Creative Agenda, right? I mean, how else would anyone approach D&D? And then with a Gamist Creative Agenda you had fun.  All well and good.  But then, where did this story come from?  Not just a "we bashed down this door and killed an orc and took his gold," story.  But a rousing tale of finding out the Lord is really a Goblin Chief, of Frizz the Fabulous throwing himself at the Goblin Chief, sacrificing everything so that the people could be freed from this overlord. Where did that come from?

So, you see, my desire to point this out to the groups of people most likely to consider GNS/TBM as some sort of rigorous intellectual pursuit to understand and explain how people game.  It's not. And when people of trust and common perspective have this great time playing a game of D&D and getting a good, fun story out of it (or even a pretentious one if you want!), it seems a perfect time to show that to anyone who claims GNS/TBM has any sort of value other than in tiny non-offensive chunks that some people found helpful in overcoming their gaming anxiety.

And maybe, just maybe, GNS/TBM can be trashed, saving whatever little chunks that don't judge anyone and might be of some value, and theory can be discussed with a clean slate.

An old man can dream, can't he?

Thanks,
Jim

Really, the pundit.

I mean t-h-e P-u-n-d-i-t.

Imagine the outrage that would be caused by proclaiming that, of all people in the world, nay, the Universe, THE RPGPUNDIT made a totally ridicolous comparison!!!!

Whom are you going to shock with this mind-blowing truth?

Who will be hurt by it?

I can only wonder.

Maybe the national guard should be called. Maybe no-one will ever take him seriously from now on. NOW everybody knows he´s totally into hyperbole.

I never thought about that. If the pundit had a bat-penis examining license they should take it away from him. For hyperbole!

And all his RPG-theory terminology and jargon are now tainted!
He should also be banned from ENWorld and RPG.Net!

Quote from: RPGPunditThat Ron Edwards feels that WW-Swine touched him in a bad place is pretty much indisputable. It also wasn't what I asked. He didn't attack White Wolf (which would have been fine, I do that on a regular basis), he attacked Regular Roleplaying as a whole.

I'm sure that a lot of serial killers were beaten up as kids; it doesn't mean that their victims were the ones who "started it".  Nor does it mean that the people that beat up said serial killer were the ones responsible for his psychotic actions.

And yes, I'm comparing Ron Edwards to John Wayne Gacy here.

RPGPundit

This might be the single most stupid thing I've ever heard. What the fuck are you talking about?  I can only assume you were drunk or got the wrong tobacco in you pipe.

Otherwise, it might be time to bring up the previously discussed "why can't we find a way to be able to put Pundit on the ignore list."

I denounce this idea.  This is ignorant and stupid. Ron Edwards is not comparable to a serial killer no matter how much I might think his ideas about gaming suck.

Though I know it won't mean much, I apologize to anyone who is offended.

Pundit, you are a stupid fuckface. As Drew points out, you've completely destroyed any chance you had to make a difference. You've confirmed the worst said a bout you.  If this is Intentional Storyames Sabotage, they are either brilliant tacticians (in which case they really should be playing D&D), Machiavellian puppeteers, or you are a most ignorant fuckwad. They either masterfully pushed you into saying something so hideous that it destroys whatever shred of credibility you clung to, or you are a putrid moron.  I'm going with the latter...

Nice try guys.  Try and see past your adherence to a certain set of beliefs, which, btw, I tend to share.

What Pundit just did was remove any credibility that might have accrued.  He's now just as crazy and hyperbolic as Forgeries.  Nice goal, guys.

WTF? You can try to shrug it off all you want.  But this hurt the chance of engaging people in a calm and rational way (with occasional outbursts of anger).

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm sure that a lot of serial killers were beaten up as kids; it doesn't mean that their victims were the ones who "started it".  Nor does it mean that the people that beat up said serial killer were the ones responsible for his psychotic actions.

And yes, I'm comparing Ron Edwards to John Wayne Gacy here.

RPGPundit

Well, Pundit, with stunning rhetoric like this, you've certain won the War Against Swine, I'd say!

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-Accomplished.jpg)

Congratulations!


TGA

Shoulda stuck to mimes!

Huh?

Did I miss a memo?

When did Forger-bashing become an area in which political correctness and decency were important?

I call bigot and puritan bullshit on you guys.

Quote from: SettembriniReally, the pundit.

I mean t-h-e P-u-n-d-i-t.

Imagine the outrage that would be caused by proclaiming that, of all people in the world, nay, the Universe, THE RPGPUNDIT made a totally ridicolous comparison!!!!

Whom are you going to shock with this mind-blowing truth?

Who will be hurt by it?

I can only wonder.

Maybe the national guard should be called. Maybe no-one will ever take him seriously from now on. NOW everybody knows he´s totally into hyperbole.

Heh. Well played.

You've simulteaneously distanced yourself from the comment and attempted to dilute it with the old "Ah, but that's just his way" schtick that characterizes so many of Ron Edwards' apologists. The symmetry is not lost on the peanut gallery, I can tell you.

Face it. Even by the standard of Pundit's usual ravings it was a fucking ludicrous thing to say.

Quote from: SettembriniHuh?

Did I miss a memo?

When did Forger-bashing become an area in which political correctness and decency were important?

I call bigot and puritan bullshit on you guys.

Puritanism has nothing to do with it.

It was sheer lunacy to compare Ron Edwards to a convicted serial killer.

The first casualty in the so-called "war" seems to have been perspective.

Quote from: SettembriniI call bigot and puritan bullshit on you guys.

I see deep stupidity on both sides of this one, Sett.  If you can't see that out of control hyperbole fatally hurts the credibility of your side of this mess, then I can't help you.  Remember that there a lot of us "regular gamers" out here who generally agree that the Forge way of looking at games is bullshit, but who don't subscribe to your War.  We play games that we enjoy, the way we enjoy them.  Full stop.

I realize that the Pundit is just a constructed personality to get attention, which it is quite effective at doing, but it's creator should be cognizant of the fact that constantly creating conflict is not always the best long term way of creating a growing community.  There has to be some tension, and the ability to express it, lest the community grow stagnant, but I fear that the RPGsite will suffer from this constant "War" bullshit.


TGA

There´s a huge difference here: Pundit never ever tried to sound profound or serious. And he never tried to be inclusive. he always said, put the swine to the sword if they don´t leave our hobby.

Pundit is a Gonzo-Journalist and already said stuff like:

"They oughta all be killed!"
"Beat their nutsacks with the Spiked Baseball Bat of Justice!"
"Goth Chicks are only good for fucking and discarding afterwards!"
"Bruce Baugh should die of heart attack!"

I don´t see the SHOCKING REVELATION OF *GASP* THE PUNDIT SAYING BAD THINGS! OMG I MUST BURN MY POSTER OF HIM!!111
HE IS NOW TEH EVIL!


Anyway, try it out. Try posting this SHCOCKING RELEVELETITION !121
to RPG.Net.

You´ll only get a huge "Meh. So what?"

Quote from: DrewPuritanism has nothing to do with it.

It was sheer lunacy to compare Ron Edwards to a convicted serial killer.

The first casualty in the so-called "war" seems to have been perspective.

Well, for the record, I don't think any single person actually supports the idea that any given game designer is like any given serial killer in any given way. At all.

 But I do think a lot of you guys are going to jump up and say "aha, now we are all alike! This proves it at last! This is our brain damage moment! "

Except, well, Ron and his supporters really did beleive what they were saying, and not as a joke, either.

Which, I mean, if I wanted to jump and grasp at the use of the phrase "sheer lunacy" or "crazy" or any of the other hyperbolic commentary that gets slung around with regularity... I could. Sure, it's ludicrous.

The fact is, it's all out of control, and it has gotten increasingly that way, because you fuckers insist on coming here to battle. All the while, you proclaim there's "no war", but you're only here for one reason.

You think Kubasik came here to discuss the finer points of merits and flaws in point based character generation? He's a 90's era has-been, presumably he knows about that kind of shit or at least has an opinion on it. But no, he's only here for one reason.  

...Is that enough perspective?

You'll get plenty more than that. I've seen several threads about him on other fora over the last few months. He's basically becoming a laughing stock with these comments, if he wasn't one already. If ever there was a serious point to all this it's long been buried under the insane proclamations and analogies he's so fond of making.

Quote from: DrewYou'll get plenty more than that. I've seen several threads about him on other fora over the last few months. He's basically becoming a laughing stock with these comments, if he wasn't one already. If ever there was a serious point to all this it's long been buried under the insane proclamations and analogies he's so fond of making.

People on other fora are terrified, obviously. I suspect many of them feel stung by various comments made here, which... I dunno. I've been shrugging off casual insults from the smug-yet-untalented for a couple of years. It doesn't really matter. As long as we're still able to sap the energy out of that one particular movement, keep them tied up in defending themselves constantly, I feel pretty good about it.

He's a "laughing stock", and yet you just can't seem to tear yourself away, can you?

Keep in mind, the worst thing you can possibly do to him is "not play the game he wrote".

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, for the record, I don't think any single person actually supports the idea that any given game designer is like any given serial killer in any given way. At all.

 But I do think a lot of you guys are going to jump up and say "aha, now we are all alike! This proves it at last! This is our brain damage moment! "

Except, well, Ron and his supporters really did beleive what they were saying, and not as a joke, either.

