TheRPGSite

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6995&page=13), 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...:p 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 ....

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou don't give up, now do you?

Not often, no.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAll 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?

I suppose.  So would the time "wasted" watching anime.  But I don't do really well at heads-down design 24/7.  I like a bit of recreation and entertainment to spice things up.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOr have you given up on the designer thing and decided to settle for the marketeer slot?

Oh, I'm still in design ... doing Misery Bubblegum, my game about sad, sad, sweet, sweet shojo-manga teens.  It's going pretty well ... had a lot of nice playtests and some breakthroughs at GenCon.

I'd do this in any Q&A at this point, because I have a gaming itch I want to scratch. (And I want to talk about the particulars of gaming.)

Pretend you're going to start running a D&D 3.5 game. You've got some friends together. How would you go about prepping and starting running a game?*

*By which I'm curious what kind of characters you allow people to generate, what kinds of books you use or, more importantly, why you use them, how you go about using NPCs and generally going about being a DM.

I'm willing to bet you go about it differently then I do, because we have some different takes on gaming, but this isn't a trap.

THe rules of this thread are prejudiced against real conversation.  I predict that even less will come of it than previous PR stunts and nonsense.

I mean, come on, seriously people, this thread is essentially built on a premise that is in direct odds with the principles and philosophy of this site.  

"You can ask me questions, but I refuse to actually offer real support for any of my assertions, and if you attempt to call me on it, I will ignore you"?  Isn't that everything we're supposed to be against here?

I move that this thread be closed now, as it's basic premise is already dodgy from post #1.

Quote from: John MorrowAbove, I posted a link to Ron's statements from 2001, topic 24 on The Forge.  Is that early enough for you?

I think there's still a pretty well known history of conflict before that date ... stuff like the "roleplay vs. roll-play" and the conflicts between White Wolf fanboys and those who considered themselves owners of "traditional" RPGs in that generation.  So, no ... not early enough for me to feel that it's when things Started.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever heard of Hunter Logan's draft FAQ for gaming theory on The Forge?

Well, I have now, but I hadn't before.  Is it interesting?  Do you have a link?

Quote from: John MorrowOut of curiosity, when did you first get involved?  Gaming Outpost days?  The early days of The Forge?

I did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

Quote from: John MorrowWas Ron really "hitting back", or are you begging the question here?

I think Ron was responding to things that occurred before his essays, and that they have a bearing on what has happened since.  As the question is about who first attacked, that seems relevant to me.

Quote from: John MorrowIn what way do you think Ron was "hit"?

I think folks said things, and Ron found them offensive.  Same as, y'know, Ron said things and other people found them offensive.

You seem to have a lot of strong opinions on this subject.  I'm sorry to only respond to your (few) questions, but ... well ... there you are.  Q&A thread.  If I missed any questions, please re-raise them.  It was a long post, and I might have gotten sloppy :(

Quote from: Thanatos02Pretend you're going to start running a D&D 3.5 game.

Don't have to pretend, as it turns out.  I plan to run at least some short-form sessions pretty soon, and I'm in prep-work.

'course, the idea that I'd want to run D&D in one-evening chunks may be the first point of division from your style.  Still, my logistics make short-form much more attractive than long, these days.

Quote from: Thanatos02You've got some friends together. How would you go about prepping and starting running a game?

Okay, first off:  My friends are sending mixed signals about this.  They say they don't want to take the time to learn any of the rules (which, having just done it myself ... not all that onerous) but they're all excited about building their characters, and I'm like ... "Dude!  How do you plan to do that without knowing any of the rules?"  But, whatever.  I'll thrash that out with them over email (and, quite possibly, have them roll up characters over email, with me guiding them through the process).

I'm inclined to go first-level, because it's the minimum new rules stuff for us all to take on board (less feats!), and I think it provides a really good frisson of life-and-death decisions.

Also, that means (if I understand my reading correctly) that as GM I won't have to think about Prestige Classes for a long, long time.  Maybe never.  Other than that?  I'm happy with any of the character types.  Dwarven druid?  Halfling barbarian?  If the rules say it's okay then most anything sounds good to me.  I've got a great group.  Together, we'll make things sing.

I figure there'll be a lot of group back and forth in char-gen.  I don't imagine we'll end up with four spell-casters and no fighters, for instance.  But yeah, if there's that level of rules-cluelessness then I'll step in to provide some guidance.

As for prepping the adventure ... I'm planning to dig in here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b) (as recommended in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7020)) and pull out a good 1st-gen module, up-rules it to 3.5, and go!  I'm a little disappointed that they don't have Keep on the Borderlands (which I remember as an intriguing and nicely episodic setup), but I'll just deal.

I'm planning to use the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual ... as well as the module.  I expect I could add in a lot more than that, but at first level (and with a rules-shy group) I don't see that it'll add much value.  The game presented in the core books looks solid to me (no surprise!) ... we're going to give it a whirl.

Quote from: J Arcane"You can ask me questions, but I refuse to actually offer real support for any of my assertions, and if you attempt to call me on it, I will ignore you"?  Isn't that everything we're supposed to be against here?

I don't know, man.  I'm not exactly clear on what we're supposed to be against and for ... probably other people can give you stronger opinions.

I gotta tell you, though ... I like discussions that don't develop into arguments.  I think they're pretty cool:  folks can say "Yeah, I believe this, but I don't insist that you believe it too."

Frankly, having a discussion without argument tends (to my mind) to have people saying what they believe, and then not feeling the need to support it and buttress it with, well, arguments.

But, like I said, I don't know whether we're "supposed to be against" that kind of discussion.  I really hope not.

Dude, the stated purpose of this site is to provide a place where free speech reigns above all.

What you have done with this asinine thread is created material proof of what folks like Maw have been screeching up and down for months now, that the Forge types like yourself can't stand up anywhere where there's no moderators and trumped-up "rules" to hide behind and keep you from being called on anything.

In a way, I suppose it's pretty comical.  You starting this thread at all proves their point quite avidly.

But as much as that amuses me on an almost spiritual level, that kind of shit still doesn't belong here, so why don't you bugger off back to the Forge or RPGnet, where that kind of thing is more the de rigeur.  

You've officially lost any glimmer of respect you may have had with this move, so really, there's no point in you being here anymore.

