I'm a bit sick of being told that I'm "dodging the question" on a wide variety of issues.  I've been asked some pretty heated questions, and I think that I generally answer in a straightforward way ... I just don't feel obligated to construct some huge pile of arguments to try to WIN a conversation.  My opinion is my opinion.  I'll give it, and then I'm pretty much done.  Some people don't seem satisfied by that, and that's rough, but it is what it is ... I can answer a question without trying to prove anything.

But hey, that's just what I think.  It's quite likely that I am biased in my own favor.  Maybe I really am dodging the question.  At post #123 of this thread, Pundit suggested a format that would bring in an objective referee to decide such a question.  Sounds good to me.

Here's the rules:

• People ask questions.  Anything that isn't a question will be ignored (at least by me ... I can't and wouldn't want to control what anyone else does).
• I answer questions.  I answer them in a straightforward, honest way.  I answer only for myself and my own opinions.
• If you ask for more than my own opinions ("Why is the sky blue?") then you get ... my opinions ("Personally, I think it's because of the molecular scatter pattern of nitrogen and oxygen ... but I'm also swayed by the argument that if it were green we wouldn't know where to stop mowing the grass").  I will not attempt to either prove my opinions, nor to present them as the eternal and objective truth.
• If a question really makes me think, it may take me a while to get to it.  I intend to get to everything, but it is quite possible that I will respond to some questions with "Give me a little while to figure out how to best express what I believe on this subject."  I hope folks will be patient with me, and see such delays for what they are ... a sign of respect for the questioner and their question, rather than any attempt to sweep anything under the carpet.
• JRients has agreed to keep an eye on this thread (as he feels like devoting the time, which will no doubt vary from day to day).  If I dodge a question, or answer it in a way that, to his judgment, seems dishonest or weaselly, he will note that (in whatever detail he feels like) and close the thread.  I totally support him in doing that for any reason he feels is right and proper, without explanation or justification.  He's the ref, I'll live by his decision.

And now I will happily redirect anyone who complains that I'm dodging a question right here.  If you really think I'm avoiding answering, ask me here and get that perception either confirmed or denied by an independent judge.  Have at it!

If you're so "tired" of being told you're dodging the question, the right way to solve it is not to start a new thread, its to actually answer the fucking question.

Was it Ron Edwards who first attacked regular gamers with his initial GNS essay, wherein he claimed that all gamers are secretly miserable and the cause of this are the RPGs they play, and if they appear to be happy its because they're either lying or deluding themselves; or did someone from the regular gaming community attack the Forge first? If so, please show who did and when.

Note that: dodging the question is anything other than either saying "Yes, he did start it", or saying No AND providing a concrete example of where the Forge was attacked first.

RPGPundit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It is a great trick if you are debating a high school kid who hasn't taken a basic debating class yet.

Also...Hitler.

Quote from: Pakahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It is a great trick if you are debating a high school kid who hasn't taken a basic debating class yet.

Also...Hitler.

Paka must be here for his Forgie war, since he's definitely not asking questions.

Quote from: RPGPunditWas it Ron Edwards who first attacked regular gamers with his initial GNS essay, wherein he claimed that all gamers are secretly miserable and the cause of this are the RPGs they play, and if they appear to be happy its because they're either lying or deluding themselves

Wow ... that's a lot of assumptions all bundled into one question.  The straightforward answer is "No, I don't think that's what happened."

To get into a bit more detail (which I think the question well merits):  I think that the description of unhappy gamers in the GNS essay is profoundly negative, and I would be stunned if people didn't take offense at it.  It is also aggressive in redefining people who play differently from Ron's preferred style as "wrong," and so I do see it as an attack (though such a diffused and generalized one that it's hard to know whether he had any special target in mind).

So I agree that "Ron's initial essay includes offensive, attacking material."  I sure wish he hadn't done that.