Which, I mean, if I wanted to jump and grasp at the use of the phrase "sheer lunacy" or "crazy" or any of the other hyperbolic commentary that gets slung around with regularity... I could. Sure, it's ludicrous.

The fact is, it's all out of control, and it has gotten increasingly that way, because you fuckers insist on coming here to battle. All the while, you proclaim there's "no war", but you're only here for one reason.

You think Kubasik came here to discuss the finer points of merits and flaws in point based character generation? He's a 90's era has-been, presumably he knows about that kind of shit or at least has an opinion on it. But no, he's only here for one reason.  

...Is that enough perspective?

I'm not here to "battle." I'm merely pointing out the fucking obvious.

I far prefer to hang out on the RPG related parts of the forum and discuss the games I enjoy playing. Which is in fact what I'll do from here on in. This shit is just so mind bogglingly foolish that I'm not going to participate any more. I'll just leave his comments well alone, and let the rest of the world decide whether or not there's any merit to them.

Have fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, for the record, I don't think any single person actually supports the idea that any given game designer is like any given serial killer in any given way. At all.

 But I do think a lot of you guys are going to jump up and say "aha, now we are all alike! This proves it at last! This is our brain damage moment! "

Except, well, Ron and his supporters really did beleive what they were saying, and not as a joke, either.

Which, I mean, if I wanted to jump and grasp at the use of the phrase "sheer lunacy" or "crazy" or any of the other hyperbolic commentary that gets slung around with regularity... I could. Sure, it's ludicrous.

The fact is, it's all out of control, and it has gotten increasingly that way, because you fuckers insist on coming here to battle. All the while, you proclaim there's "no war", but you're only here for one reason.

You think Kubasik came here to discuss the finer points of merits and flaws in point based character generation? He's a 90's era has-been, presumably he knows about that kind of shit or at least has an opinion on it. But no, he's only here for one reason.  

...Is that enough perspective?

I guess I'm a Fogery now?

Face it guys, the first thing many people tried to do after Mr Edwards unfortunate Brain Damage screed was explain it away somehow. Don't be like them.  And saying "see, now you're all claiming we're like them."  That's just stupid.  Try not being like them and call Pundy on his bullshit.  That will do more than anything.

It doesn't mean the War isn't valid.  It doesn't mean GNS/TBM isn't shit.  It simply means that we are capable of understanding when someone has said something that was stupid - regardless of whether it was intended as "gonzo" this or "hyperbole" that (bullshit). Intentions mean shit.  It doesn't matter how it was intended.  It mattered what was actually said - isn't that what we've been saying all along?

I'd love to stay and debate it, but I've got two Living Greyhawk core modules to play today :p

Quote from: James J SkachI guess I'm a Fogery now?

Face it guys, the first thing many people tried to do after Mr Edwards unfortunate Brain Damage screed was explain it away somehow. Don't be like them.  And saying "see, now you're all claiming we're like them."  That's just stupid.  Try not being like them and call Pundy on his bullshit.  That will do more than anything.

It doesn't mean the War isn't valid.  It doesn't mean GNS/TBM isn't shit.  It simply means that we are capable of understanding when someone has said something that was stupid - regardless of whether it was intended as "gonzo" this or "hyperbole" that (bullshit). Intentions mean shit.  It doesn't matter how it was intended.  It mattered what was actually said - isn't that what we've been saying all along?

I'd love to stay and debate it, but I've got two Living Greyhawk core modules to play today :p

Well, I'm not trying to explain it away. I'm not saying "oh, what he really meant was this other thing.."

I'm saying it was obviously a nonsensical exaggeration statement. It was a flame, not an actual assessment. I mean, unless Ron Edwards actually is a serial killer, which we have no evidence of. He only kills dreams!

Quote from: Kyle AaronDrew's right. Forgers as serial killers? For fuck's sakes.

Brain-damage, serial killers - they're just other versions of the Nazis. It's all a Godwin - a sign that the person can't think of anything intelligent or reasonable to say.

But there's the thing, they haven't had anything reasonable to say for years now. Why should I try to deal with them reasonably, when you end up with something as absurd as Tony, who otherwise seems like a relatively nice guy, being mentally incapable of admitting that Ron Edwards has ever done anything bad, ever?
In the light of that kind of absurdity, I think the only way one can respond is by calling their cult leader a serial killer.  I mean if Tony can seriously claim that because Ron was pissed at White Wolf that means that Regular Roleplayers all "had it coming" when Ron made the sweeping blanket attack against us all that started the conflict between the Forge and the real Roleplayers, I think he played the card that justified me making the comparison to a serial killer; or yes, Hitler. But frankly serial killers are so much more slimy and pathetic that I like that comparison better.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachNice try guys.  Try and see past your adherence to a certain set of beliefs, which, btw, I tend to share.

What Pundit just did was remove any credibility that might have accrued.  He's now just as crazy and hyperbolic as Forgeries.  Nice goal, guys.

Emphasis mine. Yes, exactly. JUST AS.  Only they won't admit it. Tony wants to pretend that Ron Edwards, in his original GNS essay, wasn't to blame for starting the war, because when he said that all gamers are secretly miserable because of regular RPGs, he was simply influenced by his negative past experiences with WoD.

So, carrying through that concept to its logical conclusion, John Wayne Gacy wasn't responsible for murdering all those young boys, it was just a product of his having had a bad cup of soup as a child or being scared by a lawnmower when he was 27 or whatever.  So again, to its extreme logical conclusion, Ron Edwards is John Wayne Gacy.
Or more accurately yet, Tony is like the slimy lawyer trying to get John Wayne Gacy off. Unless Tony really actually believes what he just wrote; in which case he's more like the president of the Gacy fan club.

This is fun! I can see why Edwards enjoys doing this so much.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Good Assyrian, but I fear that the RPGsite will suffer from this constant "War" bullshit.


TGA

It certainly will, at least until Tony is willing to admit that Ron Edwards started it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DrewI'm not here to "battle." I'm merely pointing out the fucking obvious.

I far prefer to hang out on the RPG related parts of the forum and discuss the games I enjoy playing. Which is in fact what I'll do from here on in. This shit is just so mind bogglingly foolish that I'm not going to participate any more. I'll just leave his comments well alone, and let the rest of the world decide whether or not there's any merit to them.

Have fun.

If only I could believe you. But you're not here for that, so either you'll be back into attacking me again soon, or you'll leave the site out of boredom.

Quick, my Proxies! someone bookmark this quote, to use on the next occasion that Drew jumps in to attack me on some thread!  It shouldn't take too long.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe only kills dreams!

And possibly bats, to study their penises. Possibly.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit...I think he played the card that justified me making the comparison to a serial killer; or yes, Hitler. But frankly serial killers are so much more slimy and pathetic that I like that comparison better.

RPGPundit

Hitler!

He went there!

Yay!

Thank you for a pleasant afternoon's entertainment.

Quote from: PakaHitler!

He went there!

Yay!

Thank you for a pleasant afternoon's entertainment.

When it comes to humanity-hating discredited authoritarian fringe ideologies, I think the forgies are way more into communism. Although, let's be fair.. the followers are karmically identical!

PS. You are welcome!

Quote from: RPGPunditIf only I could believe you. But you're not here for that, so either you'll be back into attacking me again soon, or you'll leave the site out of boredom.

Nah, there's a lot of good gaming discussion here, which believe it or not is why I keep coming back. And I'd be happy to discuss most things with you Pundit, as I think you have an interesting take on certain systems and often make strong contributions provided the topic at hand doesn't press any of your buttons. I'll just refrain from addressing you on the "Swine War" or any of the other subjects where I feel you've taken an extremist stance.

QuoteQuick, my Proxies! someone bookmark this quote, to use on the next occasion that Drew jumps in to attack me on some thread!  It shouldn't take too long.

Please do. I'm doing this for my own benefit after all. If I end up backsliding then make sure you whack me upside the head with that quote.

Well good, that's one of them out of the way...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt certainly will, at least until Tony is willing to admit that Ron Edwards started it.

RPGPundit

So what you've just said is that you care more about making one person agree with you than the wellfare of your entire forum. Sad, man. Really sad.

So guys, something is becoming pretty obvious:

Tony and the rest are dodging the actual question.

And Pundit gave them something to jump on, so the actual question was overpainted.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut there's the thing, they haven't had anything reasonable to say for years now. Why should I try to deal with them reasonably, when you end up with something as absurd as [snip]

That's the thing. It's pretty easy to see a pile of coal on a sunny beach, and pretty hard to see a pile of coal inside a dark cave. If you speak absurdly, then there's no contrast with their absurdity - people dismiss them and you, and they can fairly argue that they're reasonable in comparison. Whereas if you speak reasonably, their absurdity will really stand out, and they have to either raise the standards of their arguments or else look as absurd as they are.

It's not a matter of "but Miss! Miss! He threw the first punch!" That shit doesn't matter. What matters is winning the argument, having what you feel is the truth come out in the discussion. If your words are as absurd as theirs, then people will just go for whoever they like. Give them a reason to follow your words instead of those other guys' - speak reasonably.

Your style of rhetoric's excellent for gaining attention, but very poor for persuading people. I'm suggesting ways you can be persuasive as well as gaining attention. Of course, if all you want is attention, then by all means keep going as you are.