Quote from: TonyLBI did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

Hey, this actually raises something useful. Tony, did you ever post on rec.games.* Would you mind linking to any of your archived posts on Google Groups?

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, this actually raises something useful. Tony, did you ever post on rec.games.* Would you mind linking to any of your archived posts on Google Groups?

I certainly recall doing so (as well as some lively activity on alt.callahans) and I wouldn't mind at all digging up my younger, more idiotic self ... but I'm honestly having trouble dredging up a memory of what my username was back then.

That was (a) my college years, when I thought pseudonyms were immense fun and (b) a long time ago.  I might have been posting under "CaptainXS."

Yeah, I'm not ... y'know ... real proud of that name in retrospect :sweatdrop:

And ... I tried searching under it and found nothing.  Dang it!  Now you've gotten me really curious.  I might even browse around, trying to find some of the discussions I was in on.  Somebody who knows more about Google Groups UI, please PM me and tell me how to get back to the subject headers for ~1990, without having to use the "Older" button to manually page back through thousands of pages.

For reference, it looks like the first GNS FAQ post-dates (June 14 ,2001) the thread I posted a link to earlier.

Quote from: TonyLBI think there's still a pretty well known history of conflict before that date ... stuff like the "roleplay vs. roll-play" and the conflicts between White Wolf fanboys and those who considered themselves owners of "traditional" RPGs in that generation.  So, no ... not early enough for me to feel that it's when things Started.

Sure, but isn't almost all of that attacking from the same side that Ron is?  Where is the history of hostility from the traditional gamers or "roll-players" directed toward the story-oriented folks who don't like traditional games?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I have now, but I hadn't before.  Is it interesting?  Do you have a link?

Oh, it was an excellent FAQ, I think (I have read a copy).  Here is one of his messages about it:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=323.0

I'm sure you've never seen it because Ron never did post it, as far as I know.  I do recommend Hunter Logan's design column on RPGnet, though.  I think some of his better ideas made it into that column.

Quote from: TonyLBI did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

That's what I thought, but it sounds like you missed the early GNS days.

Quote from: TonyLBI think Ron was responding to things that occurred before his essays, and that they have a bearing on what has happened since.  As the question is about who first attacked, that seems relevant to me.

Was the problem that Ron was attacked for his play style or was the problem something else?  There is a group of people in this hobby who saw great promise in the structure of role-playing games but never liked the particulars of traditional role-playing games.  As a result, they felt trapped by the majority into a style that they felt ruined the game for them rather than having fun.  What the resent is the tyranny of a style of play that ruined their fun, and once they find what they were really looking for, they expect everyone else to share their path to enlightenment and fear that the majority will crush them again, the way it once did.

There was a similar theme on the Fudge mailing list among people who advocated the really freeform use of Fudge.  They resented people who wanted to add crunchy rules to Fudge because they feared, and even at times admitted it, that Fudge would become considered crunchy and that it would crush what they most liked about it.  Why?  Because they had been trapped in games far too crunchy for them for years and resented it.

So the attack doesn't necessarily start as the response from another attack.  It had to all start somewhere.  And that somewhere can be resentment of past experiences and fear of where things might go.

Quote from: TonyLBI think folks said things, and Ron found them offensive.  Same as, y'know, Ron said things and other people found them offensive.

So who said the first offensive thing and why?

In my experience, a lot of the insults spring out (and not just from the story-oriented folks) from likes and dislikes being expressed as universal truths and from from bad experiences with a particular type or types of gamers in the past.

 I don't think most people's negative opinions of game styles and such come from contact with the opinions critical of their style.  I think they come from bad experiences with other styles and from fears that something they love might be lost to a different style of play.

Quote from: TonyLBYou seem to have a lot of strong opinions on this subject.  I'm sorry to only respond to your (few) questions, but ... well ... there you are.  Q&A thread.  If I missed any questions, please re-raise them.  It was a long post, and I might have gotten sloppy :(

The truth is that I respect your opinions quite a bit because you've always been a straight-shooter as far as I'm concerned and patiently answered a lot of questions that I directed at you.  And I think you've done a fine job of answering me here.  I simply think you are barking up the wrong tree here. And I think you are missing a huge dynamic in the resentment that people have for certain styles of play and certain theories if you don't look at where many of those resentments really come from -- the bad experiences that gamers have had.  And that's one of the reasons game style advocacy always winds up like a straw man battle between an idealized perfect style of play and a style of play that does nothing right, because they are often being made by people who have only seen the other style of play done wrong.

Quote from: John MorrowSure, but isn't almost all of that attacking from the same side that Ron is?

I honestly don't even know what "side" Ron was supposed to be on at that time.  Maybe if you divide the sides up the right way then it comes out the way you're saying.  I don't know.  All I know is that I don't remember any clear bad-guys setting out to relentlessly attack the innocent.

My recollection is that everybody was pretty randomly attacking everybody else.  Some folks were attacking White Wolf gamers because they were too artsy, some attacking them because they weren't artsy enough, others attacking non-White-Wolf types for being inadequately something-or-other, or too much that-other-thing.  

But then, I'm not so great at distinguishing sides, as has been pointed out elsewhere.  It sure seemed important to the people at the time, though.  I imagine it may well have been important to me, though that's a long, long lens of past to look through.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere is the history of hostility from the traditional gamers or "roll-players" directed toward the story-oriented folks who don't like traditional games?

I don't know.

My opinion is that it's probably there if a person goes looking for it, but that's not the question you asked.  You asked "Where is it?" and I don't know the answer to that.

Quote from: John MorrowWas the problem that Ron was attacked for his play style or was the problem something else?

"The problem"?  No, Ron feeling attacked wasn't "the problem."  Nor was the problem something else.  I don't think there was a single problem that you can point to and say "This started it ... this thing, and no other factor."

Quote from: John MorrowSo who said the first offensive thing and why?

In my opinion, nobody.  Like I've said, I don't think that there's one "first offensive thing" that happened with no past history to inform it ... or if there is, it's so far in the past and in a different context that we wouldn't even recognize it.