I disagree with your characterization of the details of what he said (the whole "because they're deluding themselves, etc., etc." stuff).  Frankly, I think his points are a bit more nuanced than your restating of them.  So I don't think that the attacks are exactly the ones you describe.  They're different offensive attacks.

And on the question of whether he attacked FIRST ... I don't think so.  There's really no question that there was offensiveness of all sorts flying around in RPG discussions before Ron ever arrived on the scene (as there probably will be long after he's forgotten) ... and I don't think that the people who argue that Ron attacked first are claiming that there wasn't.  The GNS essays were not our community's collective fall from a state of perfect grace.

Rather, I read people as saying that the current conflict can be looked at without looking any earlier that Ron's statements.  You can frame that as The Beginning, and not pay attention to anything that happened before it ... and that's a sensible story.

It's sort of like saying that the story of the American Revolution starts at the penning of the Declaration of Independence.  You can tell the story without referring to anything earlier ... and maybe it will hang together, and maybe it won't.

I can understand and respect people for whom that story rings true.  To me, personally, the story that starts at Ron's essay is lacking.  It blithely ignores the history of discussion and argument that I lived through, and which I still see as informing many discussions today.  It leaves me wondering both "Hey, where did Ron get all that material from?" and "Hey, why is this Ron guy so pissed off?  Is he just naturally malicious?"  Those questions make it hard for me to not want to look earlier than the supposed Beginning ... and then the whole story gets more complex.

Saying Ron attacked first gives him too much credit.  He hit back, in one (admittedly, memorable!) round of a slap-fight that has been going on in changing venues for decades.

Does this excuse him of anything he said or did?  It does not.  He said what he said, and it's pretty offensive stuff.  But there's a world of difference between excusing him (at one radical extreme) and blaming him for having cooked up the whole conflict all on his lonesome (at the other radical extreme).  I fall somewhere in the middle:  He contributed to misunderstanding and acrimony, but he wasn't the unmoved First Mover that started it all from nothingness.

Quote from: RPGPundit

• r did someone from the regular gaming community attack the Forge first?

I don't think the Forge, as an entity, was even noticeable enough to attack back then, so I'd be surprised to hear of anyone attacking "The Forge" before the GNS essay.  I think they attacked other communities and ideals that Ron also valued, though.  But that's just speculation, of course.  If you wanted any more detail on his thinking, you'd have to ask Ron himself.

Quote from: RPGPunditNote that: dodging the question is anything other than either saying "Yes, he did start it", or saying No AND providing a concrete example of where the Forge was attacked first.

Ah, well, see the fun thing here is that that issue isn't up to either you or me to decide.  It's up to jrients.  I'll be interested to see whether he thinks the exchange was dodging the question.

In the meantime ... next question!

How many books will this thread sell?

Quote from: SettembriniHow many books will this thread sell?

Blimey. I'm agreeing with the prussian. This is a sad day... How many more platforms are needed before people get wise? Pundit can shut up about this 'war', then hopefully all these shills won't get the attention they crave.

Quote from: SettembriniHow many books will this thread sell?

I don't know.  It's been a while since I really tracked how the numbers respond to my posting habits.  Now when I first started selling, I tracked the correlations long enough to convince myself that I wasn't actively hurting my sales by posting in places where people disagree with me.  That was pretty much all I wanted to know:  it gave me the freedom to go and post the way I'd want to, anyway, and know that it wasn't financially stupid to do so.

If I had to guess, I'd say that any sales surge from this particular thread is likely to be small-to-non-existent.  Folks already know me here, and they've made up their minds whether to check out my game or not.

I'd offer to track the numbers for a week or so and get back to you, but right now we're in the tail end of the post-GenCon surge, so I really can't give any reliable baseline of what I'd expect without this thread.

Quote from: One Horse TownHow many more platforms are needed before people get wise?

I think we're already at the point where people recognize that publishers posting on forums are aware of the way that can impact their sales.