Quote from: SettembriniTony and the rest are dodging the actual question.

And Pundit gave them something to jump on, so the actual question was overpainted.

Of course. That's the other aspect of saying absurd things. It's like the semantic argument. People can use that to avoid discussing the actual issue. If you feel your argument's very weak, then you can either say something absurd to distract everyone from its weakness, or else focus on the absurd thing the other guy said. But if no-one says anything obviously absurd, then all we're left with is the actual fucking point. I know that discussing the actual fucking point is a bit stressful sometimes, but I thought it's what we were here for.

As to the actual point, probably we do have here some intentional story-games sabotage. The way they've sabotaged this zoo is to poke the monkey in the cage with a stick until he starts throwing poo.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's the thing. It's pretty easy to see a pile of coal on a sunny beach, and pretty hard to see a pile of coal inside a dark cave. If you speak absurdly, then there's no contrast with their absurdity - people dismiss them and you, and they can fairly argue that they're reasonable in comparison. Whereas if you speak reasonably, their absurdity will really stand out, and they have to either raise the standards of their arguments or else look as absurd as they are.

It's not a matter of "but Miss! Miss! He threw the first punch!" That shit doesn't matter. What matters is winning the argument, having what you feel is the truth come out in the discussion. If your words are as absurd as theirs, then people will just go for whoever they like. Give them a reason to follow your words instead of those other guys' - speak reasonably.

Your style of rhetoric's excellent for gaining attention, but very poor for persuading people. I'm suggesting ways you can be persuasive as well as gaining attention. Of course, if all you want is attention, then by all means keep going as you are.

Kyle speaks great wisdom here.


TGA

Pundit,

Here's the problem:you just lost whatever slim chance you might have had left to get people to keep questioning the wisdom of GNS/TBM - and that saddens me. And I think you've just fell to the level of the opponent, which usually means you've lost; not because you are wrong, but because people stop listening/thinking about it.

I've told Tony I don't agree with him - I think that regardless of the context that may or may not have existed, GNS was distinct, bright line of differenttiation. I think you are right to make that case and push it. The fact that you've decided it's OK to compare and individual to John Wayne Gacy to do it? It's not only a bad comparison - it loses ground.

Thanks,
Jim

Well, hang on--let's not be so hasty. We should give all ideas a chance in this climate of open intellectual debate.

Now, I don't know much about psychology, so I went to Dr Phil's site to find Fourteen Characteristics of a Serial Killer (http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/188). Fascinating!

1. Over 90 percent of serial killers are male.
Ron Edwards is definitely male from the pictures I've seen. Another site tells us that 90% are in fact white males, and Ron looks as white as it gets to me.

2. They tend to be intelligent, with IQ's in the "bright normal" range.
RE apparently holds down a job as a professor. He seems intelligent to me.

3. They do poorly in school, have trouble holding down jobs, and often work as unskilled laborers.
I don't know about RE's employment history. Perhaps some kindly stalker will come to our rescue.

From here on I plead ignorance as to the answers, but I'm sure it will make an absorbing topic of research for aomebody.

4. They tend to come from markedly unstable families.

5. As children, they are abandoned by their fathers and raised by domineering mothers.

6. Their families often have criminal, psychiatric and alcoholic histories.

7. They hate their fathers and mothers.

8. They are commonly abused as children — psychologically, physically and sexually. Often the abuse is by a family member.

9. Many serial killers spend time in institutions as children and have records of early psychiatric problems.

10. They have high rates of suicide attempts.

11. From an early age, many are intensely interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sado-masochistic pornography.

12. More than 60 percent of serial killers wet their beds beyond the age of 12.

13. Many serial killers are fascinated with fire starting.

14. They are involved with sadistic activity or tormenting small creatures.

Quote from: SettembriniTony and the rest are dodging the actual question.

Yeah, y'know what?  I don't actually need to ask Pundit's permission to get a thread where this can be adjudicated.  Feel free to take it over here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7273).  Ask me a question, I'll either answer it to JRients satisfaction, or you'll get the pleasure of seeing me called on my "dodging" by a disinterested authority.

Oh, is this why everyone dogpiled on me when I came in here asking about SWSaga and said I wasn't a fan of D20?  I see this thread started right around the time I first joined.*  Did you guys think I was a spy for Story-Games coming to stir up trouble and sell some indie games?  That's awesome if that's true. It's like a 60s espionage farce movie where I am the completely clueless naif played by Peter Sellers.

You should have some kind of warning saying to newbies that there is a war going on and they have to watch what they say or be judged as being on side or another.  Probably prevent a lot of harm and hurt feelings that way.


*And I came over because I had a conflict with those control freak weirdos over at rpg.net and a friend told me this was a site with some interesting ideas going on.  Really, that's the truth.  I lurk at Story-Games for about an hour a month but don't like the forum design they use so never joined.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTo be fair it was a few months ago, but it did indeed take place. "Make more noise so people will think you are having fun".

To be fair to both sides, I seem to remember when this was said, in this thread "Advice For Hijacking A Con (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2403)".   However, it was almost immediately jumped on, clarified, and lined out.

Fair enough, but given their hostility to regular roleplaying and regular roleplayers.. why are they trying to hijack our conventions?

Quote from: walkerpOh, is this why everyone dogpiled on me when I came in here asking about SWSaga and said I wasn't a fan of D20?  I see this thread started right around the time I first joined.*  Did you guys think I was a spy for Story-Games coming to stir up trouble and sell some indie games?  That's awesome if that's true. It's like a 60s espionage farce movie where I am the completely clueless naif played by Peter Sellers.

Quite honestly, I never made the connection.  I didn't think they were about the same time at all, were they?

No. I attempted to tell you what an ass you were being in as polite a way as possible.  When you continued to say insulting things and post as if you were a moron, I treated you like one. When you started swearing at people, and then acted outraged when people swore back and pointed out your..errors (including claiming that you were just posting innocently when you were hijacked by swearing), I told you you were a complete fuckwad.

The fact that now you want it to be some big misunderstanding so that you can be Peter Sellers?  More proof that you are a self-important dillhole. I'm surprised you could get anyone to play with you, much less narrow-minded d20 players...

I was glad when you were gone.  Please make me glad again.

Wow.  Nice link Zachary. At least it's not that AM's crazy.  I mean, you can say what you want, but there it is, in bits. as Zach notes, lined out.

Reading through the thread brought a couple things to mind. First, you know how there are always claims that there is no "war?"  Well, look at the terminology used in that thread.  For a bunch of people who don't think there's a "war," there sure seems to be the mindset..

Quote from: JDCorelyI have conquered and unconquered cons many times before and this is all good. Let me add one more thing:

Use "their" marketing. That is, find the mailing lists for your local RPGA or LARP or whatever has the signficant con presence (what? You don't know who has the significant con presence? You think you will conquer without intelligence??) and send out an e-mail specifically inviting them to specific games that will appeal to their interests

Quote from: Joshua BishopRobyI touched on this above, but invading cons works best iteratively.

Second:

Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby2) Seed your games with players. A game with no signups gathers no signups. A game with one signup gathers more players. At the strategicons, we did this by signing up for each other's games. That, and we wanted to play each other's games, anyway.

Quote from: Ice Cream EmperorIt is worth pointing out that, though our games are fairly full, I don't think there's a total of more than 6 actual people signed up across them all. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like anyone else has bothered registering and signing up at all, so it's hard to say.

Quote from: James J SkachI was glad when you were gone.  Please make me glad again.

No such luck.

Theory updated.  You are just a dick.  Got it.

Quote from: James J SkachWhen you started swearing at people, and then acted outraged when people swore back and pointed out your..errors (including claiming that you were just posting innocently when you were hijacked by swearing), I told you you were a complete fuckwad.

Excuse me, but I maintained a polite and respectful tone until you started swearing at me:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112582&postcount=65

Quote from: walkerpExcuse me, but I maintained a polite and respectful tone until you started swearing at me

Oooh, ooh!  Are we going to have an argument about who started this little conflict?

Because that would be delightfully ironic, and more than a little "meta."  I heartily approve! :D

Walker, Skachie,

 You two are distracting us from who started the "Big War" with which one of you started cussing first.  (Kind of fucking petty....maybe)

 Could you two possibly start another thread between the two of you ? Or maybe go to PMs on this?

 Not a moderator - so I'm just making a suggestion.

 Oh , and one of you called the either a Dick. SO? So what. You both might be....get over it. Likely other people have.

- Ed C.

Quote from: TonyLBOooh, ooh!  Are we going to have an argument about who started this little conflict?

Because that would be delightfully ironic, and more than a little "meta."  I heartily approve! :D

Ironically, Tony, this one there is an objective truth as you can go back and look at the thread.

That's right, the thread.  Not one post in which I do swear at the little fuckwad, but the entire thread.  Wherein he swears in post 62 - responding to a statement I made by saying "I knew someone was going to shit about that."

Please note my response is post 65. Wherein I call him a fucktard for...well...being a fuckwad.  Oh yeah, I call him a twit, too.

See how that works, walkerp?  you just have to actually read what people are posting - even yourself! It's really easy.  Go on, try it. You can even go back in our entire dialog in that thread - not what I posted to others, but things where you and I quote each other.  Guess what.  You swore first! Amazing!

Like I said, Go Play in traffic.