Quote from: TonyLBAlso, that means (if I understand my reading correctly) that as GM I won't have to think about Prestige Classes for a long, long time.  Maybe never.  Other than that?  I'm happy with any of the character types.  Dwarven druid?  Halfling barbarian?  If the rules say it's okay then most anything sounds good to me.  I've got a great group.  Together, we'll make things sing.

I'm a little curious as to how you're thinking of getting characters together. My players and I have worked a lot of different scenerios in the past to explain how players end up working together to avoid the "Meet in a tavern." scene that's become so pastiche at this point that it might have actually rolled back over into fun again... (Fundamentally a question, I guess.)

What kind of creative agenda, if any, do you subscribe to?

Do you feel that D&D subscribes to a creative agenda of some sort? (How do you think of D&D in terms of how you plan to play it?)

Quote from: TonyLBMy recollection is that everybody was pretty randomly attacking everybody else.

Spend some time with Google Groups and read some of those old message threads while you are searching for your former self.

Quote from: TonyLBSome folks were attacking White Wolf gamers because they were too artsy, some attacking them because they weren't artsy enough, others attacking non-White-Wolf artsy types for being inadequately something-or-other, or too much that-other-thing.

Again, the problem was White Wolf's attitude and contempt for other styles of play, as expressed by their rule books.  If there is one thing that people can't stand, it's other people treating them with contempt.  That's the tipping point in these debates.  Once you start talking down to people, they're going to try to stomp all over you.

Quote from: TonyLBBut then, I'm not so great at distinguishing sides, as has been pointed out elsewhere.  It sure seemed important to the people at the time, though.  I imagine it may well have been important to me, though that's a long, long lens of past to look through.

I have an excellent long-term memory, by the way.  I can remember standing in my crib, hearing crickets for the first time and having them explained to me, being toilet trained, giving up my bottle, and so on.  So it doesn't seem such a long lens to me.

Quote from: TonyLBMy opinion is that it's probably there if a person goes looking for it, but that's not the question you asked.  You asked "Where is it?" and I don't know the answer to that.

Well, it's always dangerous to assume that something is there if you have no evidence of it.

Quote from: TonyLB"The problem"?  No, Ron feeling attacked wasn't "the problem."  Nor was the problem something else.  I don't think there was a single problem that you can point to and say "This started it ... this thing, and no other factor."

I don't think there is a single problem, but I think there is a fairly predictable set of problems that leads to these things.  I think that you are correct that the problems predated Ron, but I don't think you are correct that Ron is necessarily a product of those previous problems.  I think that resentment of game styles and critical opions of other styles happens spontaneously all the time, as a product of experiences with other styles and the bad play of others rather than in response to encountering critiques aimed in the other direction.

Quote from: TonyLBIn my opinion, nobody.  Like I've said, I don't think that there's one "first offensive thing" that happened with no past history to inform it ... or if there is, it's so far in the past and in a different context that we wouldn't even recognize it.

That's fine, but I think the "past history to inform it" may not be hostility at all.  For example, a person shoots an intruder in their home, they might shoot the intruder even if the intruder hasn't shot them first because something else (legitimate or not) is triggering that response.  Similarly, I think it's common for people to insult other styles of play, without having their style of play insulted, because something else is triggering it.

B

Quote from: Thanatos02I'm a little curious as to how you're thinking of getting characters together.

I've been assuming that we'll figure out some reason that their characters knew each other ahead of time.  Just like the tavern thing, it's corny and overused, but I figure it still works just fine.

Quote from: Thanatos02What kind of creative agenda, if any, do you subscribe to?

I'll gladly get on board with most ways that I've seen people get fun from their games.  Afterwards we might get together and say "Wow, we really hammered home the X, Y and Z that session" ... but that's usually afterwards.  In the game itself, I say "Wow!  What Jed's doing looks like a lot of fun!  I'm getting in on that."

I don't think that creative agendas (in the GNS sense) are as big a deal as I've seen people make them:  I don't think they're a nuanced enough tool to analyze game-play without pigeon-holing it, and I'm fer damn sure that they're not a nuanced enough tool to analyze players, with all their varied interests.

Quote from: Thanatos02Do you feel that D&D subscribes to a creative agenda of some sort?

No way.

Quote from: Thanatos02How do you think of D&D in terms of how you plan to play it?

Knowing my group, I suspect that we'll get excited about the raw game-play elements ... but I also think we're going to notice and draw each other's attention to some of the in-built things that the system itself says about heroism and daring, about the danger and allure of the unknown and about the kind of people who willingly go into it.

Adventurers are bad-ass, and I suspect that will be a major emphasis of our play.  But adventurers are also ... peculiar people.  I suspect that oddness, and the ways that adventurers are outside society by choice, may get some screen-time as well.

Is that a creative agenda?  I dunno.  It's a rough draft of some of the things I suspect will come up as we play, however.

Quote from: TonyLBSomebody who knows more about Google Groups UI, please PM me and tell me how to get back to the subject headers for ~1990, without having to use the "Older" button to manually page back through thousands of pages.

Go here (http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&). Check the radio button that lets you select message dates, then use the drop-down menus to limit date range. Enter search terms in fields near the top (AFAIK searches will cover subjects and body of messages, but you can also use the Subject field to just search subjects).

Or just enter the group name (you can try wildcards, but I'm not sure they work properly) and don't bother with search fields. This should give you the whole group within the date range.

The one tricky thing after all this: use the Google Search button near top right. Somehow the layout of the page makes me want to click the Lookup Message button at lower right, but that's only for when you're hunting for a message by Message ID.

Hey, let's go talk about space dungeons.  That's much more interesting to me, and sure I wear a pink tie 9sometimes with a teal shirt), but I can't be the ONLY one.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Hey, let's go talk about space dungeons.  That's much more interesting to me, and sure I wear a pink tie 9sometimes with a teal shirt), but I can't be the ONLY one.

I'll start a thread.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Hey, let's go talk about space dungeons.  That's much more interesting to me, and sure I wear a pink tie 9sometimes with a teal shirt), but I can't be the ONLY one.

I've been wanting a "space D&D" for a long time.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Hey, let's go talk about space dungeons.  That's much more interesting to me, and sure I wear a pink tie 9sometimes with a teal shirt), but I can't be the ONLY one.

 Teal button shirt - yeah I'd wear that.


 PINK tie??  Um maybe, if my friend Robin said it looked good on me. She's got great blue eyes.


