Quote from: chirine ba kal;836870Agreed!!!

As for the one-liner: I did, actually; I sent them a photo of the huge scar on the back of my head from the surgery I had to do something about the brain bleed I had in 2012. I have been, technically, dead since the night of September 15th of that year. (The photo is up on my blog, too.)

In no particular order:

Arnesonians believe that Dave Arneson invented role-playing, and that Gary Gygax stole it from him;
Gygaxians believe that Gary Gygax invented role-playing, and Dave Arneson stole it from him;
Barkerites believe that Prof. M. A. R. Barker invented role-playing, and that Arneson and Gygax stole it from him;
Weselyians (not the Methodist kind) believe that all of the above are full of it, and just get on with playing the game - named after Dave Wesely, a friend of mine and the creator of the 'Braunstein' style of game.

I am a Weselyian.

"I am already. I can prove it and it didn't stop me!"
Good job.

Wait. You mean they aren't disagreeing on a different playstyle, but arguing which of three people that worked together over 40 years ago has the most merit?
Where do I sign for being Weslian, too, in that case?

And to think you wanted to close your account.

I hope that you have reconsidered by now!

Quote from: AsenRG;836901"I am already. I can prove it and it didn't stop me!"
Good job.

Wait. You mean they aren't disagreeing on a different playstyle, but arguing which of three people that worked together over 40 years ago has the most merit?
Where do I sign for being Weslian, too, in that case?

Play games.

And yes, these people - the vast majority of whom didn't know any of The Big Three personally - are having knock-down, drag-out arguments over the relative merits of their particular saints. I've found that expressing opinions based on my time with any and all of them is a sure-fire way to cause trouble.

Dave Wesely, on the other hand, does not care and gets on with the game.

Quote from: soltakss;836964And to think you wanted to close your account.

I hope that you have reconsidered by now!

Yes, I did and I am am still unconvinced. The "Questioning Chirine ba Kal" thread seems to be running out of steam, sorry to say. My continuing perception is that I simply don;t fit into modern gamer culture, sorry.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;837029Play games.

And yes, these people - the vast majority of whom didn't know any of The Big Three personally - are having knock-down, drag-out arguments over the relative merits of their particular saints. I've found that expressing opinions based on my time with any and all of them is a sure-fire way to cause trouble.

Dave Wesely, on the other hand, does not care and gets on with the game.

Well, given that my last session was last night, I'd say I already count as Weselian:).

And I understand this is causing you no small amount of stress, but these people remind me of nothing so much as a bunch of martial arts fans discussing whether Bruce Lee or Morihei Ueshiba would win in a fight. I think it's a better plan to give them your accounts in an authoritative form, say with a book, but to only discuss stuff you personally finding fun;).

Quote from: AsenRG;837116Well, given that my last session was last night, I'd say I already count as Weselian:).

And I understand this is causing you no small amount of stress, but these people remind me of nothing so much as a bunch of martial arts fans discussing whether Bruce Lee or Morihei Ueshiba would win in a fight. I think it's a better plan to give them your accounts in an authoritative form, say with a book, but to only discuss stuff you personally finding fun;).

Agreed! I think you are!

Good advice, too, and that's why my book, "To Serve The Petal Throne", is now up to 108,000 words. (I expect to go to a total of 300,000.) I'm trying to give a sense of that time and place, and the people who inhabited it...

I think that you may be a gamer.
What may not be is an internet game forum discussion/argument dude.

I say that since I recognise the games you describe.
Not all modern rpgs are like the loose Braunstein games, but all of them become like them at moments of magic.

RPGPundit has a 'thing' about story games, but in truth his games are as likely to yield stories as the more hand wavy goosey loosey game systems he calls story games. Don't fret it, his bark is worse than his bite and I suspect you'd like his games if you were next door.

The Internet is a weird place, go and visit a 'photography' forum and see how much they argue about lenses, cameras etc.. and yet some people there aren't taking photos.

Here people will rant about rule systems or the odd occult arguements that have filtered over from US politics. Thing is, when they get round a real table (or online system) with real people, the magic is still there.. stories get told, adventures happen, people bond, sagas are weaved, the shy talk and the weak soar on the wind.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;837217Agreed! I think you are!

Good advice, too, and that's why my book, "To Serve The Petal Throne", is now up to 108,000 words. (I expect to go to a total of 300,000.) I'm trying to give a sense of that time and place, and the people who inhabited it...

I'm adding that to my forum title. "Blood-dripping dirty Weselian hippy" sounds even better:)!

Quote from: tzunder;837220I think that you may be a gamer.
What may not be is an internet game forum discussion/argument dude.

I say that since I recognise the games you describe.
Not all modern rpgs are like the loose Braunstein games, but all of them become like them at moments of magic.

RPGPundit has a 'thing' about story games, but in truth his games are as likely to yield stories as the more hand wavy goosey loosey game systems he calls story games. Don't fret it, his bark is worse than his bite and I suspect you'd like his games if you were next door.