Quote from: KoltarWalker, Skachie,

 You two are distracting us from who started the "Big War" with which one of you started cussing first.  (Kind of fucking petty....maybe)

 Could you two possibly start another thread between the two of you ? Or maybe go to PMs on this?

 Not a moderator - so I'm just making a suggestion.

 Oh , and one of you called the either a Dick. SO? So what. You both might be....get over it. Likely other people have.

- Ed C.

Wow, Eddie.  Now you choose to become Kyle on my ass?  For this?

Im just sad that I'll have to increase my IL by one with the addition of walker.  I was going to take pooka off since he seems to have finally lost interest again, and I was happy not to have anyone on it.  Alas, sleep will again remain standard heavy tonight....

My apologies for all of you who had to watch me bitch slap the little whelp.  I will no longer derail your discussion of who started the GNS war.....

Not a big deal  James, but it was distracting from the other thread .
 That stuff is between you and WalkerP.

 As to "who" started the big war - seems it was the Forge-y types....while the rest of us were just playing and running our RPG campaigns.


- Ed C.

I've been lurking here a long time, for the same reasons I lurk at the Forge: around half the posts are interesting on their own account, the other half are flailing spastic blathering nonsense posted by people who are wrong about everything they've ever believed their whole life. Add rampant misogyny, and that is the purest entertainment the Internet has to offer!

But quoting me against "story gamers" is priceless to a whole new degree of complete fucking idiocy. Me, the guy who goes there when I want to talk about D&D, Cyberpunk and Star Wars. The guy who's never designed a game in his life.

Especially when the quote is, stripped of the mean-old-man-ness all my posts have: "Find out where people are talking about the games that will be run at a con, and pitch them a game that will strike their interest, then everyone will have fun and you'll be popular and happy and girls or guys, your preference, will think you're wonderful and will want to have meaningless con sex with you in their hotel room la dee da."

"OH NOES IT IS TEH SABATOGE!!!!11"

You know what game I ran when I put that advice to work last time?

That's right. I ran True20.  And what do you know, the RPGA guys that came to my table loved it.

Because I actually took the time to tell people who were coming to the con about a game they might like to play when they were there.

LOOK OUTS FOR TEH TRUE 20 STAELTH MARKATANG BY JDCOERLEY!11

I assume the acceptable-to-rpgsite-idiots suggestion for how to drum up interest in a game is secretly skulking into the con two minutes before it begins, putting down a blank signup sheet, then cowering at the empty table with a terrified look, like someone caught masturbating, looking longingly at people walking past in silence, hoping someone will sit down and play.

I will say it really slow:

• It is not stealth marketing if


• You do not make any money at it


• And also if you tell people


• what it is you're offering


• in a forum where people are talking


• about that very topic


• you moron.

And because I don't want people to miss other things I might have said on other sites since you're so god damn interested, here's a list of some other random quotes I pulled in 5 minutes, five whole fucking minutes, that demonstrate that I am a story-games SAB O TURE!!

"The label 'indie' is worthless to consumers": http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4036&page=1#Item_7

"Big detailed campaign books like Stafford's Pendragon are really neat!":
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3956&Focus=89216#Item_31

"Cool, Fourth Edition means I'll get Third Edition D&D stuff really cheap!"
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3945&Focus=88413#Item_13

"Star Wars d6 has the best how-to-roleplay section ever!"
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3928&Focus=88238#Comment_88238

"This Primetime Adventures mechanic really doesn't work that well for some groups."
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3875&Focus=87282#Comment_87282

And the ultimate proof of my story swine pig war fat lawn ugly facedness or whatever:

"Hey, here's an adventure hook for every single page of the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Supplement"
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=228229

OH NOES HE IS STAELTH MARKATING TEH FORGATTAN RAELMS NOW!!!

(http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~corleyj/images/macro/puccini.jpg)

Mr. Corley,

Since I was the one who quoted you, I assume you are addressing this to me.

I apologize if I didn't have the extra five minutes to research your past.  I was not referring to your past.  I was referring to your post in that thread, which happened to use two terms that were very "war"-like: Conquered and Intelligence"

You might be the most ardent AD&D player/DM that ever walked the earth; or Star Wars, or Cyberpunk - I have no idea. I was simply pointing out the language used.

I apologize for assuming that you were one of those who believes there is no "war" - if that is indeed the case. If it's not the case, and you do not believe there is a "war," then I would simply advise not using terms that some jackhole who doesn't know you from Adam can come along and see that uses "war"-like terminology to describe "conquering" RPGA conventions and gathering "Intelligence" so you can use "their" mailing list. It leads to all kinds of miscommunications - not the least of which is that you appear to be using "war"-like terminology to describe something you do not believe is a "war."

I did not, however, intend to link you to the title of the thread - and I apologize if that's the way it came across.  I was reading the thread and was interested in the "war"-like terminology being used and it struck me as odd coming from a place where there are a bunch of people who claim there is no war. As I said above, if that does not include you, I'm sorry for assuming it did.

Thanks,
Jim

Considering that this "war" and all discussion about it is utter bullshit (and has been moved off the main rpg boards), I prefer to get into it with James here.  I find it gives me a reason to keep coming back so that I can keep an eye on who is on which side, who is the most paranoid, etc.  Helps prevent me from getting blindsided from maniacs like James when I am least expecting it.

Quote from: James J SkachIronically, Tony, this one there is an objective truth as you can go back and look at the thread.

That's right, the thread.  Not one post in which I do swear at the little fuckwad, but the entire thread.  Wherein he swears in post 62 - responding to a statement I made by saying "I knew someone was going to shit about that."

Please note my response is post 65. Wherein I call him a fucktard for...well...being a fuckwad.  Oh yeah, I call him a twit, too.

See how that works, walkerp?  you just have to actually read what people are posting - even yourself! It's really easy.  Go on, try it. You can even go back in our entire dialog in that thread - not what I posted to others, but things where you and I quote each other.  Guess what.  You swore first! Amazing!

I stand corrected.  I did swear first.  However, I did not swear at you or insult anybody.  I would argue that in terms of offensive and impolite behaviour

"I knew someone was going to shit about that." < "fucktard"

I think that's pretty straightforward.  If my use of the term "shit" caused you offense, I apologize for that. I did not intend it to be a personal insult.  In my world, "shit" isn't considered swearing or a personal offense.  Calling someone "fucktard" is.

And I have to admit that while other arguments were strong, I was quite enjoying that thread.  When you came in with that ferocious attack and aggressive swearing, I did get upset.  And I retaliated with more swearing (partly it was just because it was kind of exciting to be allowed to swear like a grown up on a gaming message board).

So I will conclude this meta-sub-argument (which is an excellent metaphor for the greater "war" argument) by saying that you, James J Skach, started it.

Of course there is no war. I used that phraseology because I am, in addition to everything else, 1) mean, and 2) a wargamer.  

Have you never set aside a gigantic thick book or series, saying "I have conquered 'Hard Times'" or 'War and Peace' or whatever the kids are reading these days?  Have you never emerged from a nasty bit of sink-scrubbing saying "I have conquered the sink!"

That doesn't mean there's a War On Plumbing.  It just means you read things about war and like to take the piss and be self-mockingly grandiose while waving a ball of steel wool on a stick.

And if you are wondering if someone is taking the piss or not, taking five minutes to learn something about them is the way to find out.

Apology accepted. Go and be a fucking idiot no more.

Quote from: James J SkachI apologize for assuming that you were one of those who believes there is no "war" - if that is indeed the case. If it's not the case, and you do not believe there is a "war," then I would simply advise not using terms that some jackhole who doesn't know you from Adam can come along and see that uses "war"-like terminology to describe "conquering" RPGA conventions and gathering "Intelligence" so you can use "their" mailing list. It leads to all kinds of miscommunications - not the least of which is that you appear to be using "war"-like terminology to describe something you do not believe is a "war."

This is what cracks me up about this site.  While I truly do appreciate the official stance of limited moderation and no censorship, people like James J Skach are constantly doing their damnedest to control speech and limit what we are and are not allowed to talk about.  So you have a free speech zone with a gang of loudmouths who jump down the throat of anyone who uses a word or turn of phrase or idea they don't agree with.  Maybe we should make them moderators?

Actually Corley, I track your posts kinda closely as I think you aren't the typically malevolent collectivist griefer I seem to see so often. I'm well aware of most of your positions. And in most cases, I appreciate them.

I disagree with you, though, because I think there is money involved here, even if the individual marketeer isn't the one who benefits or profits directly; this is the nature of the collective. Just as we have noticed people promoting games they have never personally played, based solely on that game being written by another member of the collective.. and then six months to a year later admitting they never tried it out beyond a 15 minute demo.

It seems as if the hope is always there that the collective will swing the other way and the marketeers who work so hard "helping out" will eventually catch some promotion and endorsement for his/her own pet project as well. This is the loop I always assume Tony lives in-- I've almost never seen anyone other than Tony, really, promote Capes (other than in passing). But he used to go out of the way to try and sell us on terminology and systems that would benefit the collective.

The flipside of this is the inherent weakness of the collective: which is to say- when even one of you is a dick, we can fry the rest of the movement  based on the proximity of that dick to the inner circle. The "brain damage incident" was a gift from heaven.