- Ed C.

Quote from: TonyLBIs that a creative agenda?  I dunno.  It's a rough draft of some of the things I suspect will come up as we play, however.

Ok. I can't think of a whole lot of good D&D questions right now, but I might ask about system specifics and maybe New Mage in a bit. I'm on a New Mage kick, and while you're obligating yourself to answer good faith questions, I might take advantage of the captive audiance.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... 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.

So you DO agree that the very foundational document of GNS-Forge theory was framed in a context that involved elitist attack-material against gamers?

In this context, how can you then continue to claim that regular gamers have no basis or only imaginary causes to feel under attack from the Forge, Ron Edwards, and all his followers?

Are you now willing to stop pussyfooting around and actually ADMIT that the Theorists had started out attacking regular gamers from the very beginning?
It doesn't matter what the previous conditions were, or the weather or the motherfucking barometric pressure; the point is that right out of the gate you fuckers were basing your entire movement on attacking us.
I mean shit, do you agree that the GNS essay and the Forge FAQ are the foundational documents of the Forge and GNS theory? If you do, you've already admitted that you think they are based on attacking gamers.

QuoteI 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.

My god you're a slimy pathetic son of a bitch, aren't you? I've seen eels who were less wriggly.  Is Ron Edwards really worth this much intellectual trouble to you, that you need to basically massacre your own credibility and reputation forever just to try to justify the man's crapulence? I mean, what the fuck, did he die and go to hell for your sins or something?  What the fuck has Dear Leader got on you that you feel the need to sycophantically engage in these kinds of apologetics for him?

QuoteAnd 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.

For fuck's sake, the question obviously wasn't "was Ron Edwards the first guy to ever say something asinine and insulting to other roleplayers, ever?"; and its a sign of the weakness of your argument that you feel the need to answer the question on the basis of a technicality like this one to avoid answering the questions REAL intent.  So you've basically proven your inability to answer a question honestly right here.

QuoteRather, 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.

The American Revolution, Beat Poets; can you see how people think you fuckers are unbelievably full of yourselves?

Your answer is a NON-Answer. You're avoiding the question by saying "we have to look at the definition of "first". BULLSHIT. The point is he started out attacking gamers, HE DID. Not my side.  The Forge came out of a bunch of other shit and as a consequence of a bunch of other shit, but the answer to the question is logically OBVIOUS.  Its like asking "did TonyLB breathe before he was born?".  

The point is that the FIRST thing the Forge did was to attack regular roleplayers. Your efforts to keep pussyfooting and dodging and evading that issue is part of what makes us hate you all the more. Every time you refuse to take your lumps for the utter shithead you guys have as your Leader, you not only confirm more and more that he IS your "Dear Leader" that you are so blindly devoted to that you're willing to destroy all your reputations for, but you also manage to make the regular Roleplayers you claim to be so desperate to reach out to and make amends with all the angrier at you.

So again, answer the motherfucking question: was the FIRST thing that Ron Edwards did in creating his Theory involve attacking Roleplayers? AND DON'T FUCKING TRY TO SQUIRM OUT OF IT BY TRYING TO SAY THAT "THERE WERE OTHER THINGS HE DID TOO", OR "WE CAN'T KNOW WHO HE MEANT TO ATTACK", OR "WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THEORY"... JUST ADMIT THAT YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING GUILTY.

QuoteSaying 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.

Against who? PROVE IT. Show us who he was arguing with, that represented regular roleplayers as much as he represents elitist Swine-pricks like you, and show me where that person ever attacked Ron Edwards PRIOR to the GNS Essay. If you can't do this, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEFEND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS GIVEN TO YOU.

QuoteDoes this excuse him of anything he said or did?  It does not.  He said what he said, and it's pretty offensive stuff.  

Really? Ok, against who? You can't get away with saying "Ron Edwards didn't attack regular Roleplayers, but its ok for you to feel offensive because yeah I'll go as far as admit that he was offensive to "someone" vague and uncertain who it might be, so that I don't have to take the collective blame for my fucked-up Leader's attacks on Roleplaying and my entire Movement doesn't get discredited".
If you're admitting now that he said things that were offensive, and yet you claim that he DIDN'T attack Regular Roleplayers, who the fuck was he being offensive to? Who should feel offended?!

QuoteBut 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).

Oh, he didn't do it all on his lonesome. He did it with a gang of pathetic simpering lackeys like you, that took his ever turd and proclaimed it magical, that took his every psychotic attack on people having fun and declared him a genius.

QuoteI 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.

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.  

Who? Where? Give examples please.

QuoteAh, 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!

Your exchange obviously WAS dodging the question. And your pathetic little games on this site to try to take control of the modes of conversation only prove that the Forgers are literally incapable of having normal discussions, your arguments are so sad and weak that you can't defend yourself unless the other guy has his hand tied behind his back.
And this post, my friend, was to prove that even with one hand behind my back I can still kick the living shit out of you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you DO agree that the very foundational document of GNS-Forge theory was framed in a context that involved elitist attack-material against gamers?

I agree that the GNS document we've been talking about includes attacks, and I think it's fair to characterize them as elitist.  The "foundational" thing you cover separately below.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn this context, how can you then continue to claim that regular gamers have no basis or only imaginary causes to feel under attack from the Forge, Ron Edwards, and all his followers?

I can't (and don't) claim that nobody has cause to feel under attack by Ron.  Lots of people have good and sufficient reason to feel attacked.  I don't think [list=A]

• That it's solid reasoning to generalize from that to feeling under attack by everybody at the Forge and...
• That feeling yourself under attack means that you can strike back without being guilty of attacking people.

Quote from: RPGPunditAre you now willing to stop pussyfooting around and actually ADMIT that the Theorists had started out attacking regular gamers from the very beginning?

From the beginning of GNS theory?  Sure.  From the beginning of the conflict?  No.  Can you clarify which one you were asking?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, do you agree that the GNS essay and the Forge FAQ are the foundational documents of the Forge and GNS theory?

Nope.  Thank you for asking that separately.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy god you're a slimy pathetic son of a bitch, aren't you?

Not in my opinion.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs Ron Edwards really worth this much intellectual trouble to you, that you need to basically massacre your own credibility and reputation forever just to try to justify the man's crapulence?

