Quote from: SettembriniSo what?
You are weaseling around. You are not standing up for the symbol.
The symbol says, Go, Play!
With a comma.

Here - what I posted last week Sett:

'You can take it as elitist, you can take it as an imperative, 'Go, Play' but personally I preferred the Go Play! celebration take on it. Different strokes.'

The symbol can say whatever the fuck I want it to.

Quote from: BalbinusPoison'd as described is as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean, but with a veneer of sixth form philosophy overlaid on it.  There's more to challenging art than putting some freaky shit in, genuinely challenging art plays with our perceptions and preconceptions, this does not.  If it is an artistic statement, I don't think it is a successful one.  The question for me is not is it art, but is it good art.  I don't think we get a happy answer to that question.

And profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.

I don't always agree with your views, but the good common sense in this one here makes me want to buy you a beer.

Quote from: Joshua FordThe symbol can say whatever the fuck I want it to.

I think Umberto Eco just had a heart attack.
Are you serious? Are you that dumb and ignorant?

In short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.

Quote from: SettembriniI think Umberto Eco just had a heart attack.
Are you serious? Are you that dumb and ignorant?

In short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.

I don't think so Sett. A number of people on here chose to divine one meaning of the symbol (That is was a slur on themselves). Why shouldn't I allowed to do the same?

Quote from: BalbinusAnd profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.

Every teenager making up sick, pathetic crap thinks they have the next Reservoir Dogs on their harddrive.

-E.

Quote from: jeff37923I don't always agree with your views, but the good common sense in this one here makes me want to buy you a beer.

Brian Gleichman and I have always disagreed on a great many things, sometimes quite strongly.

We still always get along, I respect his arguments and the logic of them, even though I disagree by and large with his premises (and he of course with mine).

That said, disagree with my views?  That's profoundly disturbing right there

Quote from: Joshua FordHere - what I posted last week Sett:

'You can take it as elitist, you can take it as an imperative, 'Go, Play' but personally I preferred the Go Play! celebration take on it. Different strokes.'

This is in fact technically correct, go play was explicitly designed to carry multiple meanings including precisely the one Joshua attributes to it.  It's not even him reinterpreting (though he may think he is, I don't know), it's one of the original intended interpretations.

It was intended to be imperative if you wanted it, celebratory if you wanted that, that was explicitly the intent.

I think it's silly, but that doesn't make his usage wrong (though it does make it right but silly...)

Quote from: Balbinus(though it does make it right but silly...)

Yup - it was a post on rpgnet that made me see it differently after people on there had argued the toss for ages. The cheerleading feel was a little American for my liking but it was the most apt. Playing games for fun was something I grew up with - if it's not fun I stop doing it.

And now it also reminds that you could pick 5 posters here from 99% of the population and they could all probably sit round a table for an evening's gaming and actually have fun in the process.

Poison'd is great! I had a chance to read it while I was in Seattle for PAX.

Cool/weird format, really well written and it looks sim-tastic! I do not remember reading about throat-fucking but I might have just missed that part.

And now I'm off to punch things!

- J

I fear that Mr. Gleichman was exactly right when he posted that he feared people would miss his point and the thread would degenerate into this nonsense. It is also sad to see everyone get so easily side-tracked. Come on people - stay focused.

This is a prime example, at least one of the most recognizable instances, of the failure of one of the founding aspects of GNS/TBM - "System Matters."

Well, I see the rebuttal that "System Matters, but it's not Only System Matter."  Well, that's an interesting approach.  If it's the case, then the principle is really something people have known for quite some time, not the revolution or nuggets of wisdom from The Forge. If you don't take it as Only System Matters, it's a trite restatement of something anyone who has every looked at a rule system and said "I think if I house-rule this in this way, I'll get closer to the feel of game play I think the group wants," has always known. So take your choice: either it's Only System Matters, in which case it produced this kind of play (and was intended to), or it's System Matters Too, in which case it's a trite piece of garbage.