All you have to do to negate this is not be a smug self-inflated dick! Simple. If the forgie movement was made up of 30 Matt Forbecks, you'd be set. You'd be invincible. The solution is just to have decent human beings.

Unfortunately, the forgies have got so fucking many smug, self-inflated dicks, and nearly every effort is on promoting the collective and not the games, that you guys are pretty much guaranteed trouble--especially after every public appearance.

And it's been that way every year since the Jeff Dee incident.

By the way.. welcome to theRPGSite!

Quote from: walkerpI stand corrected.  I did swear first.  However, I did not swear at you or insult anybody.  I would argue that in terms of offensive and impolite behaviour

"I knew someone was going to shit about that." < "fucktard"

Not if you are the someone who just said shit.  I mean, you meant me, right?  I was quoted so that's not a stretch.  And you said it was shit, right? I mean is it a stretch to interpret that something I just wrote was shit when you say I shit about it, right? How is that so hard to understand?  Are you that fucking clueless?

Quote from: walkerpI think that's pretty straightforward.  If my use of the term "shit" caused you offense, I apologize for that. I did not intend it to be a personal insult.  In my world, "shit" isn't considered swearing or a personal offense.  Calling someone "fucktard" is.

Oh, I see.  I made the mistake of not thinking the way you want me to think.  I'm sorry that I didn't realize that calling someone's thoughts shit isn't an insult in your world.

Quote from: walkerpAnd I have to admit that while other arguments were strong, I was quite enjoying that thread.  When you came in with that ferocious attack and aggressive swearing, I did get upset.  And I retaliated with more swearing (partly it was just because it was kind of exciting to be allowed to swear like a grown up on a gaming message board).

Oh, so now we're back to me just swearing out of nowhere? What did I miss about you swearing at me by calling what I wrote "shit"?

Quote from: walkerpSo I will conclude this meta-sub-argument (which is an excellent metaphor for the greater "war" argument) by saying that you, James J Skach, started it.

See, Pundit - this is why you'll never get the answer.

He admits he swore first, but then says his wasn't as bad so really I swore first. Like that logic? I mean, he even aplogizes if he offended me.  As if my swearing that took place afterwards was in a vaccum now that he's apologized for what caused it...how long after?

And as an allegory for this "war," perhaps this is a lesson for me (and you if you so choose) to stop pursuing the original sin.  Because you'll get an answer like walker here.

"You are right.  I did say something offensive first.  I apologize if it was taken that way, I really didn't mean for you to be offended. But, you see, I was having a nice conversation and then you came in with this ferocious swearing attack.  So, really, you are at fault.  Hmm?  What's that?  You only attacked because of the offensive thing I said?  But I just apologized and told you I didn't mean to offend you. Since I didn't mean to offend you (in my world, that's not an insult), it's your fault that you attacked me out of nowhere. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Quote from: James J SkachNot if you are the someone who just said shit.  I mean, you meant me, right?  I was quoted so that's not a stretch.  And you said it was shit, right? I mean is it a stretch to interpret that something I just wrote was shit when you say I shit about it, right? How is that so hard to understand?

Yes, that's right.  What you wrote was shit.  Absolute, paranoid, badly reasoned, weakly argued, shit.

That says nothing about you as a person.

Calling me a fucktard says nothing about my argument and everything about me as a person, a person you've never met.

And when I apologized for using shit if it offended you personally that's what I meant.  And I meant it genuinely.  But if you were offended because I called your argument shit, then I retract my apology.  Because that's what I meant.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, Pundit - this is why you'll never get the answer.

And why do you keep checking with Pundit?  What does he have to do with this?  Are you hoping for a pat on the head?  A milk bone?

Quote from: JDCorleyOf course there is no war. I used that phraseology because I am, in addition to everything else, 1) mean, and 2) a wargamer.  

Have you never set aside a gigantic thick book or series, saying "I have conquered 'Hard Times'" or 'War and Peace' or whatever the kids are reading these days?  Have you never emerged from a nasty bit of sink-scrubbing saying "I have conquered the sink!"

That doesn't mean there's a War On Plumbing.  It just means you read things about war and like to take the piss and be self-mockingly grandiose while waving a ball of steel wool on a stick.

But there aren't people walking around thinking you're at war with the sink (at least, there aren't in my house, YMMV).  What you've done is taken it out the context.  So if you went to a site where people said there was no war on plumbing, but they tossed around war terminology to describe how to deal with sinks...well...I'd be suspect of something.

Quote from: JDCorleyAnd if you are wondering if someone is taking the piss or not, taking five minutes to learn something about them is the way to find out.

At the time I was neither wondering about you, in particular, and in a hurry.  Next time if I don't recognize the name, I'll try to do 5 minutes - but no more!

Quote from: JDCorleyGo and be a fucking idiot no more.

I promise nothing.

Quote from: Abyssal MawFair enough, but given their hostility to regular roleplaying and regular roleplayers.. why are they trying to hijack our conventions?

I love the bit from Tony about how they should form their own little camp and not actually interact with the rest of the con.  That shit was perfect.

Also, walkerp is an elitist cuntflap.  I just had to get that in there.

Quote from: J ArcaneAlso, walkerp is an elitist cuntflap.  I just had to get that in there.

All right, here comes the other little yapping lapdog to the fence.  Maybe if you guys bark hard and loud enough, daddy Pundit will come home early.

"Look, daddy, we scared away some more of those swine that were trying to get in.  Can we get a milk bone or a pat on the head?"

"Uh, guys, that was the mailman."

Quote from: walkerpYes, that's right.  What you wrote was shit.  Absolute, paranoid, badly reasoned, weakly argued, shit.

Yes, because calling someone's argument shit - without any reason why - is pure logical gold.

Quote from: walkerpCalling me a fucktard says nothing about my argument and everything about me as a person, a person you've never met.

The logic of the argument above tells me that I was correct in my assessment...

Quote from: walkerpAnd when I apologized for using shit if it offended you personally that's what I meant.  And I meant it genuinely.  But if you were offended because I called your argument shit, then I retract my apology.  Because that's what I meant.

How does that matter?  I mean, the facts are the fact.  Post 62, post 65.  Whether you meant to insult me or not.  Either way, you swore at me first.

Quote from: walkerpAnd why do you keep checking with Pundit? What does he have to do with this? Are you hoping for a pat on the head? A milk bone?

Apparently, you've once again decided only to read your own posts.  Hey! that's an improvement!

Dumbfuck - if you'd look you'd see that a large portion of the tail end of this thread is Pundit trying to get Tony to answer a question about who started the "war."  This is me telling him to stop trying - using you as an example of the kind of fucked-up logic one can encounter.

And none of that takes into account my posts elsewhere in threads calling bullshit on Pundit for being an ass.  Perhaps you should take Mr. Corley's advice and spend five minutes reading...

Quote from: J ArcaneI love the bit from Tony about how they should form their own little camp and not actually interact with the rest of the con.  That shit was perfect.

Also, walkerp is an elitist cuntflap.  I just had to get that in there.

Well, it's weird because.. in the periods between conventions there's a lot of talk about not-interacting, about how gamers are "geeks" and should be avoided, about never playing with anyone you don't know really really well, etc.

And then convention season, and suddenly it all reverses.. they're all like up in your face. "We've got to get this game into the hands of D&D players immediately!" In years past, they even had trouble because a few really zealous guys would like go out of their way to hard sell passers-by.

So it seems odd to me that whether or not they really want to engage the community seems to hinge on only one thing. And that one thing?  They want to sell stuff. They want to squat on these conventions which are pretty much bought and paid for by the mainstream attendees, but they want to squat on them and sell, without really engaging the rest of it.

And they're often downright rude to the other attendees at these conventions, even when they are invited and feted guests. Thats the other thing. It isn't a case of friendly mutualism, it's clearly a "how can we take advantage of this situation for the greater collective" kind of thing.

Quote from: walkerpAll right, here comes the other little yapping lapdog to the fence.  Maybe if you guys bark hard and loud enough, daddy Pundit will come home early.

"Look, daddy, we scared away some more of those swine that were trying to get in.  Can we get a milk bone or a pat on the head?"

"Uh, guys, that was the mailman."

I think J Arcane is (not quite the last person but close) that I would consider a pundit supporter. Your'e better off attacking me, but I probably won't engage.

Quote from: walkerpAll right, here comes the other little yapping lapdog to the fence.  Maybe if you guys bark hard and loud enough, daddy Pundit will come home early.

"Look, daddy, we scared away some more of those swine that were trying to get in.  Can we get a milk bone or a pat on the head?"

"Uh, guys, that was the mailman."

Tsk tsk tsk.

See, this is what happens when you don't actually pay attention to what happens in a place, or try to insult someone without knowing anything about them.  

It's sad.  I'm sure that you expected that to be some witty remark or some such, but instead, it's complete lack of connection to reality instead only serves to provide comic effect, but not without a hint of pity.

I suppose I could thank you for being so off the mark as to provide such amusement, but really, I'd hate to inflate that very unwarranted ego anymore than it already is.

Instead, I will simply point and laugh, and hold up this post as a prime example of what happens when you shoot your mouth off without knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd they're often downright rude to the other attendees at these conventions, even when they are invited and feted guests. Thats the other thing. It isn't a case of friendly mutualism, it's clearly a "how can we take advantage of this situation for the greater collective" kind of thing.