I don't stick to my opinions for Ron's benefit.  I stick to them for myself.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, what the fuck, did he die and go to hell for your sins or something?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat the fuck has Dear Leader got on you that you feel the need to sycophantically engage in these kinds of apologetics for him?

Not a thing.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe American Revolution, Beat Poets; can you see how people think you fuckers are unbelievably full of yourselves?

I can follow the arguments, yes.  If you're asking "Do I agree that the perception is justified?" then no ... I don't agree with the reasoning, but I do understand it.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo again, answer the motherfucking question: was the FIRST thing that Ron Edwards did in creating his Theory involve attacking Roleplayers?

Yes it did involve attacks ... in much the same way that the first thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1471) you started upon taking over the RPGSite quickly became a platform for you to bash non-mainstream games (well before any of their adherents had had time to find you and attack you).  Big opening manifestos have a tendency toward that kind of "Hit-you-back-first" mentality, I find.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgainst who?

At a guess, I'd say against overzealous White Wolf fan-boys.  But the real answer is that I don't know with certainty.  We're talking about my best guesses about what motivated another person, long ago ... there's a lot of speculation.

Quote from: RPGPunditYOU HAVE FAILED TO DEFEND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS GIVEN TO YOU.

Well ... no.  "Failed" implies that I even tried to defend the answers.  I said right at the first post of the thread:  I'm giving answers.  I'm not arguing for them.  If you feel that my answers are wrong ... that's fine.  I'm not trying to prove that they're correct.  They're just my opinion.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're admitting now that he said things that were offensive, and yet you claim that he DIDN'T attack Regular Roleplayers, who the fuck was he being offensive to? Who should feel offended?!

I feel that you must have misunderstood me somewhere along the line.  Ron said offensive things to roleplayers of all stripes.  I'm pretty sure I've said this, in response to your questioning, several times now.  Should I provide links?

Quote from: RPGPunditWho? Where?

Dunno specifically.  I can't read his mind.  It's just the vibe I've gotten.  You're asking more than I know on the subject ... although I expect that Ron could wax eloquent if he were so inclined.

EDIT:  Typo.

I have a few questions for you, TonyLB.  

1.Are you dating, have dated, or are related to Ron Edwards?     If not, why the fuck does rpgpundit keep asking you about him?
2. Does rpgpundit want to date Ron, or has previously dated Ron?
3. How would you feel about making a love connection between those two?
4. What are the essential features of super hero gaming, for Capes and other games.

Quote from: chuckles1.Are you dating, have dated, or are related to Ron Edwards?

No.

Quote from: chucklesIf not, why the fuck does rpgpundit keep asking you about him?

I think he feels that any argument against someone who enjoys certain type of games is also an argument against Ron-by-proxy.  As to why he feels that ... I couldn't tell you.  I'm tempted to speculate, but it would just be so much hot air on my part.

Quote from: chuckles2. Does rpgpundit want to date Ron, or has previously dated Ron?

I'm pretty sure not.

Quote from: chuckles3. How would you feel about making a love connection between those two?

"Nauseous" just about sums it up.

Quote from: chuckles4. What are the essential features of super hero gaming, for Capes and other games.

I don't think there are any essential features ... super-hero stories actually compose a tremendously broad genre, which has willy-nilly absorbed tropes and elements from fantasy, science-fiction, soap operas, noir, war stories ... the list goes on and on.

If I were to say, for instance, "a super-hero system must have abilities beyond what is naturally possible for human beings" then I deny the possibility of both a Blackhawks game (which would RAWK!) and a Gotham-only Batman game.  Normal people can be superheroes ... you can remove the superpowers, and the edifice that is "superheroes" still seems to stand, somehow.

In fact, it's such a huge, overgrown, bizarre edifice that I'm pretty sure you could take anything that looks central, pull it out brutally, and you'd find that the remainder still stands pretty well.  It's only when you really start pulling out several major pieces that things get dicey.  Supers with no powers?  Cool.  How about if they also have no secret identities?  Still cool.  No dedication to moral principles?  Things start to shake (for me) but I can still see running it.  No flashy costumes?  Still shaky, but standing.

I imagine it sort of like some bizarre Jenga.  You can take out a lot of stuff, and everything still hangs together.  Because of that, different people will choose different things in the genre, nail them down in the system, and say "Once this skeleton is locked down, everything else is optional.  It will still be superheroes."  And they can all be right, even if they pick entirely different things.

Now Capes picks the following elements:

• Supers stand for something (even if what they stand for is sick and twisted).
• Supers are both powerful and vulnerable in precisely the moments when they stand for things outside themselves.
  
• Anything can (and will) happen.

Will that be the stuff that makes everybody happy about superheroes?  Absolutely not.  But it makes some people happy ... and, to my mind, if you have that skeleton locked down then anything built on it (Buffy, Naruto, etc.) is still recognizably superheroes.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEFEND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS GIVEN TO YOU, no just kidding.  

How is your definition of super-hero gaming any different then your definition of adventure gaming?

And the reason I ask is that I am trying to bring more of a  super-hero feel to my D&D game, but I'm kind of stuck in that I have a fairly nebulous concept, and am having trouble implementing it.  So elaborate ...

Quote from: chucklesHow is your definition of super-hero gaming any different then your definition of adventure gaming?

My definition, right?  Not The definition?  Cool.  I'll happily give you my personal dividing line:  Which is that, for me, when your adventurer becomes more capable if you threaten (for instance) his loved ones ... then you've crossed my personal line between adventure fiction and super-hero fiction.  Indiana Jones makes hard choices in order to save Marian, but he doesn't suddenly become markedly more able to fight off Nazis when her life is on the line.  That marks it as adventure fiction to me ... the sense of a world and limits within which you try to live up to your ideals, rather than ideals to which the world responds.

I want to point out, though, that I know a lot of people whose opinions on both superheroes and adventure fiction I hugely respect who draw the dividing line elsewhere ... and sometimes not at all.

I don't feel competent to try to make any objective definition of what superheroes have to be, to all people, always.  I can't think of anyone (Stan Lee included) whom I would consider capable of that.