I think it'll probably take, maybe, five or six more major threads where the subject comes up before people realize that it really doesn't matter ... there is not enough money in the RPG market to make anyone do something that they don't enjoy doing, so really all you're seeing is publishers reassuring themselves that the discussions they want to enjoy anyway aren't actively hurting them.

Quote from: One Horse Town........ How many more platforms are needed before people get wise? P................

...long time passing...

When will they learn?
 When will they ever learn?


- Ed C.

I think we have enough threads about all of this; therefore, I suggest that this thread be about space dungeons.
That's right: space dungeons.
what elements can you transport from traditional FRPGs into a site based SF adventure, and how do you justify them in said terms?
discuss:

Kevin Siembieda wrote a great Article about this in the RIFTS adventure guide.

Tony, Tony, Tony...

You don't give up, now do you?

All this time wasted on the internet trying to grab the old mike over and over and over again... wouldn't that be better spent, like, designing a game?

Or have you given up on the designer thing and decided to settle for the marketeer slot?

Can't blame you, creativity is HARD.

:singdance: Phony Tony, Phony Tony... :singdance:

Quote from: TonyLBAnd on the question of whether he attacked FIRST ... I don't think so.

Read this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

It has a topic ID of 24 on the Forge.

Note that this thread attempts to psychoanalzye those who choose a particular style of play.  Also note that this messages suggests that even after creating the GNS, Ron didn't really understand the "S" category he was defining and using.  

Frankly, I think if he had taken the time to read the old rec.games.frp.advocacy threads and understand the GDS (quite ironic, given how many in the Forge community started to all but demand people read the full body of their work to understand the GNS), things might have gone very differently.  The real meat of Forge theory (how to put characters into story-rich and theme-rich environments) could have been much more useful to everyone if it hadn't been hitched to an advocacy model and community.

Quote from: TonyLBThere's really no question that there was offensiveness of all sorts flying around in RPG discussions before Ron ever arrived on the scene (as there probably will be long after he's forgotten) ... and I don't think that the people who argue that Ron attacked first are claiming that there wasn't.  The GNS essays were not our community's collective fall from a state of perfect grace.

Oh, the problem was there before the GNS.  One could spot it on the earlier Gaming Outpost discussions.  And the article that I provided a link to, above, may predate some or all of the essays (the orginal "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" is also dated around 2001).  The essays are simply the easiest to point to examples, but the broader problem was an overall contempt for other styles of play and other opinions which could be seen all along, only fully erupting to surface, it seems, when Ron got tired of being tactful, as with the thread linked to above, or the infamous "brain damage" essay.  

I'm not sure that there was ever a general "state of grace", per se, but I think most people point to various open and obvious expressions of contempt (the GNS essays, the "brain dead" essay, Forge discussion threads) to prove it exists, because the standard operating procedure has been to deny that such contempt exists at all.  And for each person, that first time they encountered the contempt, it was an individual "fall from grace" of sorts.

Quote from: TonyLBRather, I read people as saying that the current conflict can be looked at without looking any earlier that Ron's statements.  You can frame that as The Beginning, and not pay attention to anything that happened before it ... and that's a sensible story.

Above, I posted a link to Ron's statements from 2001, topic 24 on The Forge.  Is that early enough for you?  If you have an archive of the GNS discussions on Gaming Outpost, we can sort through that, too.  I read some of those and remember seeing a certain amount of (more reserved) contempt there.

To be honest, I was willing to give Ron a pass on much of what I read on Gaming Output, despite the fact that they were mangling ideas that had originated on rec.games.frp.advocacy because it (A) it was at a level that I'd seen in other discussions and (B) they were a small community without much influence.  The thing that set me off, personally, wasn't any essay but the thread that I linked to earlier.  I didn't really bother with Ron or The Forge until that thread, even though I was aware of his theory back to the Gaming Outpost days.  Once large numbers of people started showing up on RPGnet using (and abusing) Forge theory, it became impossible for many people to ignore.