I really did feel that way at the Play Collective booth at GenCon.  Luckily Paka came by and saved me from Josh Newman (who was really annoying me when I said I wasn't interested in his game).  I don't need to be hard sold, and I've been in sales enough to recognize it.

In general, I like the way the Indie Press Revolution booth and Play Collective booth sell their games: through demos.  But I really don't like people pushing me to try a damn demo when I know exactly what the game is about and have most likely read AP threads on it.  I may be the exception, and a nobody, but man, Josh Newman pissed me off when I told him that not having a GM in the game made me uncomfortable.  Actually, I said the lack of GM was "outside my comfort zone" and instead of respecting that, he kinda scoffed at me and kept trying to sell.  That was really irritating.

I appreciate the enthusiasm of people who produce those kinds of games, and generally share it to a large degree...but thank god for Paka swooping in before I was completely soured on the whole experience.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw................
And they're often downright rude to the other attendees at these conventions, even when they are invited and feted guests. Thats the other thing. It isn't a case of friendly mutualism, it's clearly a "how can we take advantage of this situation for the greater collective" kind of thing.

Damn, Abyssal - phrasing it that way makes them sound like pretentious members of a hippie commune from the early '70s or communists from the early '50s that are hoping to recruit into their ranks.


- Ed C.

Quote from: James J SkachDumbfuck - if you'd look you'd see that a large portion of the tail end of this thread is Pundit trying to get Tony to answer a question about who started the "war."  This is me telling him to stop trying - using you as an example of the kind of fucked-up logic one can encounter.

This is really the heart of where I have a problem with you.  You keep trying to slot me into some position in your fantasy war.  Now if you were just using my post as an example to say "look, daddy-Pundit, this poster's logic is convoluted in a similar way to the invading enemy.  It is not worth it to answer." I guess that would make some weird, indirect sense.

But you are slotting me into some slot that I don't even fit in and saying, "see here's one of THEM and look at how convoluted his logic is."  Because I grew tired of 3.5 and don't like the D20 system, I am suddenly the enemy.  Since you and your crew are the dominant voice on this site, it basically comes off as being extremely unwelcoming to us normal gamers (which I very much consider myself).  It's not enough to be normal to be accepted here, but you have to hate a big swath of other gamers and actively work against them, at least rhetorically.  If you show any support of them or any critique of D&D, suddenly you are swine.  That shit is lame and depressing for someone like me looking for a place to talk about gaming and the industry without getting censored or drowned in too much incestuous self-loving.

So you and your little warrior cronies can keep on fighting your bizarre war and ripping apart anybody who doesn't tow the line. But please don't deceive yourselves into thinking your normal, average, traditional gamers.  You're not.  You're ideologues fighting an enemy that barely exists and is still beating you in sales and marketing strategies.

Quote from: KoltarDamn, Abyssal - phrasing it that way makes them sound like pretentious members of a hippie commune from the early '70s or communists from the early '50s that are hoping to recruit into their ranks.

- Ed C.

On the outside, it does look like that.  It's a community devoted to great amounts of enthusiasm, which is great, but sometimes it's off-putting for more staid folks.

I suggest you start some threads in the roleplaying forum on games you want to talk about then walkerp. Couched in neutral tones, you shouldn't have any problems.

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, this is what happens when you don't actually pay attention to what happens in a place, or try to insult someone without knowing anything about them.  

I've been paying attention to all your little internecine squabbles, but you are all part of the same ideological team, so I don't really pay much attention to the substance of those discussions.  That's just squabbling over the feed bowl, but you all bark together when the mailman rings the doorbell.

If you were really on Pundit's team, you would probably mellow out a bit and try to encourage people to come here and post and gently and diplomatically try to convert them over to your way of thinking.  It's effective and creates fewer enemies.  From what I undersand, Pundit's other main agenda is to build this site as a place for normal gamers (though the excesses of his own paranoia and ideology are in direct conflict with that).  At least give people a chance to find out if they are who they say they are (which I think most people who have come here do).

QuoteSince you and your crew are the dominant voice on this site, it basically comes off as being extremely unwelcoming to us normal gamers

"Normal gamers"?  You mean like the 75% or so of gamers that play D&D and like it just fine?  

QuoteYou're ideologues fighting an enemy that barely exists and is still beating you in sales and marketing strategies.

That's funny, I wasn't aware of any game that was presently outselling D&D even on a really good sales day, or even remotely in it's league.

Dude, pundit compared Ron Edwards to a serial killer and Hitler, diplomacy doesn't live here anymore.

Quote from: walkerpI've been paying attention to all your little internecine squabbles, but you are all part of the same ideological team, so I don't really pay much attention to the substance of those discussions.  That's just squabbling over the feed bowl, but you all bark together when the mailman rings the doorbell.

If you were really on Pundit's team, you would probably mellow out a bit and try to encourage people to come here and post and gently and diplomatically try to convert them over to your way of thinking.  It's effective and creates fewer enemies.  From what I undersand, Pundit's other main agenda is to build this site as a place for normal gamers (though the excesses of his own paranoia and ideology are in direct conflict with that).  At least give people a chance to find out if they are who they say they are (which I think most people who have come here do).

Just because I don't like Pundit, doesn't mean I have to like some elitist dickhole who trashes on my favorite game.  In fact, part of the reason I don't like Pundit is that he is also an elitist dickhole who trashes on my favorite game.  

You two have a lot in common.

Quote from: chucklesDude, pundit compared Ron Edwards to a serial killer and Hitler, diplomacy doesn't live here anymore.

Wow, Pundit said something outrageous!  :rolleyes:

That's about as exciting as Ron Edwards saying something outrageous.

Quote from: One Horse TownI suggest you start some threads in the roleplaying forum on games you want to talk about then walkerp. Couched in neutral tones, you shouldn't have any problems.

Thanks for the advice, but I have to admit I'm wary.  I'm quite hot on Aces & Eights right now, but I honestly can't predict what unwritten rule I am going to break by bringing that game up since I've seen nobody else mention it here.

And when I did try to throw an actual game design idea out there, hoping for some feedback and input, I got dead silence.  So I wasn't torn apart for not adhering to some ideology, but it didn't really give me the sense that the loudest voices wanted to talk about actual games.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6436

Maybe it was a stupid idea but I thought the kind of gamers that were here would have a lot to say about the PA genre.

And to be honest, I don't even know what constitutes "neutral" here, the language police are so subtle and severe.  And I have opinions about things and don't think I should have to censor myself, especially not in a site which is supposed to encourage free speech.

But I'll give it a try.  Your voice has been one of the reasonable and interesting ones that give me hope.  Really, it was Zachary the First's GenCon thread that brought me back.

Quote from: J Arcane"Normal gamers"?  You mean like the 75% or so of gamers that play D&D and like it just fine?  

That's funny, I wasn't aware of any game that was presently outselling D&D even on a really good sales day, or even remotely in it's league.

Oh right, D&D.  So why are you here again?  I've heard there are some fairly large sites out there for D&D fans.  Are they also fighting the same ideological war?  They must be crushing the competition over there considering their advantages in numbers.  I guess you are like an advance warrior on the very front, or invading small pockets of swinishness and rooting it out.  Cool.  Keep up the good fight.

One quick question before the shooting starts up again.  Are we allowed to not like D&D and not be a swine or not liking D&D automatically make you a swine?

Quote from: walkerpOne quick question before the shooting starts up again.  Are we allowed to not like D&D and not be a swine or not liking D&D automatically make you a swine?

Who cares?  You just have to have thick skin and a quick Ignore list finger to work well here, pardner.  Where's that Aces and Eights thread?  I wanna piss an moan about the setting!

Also, I don't like D&D, and swine just means people the Pundit doesn't like.

QuoteAnd to be honest, I don't even know what constitutes "neutral" here, the language police are so subtle and severe. And I have opinions about things and don't think I should have to censor myself, especially not in a site which is supposed to encourage free speech.

"Oh boo hoo, the mean old posters won't let me spout off bullshit and get away with it!  They're soooo mean!"

Go back to RPGnet, you spineless fucking crybaby.

Quote from: J Arcane"Oh boo hoo, the mean old posters won't let me spout off bullshit and get away with it!  They're soooo mean!"

Go back to RPGnet, you spineless fucking crybaby.

Damn, I was honest and tried to offer some constructive criticism for the site.  My bad.  Back to attack mode.

One of the main reasons I hate D&D (and the victims and poorly-informed fools who play it) is because it manipulates Actor Stance in a way that is a misinformed reading of The Big Model.  This, of course, leads to brain damage.  We need to find ways to convert D&D players using their own tools against them: their reflexive gamism lack of narrative self-discipline.  Let's try this out at the next convention!

How is that?  Does that fit your expectations better?

Quote from: walkerpDamn, I was honest and tried to offer some constructive criticism for the site.  My bad.  Back to attack mode.

One of the main reasons I hate D&D (and the victims and poorly-informed fools who play it) is because it manipulates Actor Stance in a way that is a misinformed reading of The Big Model.  This, of course, leads to brain damage.  We need to find ways to convert D&D players using their own tools against them: their reflexive gamism lack of narrative self-discipline.  Let's try this out at the next convention!

How is that?  Does that fit your expectations better?