• Do you know chuckles?
• Do you understand why Pundit asks you these question?
• If no, would you like me to explain (I wouldn't want chuckles to be disappointed in not knowing why...)?
• Are you now, or have you ever been, a serial killer?
• Is super-heroes your favorite genre?
• Have you written any other games besides Capes?

Trying to follow this damn thread...and ...Who the HELL is CHUCKLES??
He doesn't even identify his (her?) location.

 Chuckles - whats your context?
  ...for you and your stake in this magilla ?

Oh a question for Tony: Which day was it at GenCon that I ran into you ? Did you give to the charity ? or not?


- Ed C.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Do you know chuckles?

Not that I know of ... but I have no more knowledge than you do of who's hiding behind the pseudonym.  If it's someone I know then they haven't let me in on it.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Do you understand why Pundit asks you these question?

I understand why he asks.  I'll confess myself a bit confused as to why he seems so incapable of hearing me answer.  This isn't the first time I've said "Yep, Ron sure does say offensive stuff," but we always seem to get back around to Pundit assuming that my argument is that Ron never said anything offensive to anyone.  I'm not quite sure how that happens.  I may just not be important enough in his world for him to remember what I say from one conversation to the next.

Quote from: James J Skach

• If no, would you like me to explain (I wouldn't want chuckles to be disappointed in not knowing why...)?

I'm just here for the questions.  If you want to weave in some explanation too, that's fine.  I won't respond to it, but it's a big thread ... there's plenty of room.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Are you now, or have you ever been, a serial killer?

No, I have not.  But I'm a quick learner!

Quote from: James J Skach

• Is super-heroes your favorite genre?

I can't choose between super-heroes and shojo manga ... I love them both, in very different ways.  Without question, they're my two co-favorites though.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Have you written any other games besides Capes?

Well, I've written tons.  Making homebrew systems is a hobby in its own right.  But I haven't published anything other than Capes.

Quote from: KoltarOh a question for Tony: Which day was it at GenCon that I ran into you ?

I think it was Friday, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was Saturday and I'm just misremembering.  I had trouble enough remembering what day it was at the time, much less in retrospect :)

Quote from: KoltarDid you give to the charity ? or not?

Not.

Quote from: TonyLBMaking homebrew systems is a hobby in its own right.

I wasn't going to post to this thread but this comment lept out at me.  Could it be that maybe the whole disconnect between the Forge and many other online gamers is that they practice overlapping but substantively different hobbies?  I mean, you basically just agreed with Settembrini who posits that the Forge is a like, a different scene, man.  The fact that we all don't speak the same lingo seems like evidence in support of this assertion.

Quote from: jrientsCould it be that maybe the whole disconnect between the Forge and many other online gamers is that they practice overlapping but substantively different hobbies?

I definitely practice a hobby (game-design) that many other people don't practice.  I also practice a hobby (game-playing) that many other people do practice.  I've got lots of hobbies.

I suppose the fact that I design games could be a cause of disconnect between me and other gamers ... even given our commonalities as people who play games.  It could be, but I don't really see why it would be, and I don't personally think that it is.

If I didn't play games then I'd see that as a natural disconnect between myself and a community founded on playing games.  But if I play games and also do something else, like kayaking or music or game-design?  I don't  see how that would build barriers.

Quote from: TonyLBI agree that the GNS document we've been talking about includes attacks

Attacks against who?

QuoteI can't (and don't) claim that nobody has cause to feel under attack by Ron.  

Who does? This is fucking hilarious. "Sure, Ron is offensive, but to some shadowy blob I refuse to identify so that you personally can't feel offended and regular roleplayers in general can't make a claim that the Forge has attacked them in any way!".

QuoteLots of people have good and sufficient reason to feel attacked.

WHO, MOTHERFUCKER?

QuoteI don't think [list=A]

• That it's solid reasoning to generalize from that to feeling under attack by everybody at the Forge and...

That's your fucking opinion. The fact that you're bending over backward to defend and excuse your Dear Leader is the very proof of his influence. And refusing to condemn Ron Edwards, coupled with your acceptance of his Theory (from which the Forge, Storygames, and everything else derives) is pretty well proof that you support his statements.

Quote

• That feeling yourself under attack means that you can strike back without being guilty of attacking people.

Of course I can. Someone spits at me, the natural thing to do is to kick in his motherfucking head. The dude has buddies who are sitting around cheering him while he does so, and who later on lie about it to the cops, they're just as guilty as he is.

QuoteFrom the beginning of GNS theory?  Sure.  From the beginning of the conflict?  No.  Can you clarify which one you were asking?

From the beginning of the whole MODERN (ie. discounting the infantile stages of the whole thing at rec.games.* etc etc) Theory movement, "Indie Games" movement, etc.

QuoteNope.  Thank you for asking that separately.

Ok... I'll bite: Then just what the fuck do you think are the foundations of the Forge/GNS Theory, if not the motherfucking first GNS Essay and the Forge FAQ?

QuoteYes it did involve attacks ... in much the same way that the first thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1471) you started upon taking over the RPGSite quickly became a platform for you to bash non-mainstream games (well before any of their adherents had had time to find you and attack you).  Big opening manifestos have a tendency toward that kind of "Hit-you-back-first" mentality, I find.

How interesting that you'd use that tactic. Let's assess the way that my opening post at theRPGsite, which I admit could be seen as a counter-attack on Forge/Theory thought (or at least that one point, point #4, could be), is different from Ron's GNS Essay, shall we?
In the case of my opening salvo at theRPGsite, its a RESPONSE to a lot of shit that's gone down the tube. You can ask me "in which way was it a counterattack, show the attacks first?" and I will point you to the GNS Essay, the Forge, the RPG.net moderation policies, and could find things said and done therein that led me to do things like make this place a free-speech forum, choose to emphatically state that here we support Regular Roleplaying, etc etc.

Now, you're claiming the exact same thing about Ron's GNS essay, only you haven't been able to back that up with any example showing a Regular Roleplayer (or even White Wolf Swine) "attacking" Storygames or Narrativism or Theory PRIOR to Ron's GNS essay. So where is that evidence?

QuoteAt a guess, I'd say against overzealous White Wolf fan-boys.  But the real answer is that I don't know with certainty.  We're talking about my best guesses about what motivated another person, long ago ... there's a lot of speculation.

