I think that "Heartbreaker", when divorced from the rest of Forgism, is actually one of the only actually useful terms that Ron Edwards ever invented; that's because its one of the only ones that's actually based on a real phenomenon.

RPGPundit

Did you guys know that Ron Edwards played a big part in the bombing of the World Trade Center?

No, me neither.

Technically speaking, so far as Big Purple's rules go, it would be a group attack (gamers), not a personal attack (you).

Good :stirthepot:, though.

Quote from: SpikeNo need to elaborate, Dude is always the right answer. Then order a white russian and you're set.

I will do so next time. Thanks for the advice, sir.

Quote from: SpikeNo need to elaborate, Dude is always the right answer.  Then order a white russian and you're set.

My wife (She Who Must Be Obeyed) got me drinking White Russians this summer, and I've learned how to make a damn good one.

They sure do go down easy, too.

Quote from: Old GeezerThey sure do go down easy, too.

Wives?









:rimshot:

Quote from: J ArcaneThe theory is wrong.  Period.  It's fundamental principles were, in fact, founded intentionally in direct contradiction to basic logic and the facts of reality as it pertains to the real gaming world outside of Ron Edwards' head.  

It's looney batshit, the gaming equivalent to a Stormfront conspiracy rant, and deserves as much respect and toleration.  

So therefore, I can either conclude that you're an idiot, or I can conclude there are other psychological motives for your continued usage and fascination with such terminology and "theory".  The common secondary use for such rhetoric tends to be simply about stroking one's own ego by attempting to put on airs of intelligence by way of spouting fallacious jargon, so I charitably assumed that this was the case.

"The theory is insane, therefore any adherents [or partial adherents, apparently] must either be insane or possess ulterior motives beyond finding it usefulor true."

Boy, that leaves a whole lotta wiggle room, doesn't it? Glad your enlightened wisdom could save us all from the pesky nuanced kaleidoscope of human thought.

Too bad you couldn't save us from irony.:rolleyes:

Peace,
-Joel

I would love to see someone try the logic of the OP over on the Big Purple - just to see what happens.


They sure have had a lot of suspensions and bannings in the past week or 2 over there. Must be something going on in that section that I can no longer view.


- Ed C.

heh, odd that online pundits (as opposed to The Pundit) in general are inflamatory and exclusionary, not to mention in love with the sound of their own text (I should know).  Could it possibly be that inflamatory language draws more attention in a saturated medium?

Quote from: KoltarI would love to see someone try the logic of the OP over on the Big Purple - just to see what happens.


They sure have had a lot of suspensions and bannings in the past week or 2 over there. Must be something going on in that section that I can no longer view.


- Ed C.

just let it go, man

Quote from: Melinglor"The theory is insane, therefore any adherents [or partial adherents, apparently] must either be insane or possess ulterior motives beyond finding it usefulor true."

Boy, that leaves a whole lotta wiggle room, doesn't it? Glad your enlightened wisdom could save us all from the pesky nuanced kaleidoscope of human thought.

Too bad you couldn't save us from irony.:rolleyes:

Peace,
-Joel

Do you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?  

A theory that directly contradicts reality is no theory at all, just fantasy.

Quote from: J ArcaneDo you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?  

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quote from: J ArcaneDo you deny then, that Forge "theory" has as it's founding principle that the form of gaming enjoyed by millions of people around the world is, in fact, broken?

Yeah, I deny it. That's not a founding principle of the Theory. Besides being meaningless (there's no single "form of gaming enjoyed by millions" in the first place), it's a gross distortion of the stated purpose in formulating the theory ("to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity"), but even that's not a "founding principle." Newton's Laws of Motion are founding principles. "I'd like people to understand the way physical objects in the universe behave so they can manipulate their environment with greater precision and effectiveness" is not.

Besides which, the same essay you're undoubtedly referring to goes right on to say, "Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge." But y'know, whatever. I'm not exactly expecting to change anyone's mind at this point. I'll just be sitting in the corner, sipping on my nice steaming cup of irony.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote"Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge."

Uh huh, so this is why I've had to listen to how many miserable pretentious yobs yammer on about "incoherence", then?

I don't know what the fuck "Essay" you're talking about, but I'm talking about the core concept of TBM itself.

Huh. I didn't know you had to do anything.

I am of course referring to this essay, which is the first of Ron's infamous set of writings. It's what everyone points to as the "foundational document" or whatever.

The core concept of the Big Model is that roleplaying's fundamental act is Exploration (the establishment of fictionalevents through intra-group communication). It's embedded in the Social aspect of the activity (as mediated by stated or unstated Social Contract), and all the nuts and bolts like participant duties, game mechanics, dice rolling, etc. are further embedded in it. Creative Agenda is the purpose of play (along the creative axis, as opposed to say, the social or technical) which runs throughout the process and binds it together like the Force.

That's the Big Model. Agree or disagree, there it is. That's what Ron wrote. There's certainly a ton of fair criticisms that could be leveled against it. But what you're producing is just noise. And you apparently fail to appreciate that your statements here are a personal attack. Hence the irony.

Peace,
-Joel