Quote from: RPGPunditOh come on, didn't you just say you hated this kind of evasionist shit? You KNOW that there have been many-a-time on RPG.net (and elsewhere) when people have pointed to you as the "reasonable theory guy".

Reasonable Theory guy, all good.

Reasonable guy that stands for any existing group, I'm not interested in.

The only group I would ever have been straight-up pleased to be taken as the "stand-up guy" for was rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Every other group, not so much - many because I'm plainly not actually representative of the group.

So, if you like, consider me 'their' guy.  Except that, as a group, they no longer exist.

Quote from: WarthurEITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

What about just rolling the dice instead of saying yes or no?  That's pretty much what I do as a GM.  The real world is indifferent to wants and needs of people.  It doesn't default to saying "no" or "yes" when I want something.  Why should a game world be any different?

When I GM, if the players ask, "Is there a zoo in this city?", I'll either answer based on what I've already defined about the city (if the presence or absence of a zoo has already been determined) or I'll roll dice to see if there is a zoo or not.

I can't believe this conversation is actually taking place. But if there is indeed a war going on, and it has gone beyond the realm of calm discourse, I think we all know the means to settle it.



As you can see Abyssal Maw is already trying to "establish dominance" over AndyK, but I think Andy could just knee Maw in the junk, so this Dance Off! is anyone's call.

Let's settle this like gamers...


BOOM! Headshot!

Quote from: Andy K:rolleyes:

There's a world of difference between "Bergstrom is a shitty writer" and "Bergstrom is a cunt". Or do you really not know the difference?

I do know the difference, which is why your comment seemed off-base to me.  All the criticism of Rebecca Borgstrom I've read here has been of her abilities as a game designer.

Quote from: hgjsI do know the difference, which is why your comment seemed off-base to me.  All the criticism of Rebecca Borgstrom I've read here has been of her abilities as a game designer.

All these threads spilled out of a recycled rant posted under the same name. Besides, I'm yet to see any solid criticism of the design or the mechanics, or evidence that Pundit is even familiar with the rules of the game; instead, all we've had here is bickering about the prose style and GM advice in the book.

Quote from: GrimGentAll these threads spilled out of a recycled rant posted under the same name. Besides, I'm yet to see any solid criticism of the design or the mechanics, or evidence that Pundit is even familiar with the rules of the game; instead, all we've had here is bickering about the prose style and GM advice in the book.

Is there a reason you quoted my post, or did you mean to reply to someone else?

Quote from: hgjsIs there a reason you quoted my post, or did you mean to reply to someone else?

I suspect that Andy was thinking about that linked comment when he replied to you. In this particular thread, Pundit may not have been as virulent in badmouthing Borgstrom, but this same discussion is spread out over several forums and he hasn't shown similar restraint in the other threads.

So, I came across this:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe 'Indie Gaming Scene blog' pretty much marked the end of their era.

This was, I think, classic- all that time they spent to portray the pundit as a scary crazy stupid angry guy who could only speak in capital letters, and then he basicly pulls off the most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody I've seen in years.

And so I tracked down the "most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody" AM had seen in years...

And all I could think was, "Really? You thought this was brilliant and subtle?"

Because the "parody" seemed so wrong-headed on so many points that it clearly was written by somebody who simply hadn't played the games and hadn't even read the games (except, perhaps, as admitted, flipping through a few pages while standing around in a game store...)

This quote from "Cornell" in the comments section leaped out:

"I am an advocate of shared-power GMing, which means I believe that a GM who does not let his players arbitrarily change the settings and rules on a whim is deficient."

Subtle? No. Brilliant? Not really, since it's so off-the-mark for any games we could be discussing, I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be a paradoy of...

What we have is angry diatribe misrepresenting issues and games.

Hey! Is that a surprise from the Pundit. No way! If nothing else, the Pundit is always the same old Pundit!

The only really funny part:

the whole idea that if I enjoy, say, Sorcerer or HeroQuest I'm going to spend all my time looking down on people playing any other game I'm not interested in playing -- and this from the Pundit, who spends all his time actually insulting people who play games he doesn't like!

Can you say Projection? Yeesh!

I noted earlier on this thread he accused Tony of looking down on people who play games Tony doesn't play. Pundit's proof? He just knows. People like Tony -- who play those other games -- are just like that.

Of course the Pundit's not like that. He's only forced to behave that way because he's at war!

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikSo, I came across this:

And so I tracked down the "most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody" AM had seen in years...

And all I could think was, "Really? You thought this was brilliant and subtle?"

I guess Andy sent you over! Please promise not to write any more gaming novels about sado-masochistic Earthdawn characters, though. On the plus side, you came over pretty much directly as a representative and not to pretend to discuss gaming. Which is good.

Anyway, I think it may have actually been too subtle for you. You probably went straight for the obvious pokes and the "where are they talking about us" parts. The good stuff, however, is entirely fictional.

Here's some good parts:

"afterwards, he let me play his “thematic” game Cats In The Cradle, which is all about the choices we have to make regarding giving up pets if we have children..."

See? Totally subtle. It's not even a real game.

or here's a good one:

" if there’s a mental illness or repressed emotional issue that can’t be cured with Polaris, I haven’t heard about it yet! "

See? It has nothing to do with Polaris actually. Nada. I mean, I feel like if I have to explain the jokes they won't be funny anymore, but if you need me to go slow, I will. The funny parts are the gushy self endorsements, the hammy buzzwords, and the grandiose claims.