"Long ago"?! When the fuck was it, the "olden days"? Are we talking about "Yore" here? I mean serious, what the fuck are you on? Do you think that's going to pass as a real excuse; "I'll admit that Ron is attacking someone or something undefined, because he was attacked by someone or something undefined, in a time long long ago and in a galaxy far far away... so that means that regular Roleplayers aren't justified in feeling resentment toward us Theory Swine"?

QuoteWell ... no.  "Failed" implies that I even tried to defend the answers.  I said right at the first post of the thread:  I'm giving answers.  I'm not arguing for them.  If you feel that my answers are wrong ... that's fine.  I'm not trying to prove that they're correct.  They're just my opinion.

So in other words, you're admitting they're indefensible? Because around here, bucko, if we CAN defend our arguments, we do. If we can't, apparently, we try to create a whole new system of controlling speech so that it favours our ability to lie and not be called on it; and that's really what you're trying to do with these Q&A, aren't you?

QuoteI feel that you must have misunderstood me somewhere along the line.  Ron said offensive things to roleplayers of all stripes.  

Ok, can you please name at least ONE offensive thing he said specifically to some specific group of people? Or were all of his vitriolic insults reserved only for the Amorphous Blob People from some other dimension so that you don't have to excuse him?

QuoteI'm pretty sure I've said this, in response to your questioning, several times now.  Should I provide links?

No, you should MOTHERFUCKING ADMIT that the people he has attacked were Regular Roleplayers!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAttacks against who?

Pretty much anyone who doesn't roleplay the way he recommends.  His evangelism crossed over into the negative in several instances.

Since you seem to have difficulty hearing it:  Yes, this includes "regular roleplayers."

Quote from: RPGPunditWho does?

See above.

Quote from: RPGPunditWHO, MOTHERFUCKER?

See above.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen just what the fuck do you think are the foundations of the Forge/GNS Theory, if not the motherfucking first GNS Essay and the Forge FAQ?

I think that the foundation upon which people at the Forge build their theory is their actual play.  They draw upon and share the depth of their past experiences, and try to draw patterns from it.

Some of these patterns are of the "GNS" type, trying to classify what play is and can be.  But there's a huge span of other theory that doesn't touch on that at all ... stuff like pointing out the difference between Intending an action, Initiating it, Executing it and having it take Effect ... and then analyzing where (between those points) various rules systems choose to intercede.

And, naturally, this has built upon itself over the years:  People's actual play now is impacted by the theory they thought about earlier, and those new actual play experiences go on to inspire more theory.

There's a ton of valuable stuff that's come out of the Forge which has exactly nothing to do with GNS ... but it's all grown out of folks's actual play.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo where is that evidence?

Don't know, and I increasingly don't care.  If you want to discount my opinion because I won't back it up with evidence, that's fine.  It's my opinion, and whether you agree with it or not I still have a free speech right to express it.

Quote from: RPGPundit"Long ago"?! When the fuck was it, the "olden days"? Are we talking about "Yore" here? I mean serious, what the fuck are you on?

Six, ten, fifteen years ago?  Those all seem like a long, long time ago to me.  My life was completely different, and my thinking on things was pretty different.  I've changed a lot since then (I imagine many people have) and so it's hard for me to rewind back and see things as I saw them then.

Quote from: RPGPunditDo you think that's going to pass as a real excuse; "I'll admit that Ron is attacking someone or something undefined, because he was attacked by someone or something undefined, in a time long long ago and in a galaxy far far away... so that means that regular Roleplayers aren't justified in feeling resentment toward us Theory Swine"?

No, that sounds like a lousy excuse.  I wouldn't expect it to satisfy anyone.  If someone says something offensive, people are justified in feeling offended, no matter what the context was.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo in other words, you're admitting they're indefensible?

No, I'm saying that I'm not going to defend them.  That leaves the question of whether they could be defended unanswered.  But I'm fine with that ambiguity.

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause around here, bucko, if we CAN defend our arguments, we do. If we can't, apparently, we try to create a whole new system of controlling speech so that it favours our ability to lie and not be called on it; and that's really what you're trying to do with these Q&A, aren't you?

The last thing I would want to do is to control anybody's speech.  If you want to "call me" on something, go ahead.  Nothing about this format is in any way limiting what you say.

Just stop expecting me to feel obligated to respond to your argumentative tone with arguments of my own.  You've never said that people have to.  It's not part of the board rules or, I would venture, universally part of its culture.  It's your personal tic.

I think there's room here for people who just say what they believe, and don't mind folks disagreeing with it.  That's not being evasive, it's just being mellow.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, can you please name at least ONE offensive thing he said specifically to some specific group of people?

You've already pointed out several that I agree with.  He said that most roleplayers aren't having fun, even the ones that think they are.  That's pretty offensive to roleplayers.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr were all of his vitriolic insults reserved only for the Amorphous Blob People from some other dimension so that you don't have to excuse him?

I don't have to excuse him because I'm not vested in justifying his offensiveness.  You seem vested in the idea that I must want to excuse Ron, but that's not the same thing as my actually caring.

I will occasionally jump in to defend him when someone's attacking something inoffensive that he said.  But Ron has said offensive stuff to regular roleplayers, quite often.  I think he's wrong to do that, and I don't feel any need to defend him.  I've said so here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133185&postcount=37), here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132802&postcount=5), here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132478&postcount=186), here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=125981&postcount=49), here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=125722&postcount=30) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=125714&postcount=29).  And that's just in the past couple threads on the subject.

Good, so you have now admitted that Ron Edwards offended someone, and that this "someone" included regular Roleplayers.

The only thing you refuse to admit is that he did this before regular roleplayers attacked the Forge or the Theory movement.  However, since you refuse to back up your claim that they attacked first, you are essentially conceding defeat on this issue.

So you've now admitted that the Forge started the War. Thank you.


RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBMy definition, right?  Not The definition?  Cool.  I'll happily give you my personal dividing line:  Which is that, for me, when your adventurer becomes more capable if you threaten (for instance) his loved ones ... then you've crossed my personal line between adventure fiction and super-hero fiction.  Indiana Jones makes hard choices in order to save Marian, but he doesn't suddenly become markedly more able to fight off Nazis when her life is on the line.  That marks it as adventure fiction to me ... the sense of a world and limits within which you try to live up to your ideals, rather than ideals to which the world responds.