So then I thought "Well, wait, they still created a Story - if a disgusting, juvenile, stupid one.  So focusing on the Narrativist Creative Agenda still produced a story."  But then I realized that's not a defense that can be used to defend the game.  This is because one of the things thats supposed to happen if you focus on the Narrative Creative Agenda is that you should come up with a good Story - it's the whole reason for GNS/TBM, isn't it? If you can still create a crappy story like the one described, how is it any different than a rule system that focuses on the Gamist Creative Agenda? so my conclusion is that this must be a rule system built on to focus on the Gamist Creative Agenda, not the Narrativist; or it's a crappy Narrativist focused game; or it's Incoherent; or the GNS/TBM doesn't really mean what they think it means.

What this shows, to the cynical side of me, is that it's all really a marketing tool (as I've said many times before).  It's no different than the "white papers" I used to read from companies trying to sell some kind of computer wizbang to my department. None of it was revolutionary, or groundbreaking, or even that accurate.  It was just written up to look that way so the sales guys had something to hand out and talk about with potential clients - sometimes converting clients to thinking what they bought was revolutionary or groundbreaking so they would talk up the product as well.  Sometimes they were good products, sometimes they weren't - but it never had anything to do with the "white paper," you could never rely on those, you had to do your own investigation and see if it worked for your particular application.

So, Forge guys if you're listening - ditch the theory.  Take the good you can salvage from it (whatever that may be), and dump the rest.  Then we can discuss the games and how the rules impact the play instead of the theory - you'll likely see less hostility and possibly even some welcoming arms.

I'm tired, I've got a headache, and I have hours to go before I get home.  So you probably won't hear from me tonight - meaning yelling at me, if you are so inclined, will be pointless for now....

Quote from: Joshua FordTemple's point was that the game itself wasn't the main issue here. Some people's characters committing distasteful acts and broadcasting it on the net doesn't automatically mean the game has no redeeming features. Otherwise we might as well condemn pretty much every rpg out there.

I thought his point was that we need to look beyond the Disneyfied version of pirates and not candy-coat what pirates really did (the original post seems to have been deleted). I'm questioning what in fuck the anecdote from the AP session has to do with history. If it doesn't have anything to do with history, then why bring Disney and history up in the first place?

Quote from: James J SkachI fear that Mr. Gleichman was exactly right when he posted that he feared people would miss his point and the thread would degenerate into this nonsense. It is also sad to see everyone get so easily side-tracked. Come on people - stay focused.

This is a prime example, at least one of the most recognizable instances, of the failure of one of the founding aspects of GNS/TBM - "System Matters."

Well, I see the rebuttal that "System Matters, but it's not Only System Matter."  Well, that's an interesting approach.  If it's the case, then the principle is really something people have known for quite some time, not the revolution or nuggets of wisdom from The Forge. If you don't take it as Only System Matters, it's a trite restatement of something anyone who has every looked at a rule system and said "I think if I house-rule this in this way, I'll get closer to the feel of game play I think the group wants," has always known. So take your choice: either it's Only System Matters, in which case it produced this kind of play (and was intended to), or it's System Matters Too, in which case it's a trite piece of garbage.

I think most theory people would argue that they never said system was *all* that matters; but it's still quite a failure.

1) SDM, as expressed in TBM/GNS doesn't mean what Vincent says it means. When *he's* getting TBM/GNS wrong, that's pretty amazing.

2) The idea that rewards systems matter -- a lot -- (enough to get Brain Damage billing) is pretty key. If, in fact, RPG theorists had discovered a set of reward systems that really did drive satisfying thematic play for most people that would be significant.

And that, pretty much, is the claim.

Of course people claimed acid opened the gates of heaven for them. The truth is the insights acid gives most people are banal at best, incoherent, usually, and ridiculous at worst (on the average: all three).