I also liked when he ended several of the reviews with the line "Possibly a great date game." Man!

The reason you guys are funny is not because you make games. There are plenty of people (even here) who are doing this game designer thing.

But.. usually just not in such a way that involves such hilarious self-pumpery.

I didn't see any "angry diatribes", either. Maybe we are looking at different things? But you mentioned Cornell so you must have read the same thing...

I actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

I think I'd have to be angry for it to count as a screed. Please take it in a casual way.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

The last post is about how the Indie Gaming Scene blog is funny by parodying pretentious game designers, and how Chris doesn't get it, which I think is a little true, but still pointless as it's just a joke.

Writ large, it's just more idiocy about how 'we're at war' when the enemy is only a tiny slice of the overall market and only really gets their points across in internet discussions that most gamers don't even get within a mile of. He's trying to let us know that he's our Cassandra, against the barbarian at the gate. And yes, there is only one if you try to make an analogy out of my previous statement.

Personally I wonder if he's trying to single-handedly destroy the nice signal to noise ratio we got going on here.

Quote from: JamesVThe last post is about how the Indie Gaming Scene blog is funny by parodying pretentious game designers, and how Chris doesn't get it, which I think is a little true, but still pointless as it's just a joke.

Writ large, it's just more idiocy about how 'we're at war' when the enemy is only a tiny slice of the overall market and only really gets their points across in internet discussions that most gamers don't even get within a mile of. He's trying to let us know that he's our Cassandra, against the barbarian at the gate. And yes, there is only one if you try to make an analogy out of my previous statement.

Personally I wonder if he's trying to single-handedly destroy the nice signal to noise ratio we got going on here.

Well, let's get this straight: I don't think there's a war with games, or a war with people, or a war between guys who play X versus guys who play Y.

But there is definitely a war (let's call it "a struggle") over the discourse. Or at least there has been, and it's mostly pretty much over.

FWIW, the person who coined the term 'Culture War' was not Pundit, or me, or Settembrini or anyone else: it was John Kim. Like, back in MAY.

http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26541.html
http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26836.html
http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26920.html

And I think John Kim probably describes it better. You will also note that in just a few months time things have changed. Now is different than then. I would say now is better than then. And this place is one of the reasons.

Now- do I think *I* am some kind of Cassandra? Or I am doing anything special at all? No. I'm only a sideline commentator. Seriously, I'm just "some random guy".

Actually, no one "sent me over..." I don't know what that even means. You say you're not really part of a war, and yet you use language that suggests partisans are being air dropped in.

I showed up following a link. I then realized someone had quoted a post of mine from another site at this site. I decided to check it out....

And found that RPGPundit holding forth on a wide range of issues on which he seems to have no actal experience and prattling on about matters of war.

I would say this is all about gaming. When he misrepresent rules, techniques and points of view all bearing on games, then it's about gaming. And he does. Relentlessly.

I'm amazed the man's defensive and childish rages have boiled over so fiercely in the last week. He's really only left with two camps now: those who say, "Dude, you're kind of wierd," and those who say, "I, too, am obsessed with what other think about me! Please we have to beat back those mean people who look down on us!"

I'm not "representing" anything except, perhaps, clear thinking. Or, rather, I'm an enemy of murky thinking.

I "get" the parody to the degree that Michael Savage can broadcast to his 8 million listeners that homosexuals have declared war on religion, and "make no mistake folks, they want to stop religion in this country." Sure, it's a statement, and sure, it plays into the anger of people who like being defensive and angry. But does Savage's statement have anything to do with homosexuals as a group? You, know... reality?

Of course not.

And in the same way, RPGPundits rants, where he kicks ass and takes no names. They are as removed from reality (actual games, actual content of people's thoughts and imagination) as Michael Savages idiocy.

As for the novels, some folks loved 'em, some folks hated 'em. That's life. A grown up knows that. Unfortunantly, there are some people (like Christian fundementalists, left-wing nutjobs, and RPGPundit's little crew) driven insane by the fact there are people who are different than them -- different tastes, different desires -- and drive themselves into frenzies figuring out how to wipe out the "enemy."

Whatever.

Is there a "clash" or a "conflict" or a "war" -- of course not. There are differences. They are just out there. The same way some people like to see a romantic comedy when they go to the movies, and others really want to see SAW III. Or David Lynch movies. Or whatever.

According to PunditThink, people who have different taste in movies should be railing at either, making it clear that what those "other" people like aren't "really" movies. Everyone Horror movies made is one less Romantic Comedy made, and that's a bad thing... and so on.

Which strikes me as absurd. But I can't really claim to understand the logic of those around here, so maybe they're nodding their heads going, "Exactly, yes...!"

If there's conflict it's not about games. There are plenty of people and plenty of games, and people are going to play what they want.

The conflict is about either being the kind of person who enjoys the fact that with seven billion human beings on the planet there's going to be a lot of variety about what is made and enjoyed, and people who are freaked out by that fact.

That's the conflict. And it's not even a war. Because people like me, who love the variety of life look at someone like RPGPundit and say, "Oh, look, another pretty little flower I never saw before." He's not my "enemy." He's just one more example of the strangeness of human life.