My advice: Do as I and several others are now actively doing- ignore these threads and start or post in an actual RPG thread. There is no point in engaging in argument with people who think everyone who disagrees with them is an evil moron.

Quote from: joewolzWho cares?  You just have to have thick skin and a quick Ignore list finger to work well here, pardner.  Where's that Aces and Eights thread?  I wanna piss an moan about the setting!

Also, I don't like D&D, and swine just means people the Pundit doesn't like.

Which is why I don't use the word "swine" unless I'm referring to my favoritest of meats.

Quote from: walkerpAnd to be honest, I don't even know what constitutes "neutral" here, the language police are so subtle and severe.  And I have opinions about things and don't think I should have to censor myself, especially not in a site which is supposed to encourage free speech.

But I'll give it a try.  Your voice has been one of the reasonable and interesting ones that give me hope.  Really, it was Zachary the First's GenCon thread that brought me back.

Neutral is easy. Talk about the game you want to talk about, not other games that you don't like or have a problem with.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI disagree with you, though, because I think there is money involved here, even if the individual marketeer isn't the one who benefits or profits directly; this is the nature of the collective.

The point is that in the thread I was quoted in, I was not telling people how to market anything except in the broadest sense of 'marketing' meaning 'persuasion'.  If I have a game I want to run at a con, whether it's D&D or RPGPundit's small press classic Women: The Filthy Whoring (now with new playtest supplements "Bitches and Cunts"), there is no better way to get people to come play than to find a place where people are talking about playing at the con and say "hey, I'm running this game, here's what you might like about it".  

I honestly don't care if every indie game, and D&D too, dies in the gutter. I'm a consumer, not a producer, and my identity is not bound up in my ability to pay fifty bucks for a game supplement. Any meat tube with a credit card can do that. As a result, I do not and cannot "market" things in any meaningful way. How can I be expecting a quid pro quo when I don't even have anything to sell, and no plans to make anything to sell?

So I deny categorically being part of any "collective" because I find many of the discussions at story-games helpful and enlightening and believe they improve my gaming. I don't have anything to sell and I'm not trolling for anything to buy.

QuoteUnfortunately, the forgies have got so fucking many smug, self-inflated dicks, and nearly every effort is on promoting the collective and not the games, that you guys are pretty much guaranteed trouble--especially after every public appearance.

"You guys"?

QuoteBy the way.. welcome to theRPGSite!

Thank you - as I mentioned, I was here all along. I will likely go back to lurking and watch you kids go marching along the same as you've marched along since the letters column in Dragon complained about house rules all day long. There is always a blubbering whinefest - whoops, I mean "war" - on.  Always.  

Every couple of months since 1978, some gaming figure has popped up to scream at gamers that they're stupid and ugly. Gygax did it, Rein-Hagen did it, Edwards did it, Wick did it, Costyikan did it, blah blah blah.  Lower the bar to include Internet flames and probably it has happened every hour since the advent of Usenet.  Eventually you just learn to :rolleyes: and move on.  No, let me correct that. Eventually I just learned to :rolleyes: and move on.

But...but... gamers are all stupid and ugly, and mostly old, too- old, wrinkly and limp.

Quote from: AosBut...but... gamers are all stupid and ugly, and mostly old, too- old, wrinkly and limp.

No - that's just me...

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNo - that's just me...

-clash

:D

Quote from: chucklesDude, pundit compared Ron Edwards to a serial killer and Hitler, diplomacy doesn't live here anymore.

See, I knew you guys would grasp at that. It's a desperation move, though.  Thanks for your participation in the Forgie war, though!

Quote from: JDCorleyThe point is that in the thread I was quoted in, I was not telling people how to market anything except in the broadest sense of 'marketing' meaning 'persuasion'.  If I have a game I want to run at a con, whether it's D&D or RPGPundit's small press classic Women: The Filthy Whoring (now with new playtest supplements "Bitches and Cunts"),

Thats the thing. RPGPundit writes games about guys exploring dungeons. You must be thinking of one of Ron's Sorcerer supplements, or possibly that Poison'd ritualized rape thing thats all the rage right now.  

Now.. which one actually does more damage? Which one takes brutality and makes it into entertainment?

See how easy it is? We actually don't try to wrap politics up in gaming!  

QuoteI do not and cannot "market" things in any meaningful way. How can I be expecting a quid pro quo when I don't even have anything to sell, and no plans to make anything to sell?

So I deny categorically being part of any "collective" because I find many of the discussions at story-games helpful and enlightening and believe they improve my gaming. I don't have anything to sell and I'm not trolling for anything to buy.

Ah, but you personally aren't actually part of the problem.

QuoteThank you - as I mentioned, I was here all along. I will likely go back to lurking and watch you kids go marching along the same as you've marched along since the letters column in Dragon complained about house rules all day long. There is always a blubbering whinefest - whoops, I mean "war" - on.  Always.

Strangely enough, that's what heartens me. I know we'll be here long after you guys have moved on. Likely there will be a whole new fresh batch of mediocre boutique designers trying to save us all by then. And next year the issue might be.. I dunno. microbial rights. Or vegetarianism, or maybe they'll eventually get around to embracing the furry's and there will be that game that legitimizes bestiality or something.

I never know whats going to come next, but it's always stupid.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSee, I knew you guys would grasp at that. It's a desperation move, though.  Thanks for your participation in the Forgie war, though!

I didn't even think of that, replace diplomacy with tact (you have a fairly one track mind).  Especially since his great-grandparents died in Auschwitz.

+5 vorpal Godwin.

I just keep wondering if some of you guys actually have hair on your nuts yet.

Quote from: walkerpThanks for the advice, but I have to admit I'm wary.  I'm quite hot on Aces & Eights right now, but I honestly can't predict what unwritten rule I am going to break by bringing that game up since I've seen nobody else mention it here.

Don't be a pussy. You're talking on the internet, it's less like a regular conversation and more like a crowd at a football match. There'll be little atches of intelligent conversation, but there'll also be a lot of bruising from pushing through the crowd to the hot dog stand.

Just go ahead and discuss whatever you want to discuss.

Quote from: walkerpAnd when I did try to throw an actual game design idea out there, hoping for some feedback and input, I got dead silence.

Yeah, this ain't the best place for game design chat. Talking about current games and your ideas about and experiences of them gets you a long way.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThats the thing. RPGPundit writes games about guys exploring dungeons. You must be thinking of one of Ron's Sorcerer supplements, or possibly that Poison'd ritualized rape thing thats all the rage right now.  

That pair of sentences is perhaps the perfect storm of idiocy, ignorance, inadequacy, error, brownnosing and obliviousness.  I'm going to notify the Internet that it can now be closed.

QuoteStrangely enough, that's what heartens me. I know we'll be here long after you guys have moved on.

"You guys"?? Again?

Try to remember what you post two lines earlier. Namely:

QuoteAh, but you personally aren't actually part of the problem.

Ask your mom to write it down on a sticky note and attach it to your computer if your primitive brainstem can't store it. It will save time and embarassment.  

QuoteLikely there will be a whole new fresh batch of mediocre boutique designers trying to save us all by then.

No no, no. This is C minus passive-aggressive point-missing at the best. Hardly up to the standards you set earlier. You can do better than to call Gygax a "mediocre boutique designer" and hope that nobody will notice.  Remember, we can all page back and look at what was posted previously, even if you can't work out how to click the little thingy next to the keyboard.

Now that I have done my part to raise the quality of posting here, I am back to lurking. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. If I did, the entertainment value of the site would decrease, much like the Forge would if they stopped believing in GNS. Fortunately the chances of either event happening seem to be about the same.

JD, I only seem to be addressing you in my posts here. When I talk about mediocre boutique designers, those guys are all reading my posts and they know exactly who they are. So most of your stuff is kinda going over my head and around me.

Meanwhile, I am holding the attention of the people who need to read this.

I do appreciate you showing up though.  Good stuff! I also hope you guys (yeah, I did it again!) will rethink trying to use our community here for stealth promotion. There's a right and a wrong way to go about such things, and it really is possible to promote your designs or whatever without being a complete and total tool.  

Eventually some of you will figure that out.

Quote from: walkerpThis is really the heart of where I have a problem with you.  You keep trying to slot me into some position in your fantasy war.

I've not slotted you anywhere - except as a pretentious little git.  Now that may put you in the company of some fine luminaries in the Indie movement, but it's not in any way meant to make you part of any discussion about GNS/TBM and the piece of shit that it is.  If you'd like to have that discussion, feel free; I won't stop you.  I might have a difference of opinion, but that's not stopping you from saying what you want.  Here's the catch, you have to have some kind of proof or logical argument.  Since you don't seem to be able to do that (except by saying "your argument is shit), I won't be holding mt breath.

Quote from: walkerpNow if you were just using my post as an example to say "look, daddy-Pundit, this poster's logic is convoluted in a similar way to the invading enemy.  It is not worth it to answer." I guess that would make some weird, indirect sense.

Ding ding ding!  But I wouldn't go so far as to say your logic is convoluted - first you'd need to use some logic.  But dare to dream - aspire to convoluted, at least it's a start.

Quote from: walkerpBut you are slotting me into some slot that I don't even fit in and saying, "see here's one of THEM and look at how convoluted his logic is."  Because I grew tired of 3.5 and don't like the D20 system, I am suddenly the enemy.