As that became apparent, the acid=enlightenment movement more or less died out. I think looking at the games -- the actual play -- that comes out of these indie games has much the same effect: at best, it provides exactly what traditional systems provide. At worst... it provides threads like this.

As you put it, Story Now isn't (supposedly) about just any old story. It's supposed to be a *good* story... and what is an example of a good story? A "Reservoir Dogs on the High Seas?"

Well, now we know.

Since  people (including me) have been throwing around story comparisons, I'll suggest yet another -- this time linked to the comparison of what RPG promises to what it (evidently) delivers: The Emperor's New Clothes.

Cheers,
-E.

You know it must be the fact that I've been running and playing GURPS for so long - but this whole bugaboo about a "rewards system" has never been a big deal for me or my friends that I game with.


 We just have a good time with a roleplaying game and sometimes an adventurous rousing story comes out of the mix.
 Closest thing GURPS has to the rewards deal is character points - but my players have never been obsessively worried about them. I rewards them , they gradually get better at things - but it was never their end-all and be-all of playing.

 If I was in a pick up game and that AP example started to happen - I think I'd get up and say I had better demos or games to check out at the con,...opr possibly even a dance.  Or find my friend Liz and get a decent shoulder massage.


- Ed C.

Quote from: BalbinusPoison'd as described is as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean, but with a veneer of sixth form philosophy overlaid on it.  There's more to challenging art than putting some freaky shit in, genuinely challenging art plays with our perceptions and preconceptions, this does not.  [..]

And profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.

I think that is very well put, especially after reading that lengthy account of all those torture pr0n movies. First thing I did when I logged on today was to post about the latest Geektogether. I was feeling all happy and optimistic about gamers, then I went and read that shit. It was a lot of crude shock.

And now I read this other shit from people who plainly don't have a game group. Honestly, those are the ones who come up with the most nonsense about gaming. It's like asking a lifetime single bloke who's only had one-night stands for love life advice.

Quote from: SettembriniIn short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.

In this sense, I think perhaps "System Matters", like most of GNS, is more symbol than actual theory. Perhaps as Skach says upthread, it's a marketing tool. But perhaps really it's a symbol. Perhaps The Big Model is to game designers what the white triangle on green is to gamers - it's a symbol of belonging. Notice that regular D&D or Vampire players don't have the Go Play avatar. It's just the regular "indie" game players.

There's probably overlap between the symbol part of it and the marketing part of it. After all, the "indie" game designers have an arrangement where they vote for each-other's games in awards, give them good reviews, promise to make extra noise during demo games to attract people's attention, and so on.

All that remains is for The Forge to adopt the Go Play symbol as their trademark. It can go in the corner of each book published by Indie Press Revolution. They can put a little "TM" next to it. Then the irony will be complete

Quote from: -E.1) SDM, as expressed in TBM/GNS doesn't mean what Vincent says it means. When *he's* getting TBM/GNS wrong, that's pretty amazing.

Wait, you'll have to spell this out for me. Maybe other people are saying "it's the people, not the game", but Vincent came right out and agreed that the game contributed to the play.

There are fallacies hovering on the sidelines, such as "the play that's encouraged by the game is deep/artistic/more historical than Johnny Depp"...and Vincent himself may have committed one or more of them...but those aren't directly connected to SDM.

Quote2) The idea that rewards systems matter -- a lot -- (enough to get Brain Damage billing) is pretty key. If, in fact, RPG theorists had discovered a set of reward systems that really did drive satisfying thematic play for most people that would be significant.

This is a stronger claim than pure "System Does Matter", though again it's an implicit and sometimes explicit part of Narrativist hype.

Basically I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that, depending on the kind of play-experience you're looking for, a given game can enhance or impede it, or even encourage behaviors in other players that clash with what you want. But the idea that you can actively reinforce "meaningful play" in a paint-by-numbers fashion is, well, dubious at best, and not only that, the idea of "empowering players" is only a good one until you find yourself playing with people whose empowerment messes up your enjoyment.

[EDIT: clarity]