I should point out that the same thing happened on the Usenet years before.  So long as the GDS Threefold stayed on rec.games.frp.advocacy, most people just ignored the group and the discussions there.  When it started spilling out into the other role-playing groups, a lot of people could no longer ignore it.

Quote from: TonyLBIt's sort of like saying that the story of the American Revolution starts at the penning of the Declaration of Independence.  You can tell the story without referring to anything earlier ... and maybe it will hang together, and maybe it won't.

To go back before The Gaming Outpost, you'd need to look at rec.games.frp.advocacy.  The difference between rec.games.frp.advocacy and The Forge was that nobody owned rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Nobody could close a thread.  Nobody could ban a user.  Nobody was in charge of the official canon.  You could show up there and say anything you wanted and nobody could stop you.  Not so on The Forge.  Have you ever heard of Hunter Logan's draft FAQ for gaming theory on The Forge?

Quote from: TonyLBI can understand and respect people for whom that story rings true.  To me, personally, the story that starts at Ron's essay is lacking.  It blithely ignores the history of discussion and argument that I lived through, and which I still see as informing many discussions today.

Yes, there was plenty of discussion before those essays, however the material in those essays reveal a level of contempt that had been present for some time and has fully surfaced, like a volcano erupting, several times -- the thread I posted above and the infamous "brain damage" article being two big examples.

Out of curiosity, when did you first get involved?  Gaming Outpost days?  The early days of The Forge?

Quote from: TonyLBIt leaves me wondering both "Hey, where did Ron get all that material from?" and "Hey, why is this Ron guy so pissed off?  Is he just naturally malicious?"  Those questions make it hard for me to not want to look earlier than the supposed Beginning ... and then the whole story gets more complex.

I don't think it does, actually.

Quote from: TonyLBSaying Ron attacked first gives him too much credit.  He hit back, in one (admittedly, memorable!) round of a slap-fight that has been going on in changing venues for decades.

Was Ron really "hitting back", or are you begging the question here?  In what way do you think Ron was "hit"?

Quote from: TonyLBDoes this excuse him of anything he said or did?  It does not.  He said what he said, and it's pretty offensive stuff.  But there's a world of difference between excusing him (at one radical extreme) and blaming him for having cooked up the whole conflict all on his lonesome (at the other radical extreme).  I fall somewhere in the middle:  He contributed to misunderstanding and acrimony, but he wasn't the unmoved First Mover that started it all from nothingness.

The problem is not that he created the conflict.  The problem is that he's gathered an cult--uh--army that makes him more significant than a random crank with blog and a chip on his shoulder.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't think the Forge, as an entity, was even noticeable enough to attack back then, so I'd be surprised to hear of anyone attacking "The Forge" before the GNS essay.

There were attacks bofore the GNS essay.  There was a FAQ, of sorts, before those essays.  And threads before that.  Heck, I was one of the attackers.  Sift through early Forge GNS threads if you are interested.

Quote from: TonyLBI think they attacked other communities and ideals that Ron also valued, though.  But that's just speculation, of course.

You don't have to speculate if you were there like some of us here.  If you weren't, Google and the Wayback Machine can be your friends.  And Ron, to his credit, has left the comments he made like those I linked to above, in those threads without editing them.

Quote from: Aoswhat elements can you transport from traditional FRPGs into a site based SF adventure, and how do you justify them in said terms?

Space stations, and other enclosed spaces surrounded by hostile environments (magma-mines, solar research facilities, etc.) are absolute naturals for all of the wonderfully claustrophobic tropes of fantasy dungeons.  I love the constant image that space stations would be dark ... it runs so counter to what I'd imagine of logic (power and lighting is not usually the problem) that I can only imagine that it's something that people emotionally want.

And, of course, both alien and eugenicized creatures are naturals for creating an ecosystem in which humans have no good place ... a balance that reacts like an immune system to their very intrustion.  Random Encounters, anyone?

Space dungeons are coooool ....