The Internet is a weird place, go and visit a 'photography' forum and see how much they argue about lenses, cameras etc.. and yet some people there aren't taking photos.

Here people will rant about rule systems or the odd occult arguements that have filtered over from US politics. Thing is, when they get round a real table (or online system) with real people, the magic is still there.. stories get told, adventures happen, people bond, sagas are weaved, the shy talk and the weak soar on the wind.

That's about the best summary of Internet discussions I've seen this week;).
Thing is, sometimes you meet people in reality that you had met on an Internet forum. Most often, you find out that you really can have a nice time with those that seemed to think like you on a forum, but sometimes you manage to find common ground even with those that argued incessantly with you online.
Text-only communication is limited, alas.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;836870Arnesonians believe that Dave Arneson invented role-playing, and that Gary Gygax stole it from him;
Gygaxians believe that Gary Gygax invented role-playing, and Dave Arneson stole it from him;
Barkerites believe that Prof. M. A. R. Barker invented role-playing, and that Arneson and Gygax stole it from him;
Weselyians (not the Methodist kind) believe that all of the above are full of it, and just get on with playing the game - named after Dave Wesely, a friend of mine and the creator of the 'Braunstein' style of game.

I am a Weselyian.

I played in a campaign in which one of the players told me it was "an Arnesonian campaign". Apparenty that was essentially that he liked OD&D but didn't like AD&D. He mostly preferred the Greyhawk supplement to the Blackmoor supplement, and apparently had no actual information about what Dave Arneson thought, about D&D in 1980 or from any other source than the first three books, and consequently I thought he was full of it. So I guess I became a Weselyian back then, even though I had never heard of Dave Wesely.

Quote from: AsenRG;837344I'm adding that to my forum title. "Blood-dripping dirty Weselian hippy" sounds even better:)!


That's about the best summary of Internet discussions I've seen this week;).
Thing is, sometimes you meet people in reality that you had met on an Internet forum. Most often, you find out that you really can have a nice time with those that seemed to think like you on a forum, but sometimes you manage to find common ground even with those that argued incessantly with you online.
Text-only communication is limited, alas.

I like it! "blood-dripping" sounds about right; a lot of our games got a little messy...

I agree with your comment on the Internet, too - very, very accurate in y experience as well...

Quote from: rawma;837465I played in a campaign in which one of the players told me it was "an Arnesonian campaign". Apparenty that was essentially that he liked OD&D but didn't like AD&D. He mostly preferred the Greyhawk supplement to the Blackmoor supplement, and apparently had no actual information about what Dave Arneson thought, about D&D in 1980 or from any other source than the first three books, and consequently I thought he was full of it. So I guess I became a Weselyian back then, even though I had never heard of Dave Wesely.

Fascinating!!! I am really interested in this! There are three video clips that I think really show what their play style was like:

Dave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSWsdTdYGI

This is the short film, "Duel at Blood Creek"; Dave's style was usually fast, furious, and chaotic.

Gary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXET1kvEOAY

This is the animated short, "A Gentleman's Duel", by Blur Studio; Gary's style was more 'linear', with a pretty straightforward plot line / story arc, but all sorts of stuff happened along the way to keep you guessing.

Phil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-E5J6LNUBU&feature=related

This is a clip from the film "The Siege of Jotapata"; Phil was very 'linear', with well-developed story arcs. However, we had a very large degree of that I think is now called 'player character agency', in that we were quite free to try just about any sort of derring-do we wanted to...

Quote from: chirine ba kal;837616Fascinating!!! I am really interested in this! There are three video clips that I think really show what their play style was like:

Dave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSWsdTdYGI

Gary: http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXET1kvEOAY

Phil: http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-E5J6LNUBU&feature=related

The second and third links do not work for me

Don't feel the need to leave. Take a break if necessary. I know I've felt the 'out of sync with the community' feeling.

The challenge is adding the topics you want into the conversation. Many times they'll sink, but that's because controversy brings the most activity -- and rules bickering is some of the easiest controversy available. But waiting for others to shift the conversation to your interests is a very long waiting game.

I'm a setting fan. Been my big thing and one of the reasons I love TSR products (despite their controversy). Yet I know there is only so far I can go with certain audiences before our shared vocabulary falls apart. Some settings require more like minds than others.

Quote from: Moracai;837622The second and third links do not work for me

Thank you for the heads-up! I have redone the links, and I think they work now. I have also added a short little bit on what each clip is...

Thanks again!!!

Quote from: chirine ba kal;837616There are three video clips that I think really show what their play style was like:

Excellent stuff. I saw Gary once at a convention (around 2001, I think), but while I might have liked to ask "how did you and Arneson differ in style?" I wouldn't have known how to ask that and not wander into the minefield of various disputes.

I remember the "Arnesonian" thing just because it was so odd, especially at the time but even now. Over the years I've heard "Gygaxian" to mean almost anything and everything, good or bad, but only after that occasion, and I don't recall hearing the word "Arnesonian" again until now.

Quote from: Opaopajr;837683Don't feel the need to leave. Take a break if necessary.

I second all this advice.