No.  You became an "enemy" when you said d20 players were narrow minded. You attempted to later qualify that by saying it was the players in your group/area.  But then you got on some other pretentious bullshit.  And then you used that "you swore at me first" crap (which you used in that original thread but never stayed around to answer the response, and then dragged it out again here - apparently never realising you swore first).  As for "the enemy," I don't think I've ever called them that.  I have called them many other things. But enemy?

Quote from: walkerpSince you and your crew are the dominant voice on this site, it basically comes off as being extremely unwelcoming to us normal gamers (which I very much consider myself).

Neat! I have a crew? They prefer "posse." They (and I) tend to be unwelcoming to people who come in spouting unsubstantiated shit and then claim every one is being big meanie weenies! In this place, that's like blood to sharks, man.

Quote from: walkerpIt's not enough to be normal to be accepted here, but you have to hate a big swath of other gamers and actively work against them, at least rhetorically.

You don't have to hate anyone.  Just don't be a pretentious twit.  That's a good place to start.

Quote from: walkerpIf you show any support of them or any critique of D&D, suddenly you are swine.  That shit is lame and depressing for someone like me looking for a place to talk about gaming and the industry without getting censored or drowned in too much incestuous self-loving.

You can critique D&D all you like.  I have problems with it. Go look at how worried I am about 4th edition - much to the scorn and amusement of some on this site. Nobody is censoring you, unless that includes challenging you to prove what you claim. And man, if you are willing to go to either Story Games or The Forge - then come back and call this place incestuous self loving.

Quote from: walkerpSo you and your little warrior cronies can keep on fighting your bizarre war and ripping apart anybody who doesn't tow the line.

Again with the cronies?  I'd bet more than half the people on this site either can't stand me or dont know me.  The rest are probably indifferent. And they only tend to rip apart people who spout shit - it's not about a line to tow. If you can't take the heat...

Quote from: walkerpBut please don't deceive yourselves into thinking your normal, average, traditional gamers.  You're not.  You're ideologues fighting an enemy that barely exists and is still beating you in sales and marketing strategies.

Yeah, you got me there.  DitV has totally pwned me...by...like...3000 copies.  Then again, I've never written a game, so my total sales are zero. I'm just a gamer.  I played D&D last weekend, Roma Imperious at the last ENWorld game day, own the original Amber, but never got a chance to play, ditto with GURPS and would love to try either if I could find a group who'd give me a chance. I'd play just about anything Clash or Hinterwelt put together, just for the chance to try something interesting (but you know us D&D/d20 players - close minded and all). Is that normal enough for you?

The fact that I also think GNS/TBM is a piece of crap for it's over-reaching attempt that's nothing more than a marketing tool does not take away from any of that.

Quote from: James J SkachI played D&D last weekend, Roma Imperious at the last ENWorld game day, own the original Amber, but never got a chance to play, ditto with GURPS and would love to try either if I could find a group who'd give me a chance.

Frustrating, that.  Too bad GURPS and Amber are such inferior products that they were never able to garner the market share that the significantly superior D&D 3.5 earned through sheer excellence and quality.  Ah well, that's the nature of the free market.  Good luck with that!

Quote from: walkerpFrustrating, that.  Too bad GURPS and Amber are such inferior products that they were never able to garner the market share that the significantly superior D&D 3.5 earned through sheer excellence and quality.  Ah well, that's the nature of the free market.  Good luck with that!

w
Well, if it's any consolation, I tend to think of Gurps as a lot less mass-appealing because of the detailed points budgeting and no set genre, so it was already at a disadvantage there- you can't just pull Gurps off the shelf and "run it", you have to have a setting and planned out stuff, and Amber just has a much more narrow interest base. I'm not even sure the amber books have been in print for a while.. although maybe.

I think D&D3.5 definitely did earn it's place through sheer excellence and quality.

Quote from: walkerpFrustrating, that.  Too bad GURPS and Amber are such inferior products that they were never able to garner the market share that the significantly superior D&D 3.5 earned through sheer excellence and quality.  Ah well, that's the nature of the free market.  Good luck with that!

If lower market share indicates an "inferior product", then what does that say about the indie games compared to GURPS and Amber?

Not that I think sales are a measure of quality. That's your view, not mine. But if it were true, then Dogs in the Vineyard is crap compared to GURPS and Amber.

And d4-d4 is crapper still. :deflated:

Quote from: walkerpFrustrating, that.  Too bad GURPS and Amber are such inferior products that they were never able to garner the market share that the significantly superior D&D 3.5 earned through sheer excellence and quality.  Ah well, that's the nature of the free market.  Good luck with that!

Yeah, well, the difference is I don't hold such a grudge about it that I have to go out to the intrawebs and complain about other gamers calling them things like "narrow-minded" or "close-minded.  I just assume they have different tastes.  Hell, there's a whole sub-forum here on Amber (not to mention the GURPS lord that is Koltar) and I'm pretty sure at least one of the regular posters is in Illinois.  So it's as much about me being able to get the nerve to ask and the time to commit.  I don't blame others.

I accept the free market all of the time - not just when it fits my tastes and schedule.

But it's a nice try walker, really. You keep at it.  You'll get the hang of it.

Quote from: walkerpFrustrating, that.  Too bad GURPS and Amber are such inferior products that they were never able to garner the market share that the significantly superior D&D 3.5 earned through sheer excellence and quality.  Ah well, that's the nature of the free market.  Good luck with that!

Watch it!!

 ...as in the stickied thread up in the RolePlaying Section at the top of the forum. GURPS is in the top 5 or 6 often enough that I'd say they have a fair market share all things considered. I don't see Amber in there as often - tho I hear from many that it is also a good game.

 And for the record , D20/D&D is okay with me - its just not the game system that I'm comfortable with.


- Ed C.

Quote from: JamesVThis has now become the most hilariously retarded thread on gaming I've ever read. In this case I'm totally with McMurray, please continue, but do be sure to continue to ratchet up the rhetoric.
 
Here are some more issues and activities Forgers and Story Gamers could be considered in league with:
 
Incest
Cannibalism
Rape
Genocide
The Darfur Conflict
The Chinese Manufacturing Complex
Animal Torture
Juggling

JamesV wins the thread. I thought that the post of Koltar asking Tony about his friends was retarded, but this thread wins by a fair lot.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt certainly will, at least until Tony is willing to admit that Ron Edwards started it.
 
RPGPundit

Is that all that you need to stop spouting your stupid bullshit, and return to speaking about RPGs? If that's all that is needed to prevent you to keep on being such a moron, I'll say it:
 
Ron Edwards started it.
 
Happy now? Don't thank me.

I love all of you guys so much, and threads like this really remind me why.

:D

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229547I love all of you guys so much, and threads like this really remind me why.

:D

Yeah, not my finest hour, to be sure. :o

I think me and Ben are cool now, anyhow. A misunderstanding which spawned a monster.

I'm a sad little fucker who likes this place enough that if i think someone is here just to fuck with the place, i take exception.

Quote from: Imperator;133918Is that all that you need to stop spouting your stupid bullshit, and return to speaking about RPGs? If that's all that is needed to prevent you to keep on being such a moron, I'll say it:
 
Ron Edwards started it.
 
Happy now? Don't thank me.

This post is made of beautiful and impossible dreams.

Quote from: Aos;229584This post is made of beautiful and impossible dreams.

I know. But dreams are what make us keep going :D

@JDCorley:

Want to know who made your "innocent" story gamer stick impossible?

TonyLB & others of his likes. They already pulled that stunt over here and other places just too often. We even convicted him of his false and misleading behaviour. AFTER we had to endure hundreds of posts where he was sucking all our good will and tolerance from us.

So, you face a severe swim up the Waterfall.

You´re whining and moaning also match directly into the attention-whoring scheme, that´s been proven to be on-purpose interest generation for the pyramid scheme.

Right now the S(t)or(r)y Gamers are suchly incriminated, that basically it doesn´t matter what they do, it will be perceived as deceit.

Such are the evils of being part of a culture (even via guilt of association) that was built on deceit, shilling and intellectual dishonesty.

Madness you might say. But after TonyLB & Co, it´s the MOST reasonable thing to do.

This again? Yep, therpgsite is over the hill. It's started "reliving past glories" instead of doing something new and interesting. But at least it's funny to watch the decline. :D

Quote from: Settembrini;229646@JDCorley:

Want to know who made your "innocent" story gamer stick impossible?

No, but thanks for making it clear that it is a shtick, and impossible and everything I say and think is deceitful and destructive.

Come on Corley!

I put the blame on us, I built you a bridge. Walk over it.

No, you said it was due to "TonyLB and his like", you blamed others, not "yourselves", whoever you might be claiming to speak for. You also made it clear you think everything I say is a shtick, which is an act, a bit of fakery, theater, vaudeville, and that it is an impossible shtick, namely, fakery that cannot fool you, that you have seen through my acting, and know the truth of my very inmost thoughts.

Some fucking bridge.

Think one step further.

You´d only have to admit that "we" were reacting to crass misbehaviour on the parts of story gamers.

The bridge I built you is called "we overreacted".

Overreacted ?

Guess Sett has seen Kill Bill Vol 2.....

Regards,
David R

JD, the correct response is to set fire to Settembrini's bridge and make camp in the ashes. Then start a thread about In a Wicked Age.