I'm starting to get it, but I have a few more questions.  

1. Besides capes can you think of other systems that model that?  (I think exalted does, but you can name more I'm sure)

2. How do you keep that character caring about the threatened loved ones, and not turn into Batman(though I guess he has Gotham, but you get what I mean).

3. Do you feel like you can have a 'night' of gaming or a session, or adventure without there being high stakes and still keep the super-hero vibe?(i.e. the super-competition or vs. the league of goofballs)

Quote from: TonyLBI want to point out, though, that I know a lot of people whose opinions on both superheroes and adventure fiction I hugely respect who draw the dividing line elsewhere ... and sometimes not at all.

I don't feel competent to try to make any objective definition of what superheroes have to be, to all people, always.  I can't think of anyone (Stan Lee included) whom I would consider capable of that.

Dude, I'm not gonna freak out, don't worry.

And Jimmy and Koltar, don't worry who I am, mind your own fucking business.  We don't know each other, and we will all be happier that way.

Quote from: chucklesAnd Jimmy and Koltar, don't worry who I am, mind your own fucking business.  We don't know each other, and we will all be happier that way.

Awwww shiiiiiiiiit. Look out Jimmy and Koltar! chuckles is Serious Business! Find out who he really is and you might end up in a WORLD OF PAIN!

Its pretty pathetic when the Storygamers are now unwilling to even step forward and stand behind their words.  Its pretty obvious that Chuckles is one of the significant people over there, and may or may not be a sockpuppet. We're currently investigating.

RPGPundit

OK chucky...as soon as you stop using a public message board for your apparently private discussion with Tony...K?  Deal?

Or does it need to be public for some reason?

Please don't hurt me.  Then I would have to admit to my wife, children, friends, and co-workers that I got beat up by someone named "chuckles" on a forum about games. The shame would be worse than the smackdown.

Quote from: chuckles1. Besides capes can you think of other systems that model that?  (I think exalted does, but you can name more I'm sure)

Lots of rules systems have rules that seem (to me at least) to be built for that.  Champions, for instance, has "Pushing" rules that are specifically included for exceeding your normal abilities in cases where you're willing to pay a high price (in that case, a massive drain on your future stamina) for a crucial moment.  Even the classic rules in D&D for breaking a staff of the magi strike me as being very supportive of taking such a reckless, spendthrift stand.

Quote from: chuckles2. How do you keep that character caring about the threatened loved ones, and not turn into Batman(though I guess he has Gotham, but you get what I mean).

I make it possible for the things they stand for to be meaningfully benefitted, as well as just threatened.  Like, if what a character is standing for is "Love" then I make sure they have a real ability for things to get better in the character's love-life.  Even if it never happens (because they never choose to spend the time out of costume to make their love stick), it needs to be possible.

From a slightly grimmer point of view ... they need to know that, when things go terribly wrong with the people they love, it's because of their choices, not just some inevitable function of the universe :D

Quote from: chuckles3. Do you feel like you can have a 'night' of gaming or a session, or adventure without there being high stakes and still keep the super-hero vibe?(i.e. the super-competition or vs. the league of goofballs)

I think people make the stakes high ... at least subjectively.  I've had a session which primarily resolved around people fighting out (literally!) the question "Should superheroes wear colorful spandex or black kevlar?"  Arguments and super-powered fisticuffs were deployed on both sides, with some folks claiming that failing to wear red, white and blue fabric meant that the terrorists had won, and other folks arguing that superheroes have a positive duty to the common people to model responsible behavior like not jumping in front of bullets without proper protective gear.  It was a hoot.  I don't know whether the stakes there are "high" (again, objective vs. subjective) but it sure felt like superhero comics to me.

What is the definition of a regular roleplayer in your opinion?  Why do you think anyone can be offended when the only place roleplaying happens is at the table with the people you play with?  How much do you think this contempt derails conversations when people are sharing their experiences?  Does Capes have any sort of advice or mechanics for scaling the setting around the hero?  I've been wondering how places like Gotham and Metropolis define Superman and Batman.

Quote from: chuckles.................

And Jimmy and Koltar, don't worry who I am, mind your own fucking business.  We don't know each other, and we will all be happier that way.

Hello????

 I don't know you from Adam - what's your damn problem?
 I just asked for context. You came on here  and your posts are a bunch of softball questions toward another poster who is under a microscope.

As far as the not knowing each other and we will all be happier that way stuff:

 You know this is a board about Role Playing games - right?  A social activity involving a group of people.

 Do you actually play in a roleplaying group or GM/reff one??
Or do you just fling your version of monkey poo on the internet ??


 TonyLB  - Do you know Chuckles??
He is he secretly a friend of yours?


- Ed C.

Quote from: GunslingerWhat is the definition of a regular roleplayer in your opinion?

Somebody who roleplays, and doesn't think that they're atypical in the way they do so.

I recognize, of course, that other people use the term in different ways.

Quote from: GunslingerWhy do you think anyone can be offended when the only place roleplaying happens is at the table with the people you play with?

Because we talk about roleplaying at lots of places other than the table, and we (rightly) expect our experiences at the table to be respected as the generally positive things they are.

Quote from: GunslingerHow much do you think this contempt derails conversations when people are sharing their experiences?

I don't know exactly which contempt you're talking about (the contempt expressed in the GNS essays?)  If you can clarify, that'd be great.  In the meantime, I'll say that I've seen much less misunderstanding, across the board, when people discuss their actual experiences than when they're talking about generalities.

I think people find it much easier to accept the specific "I had a good time playing Toon last night!" than they do the general "Toon is a game that delivers a good time!"  I don't know why they find it easier, but I sure think they do.

Quote from: GunslingerDoes Capes have any sort of advice or mechanics for scaling the setting around the hero?  I've been wondering how places like Gotham and Metropolis define Superman and Batman.

No, and the book could really use some advice of precisely that type.

I'm not sure I'd target it at the setting, though.  Daredevil and the Fantastic Four both occupy the same New York, and I think that can work out fine.  I find it harder to make sure that specific conflicts are well-gauged to hit the abilities and power level of the character.  Like, if I ask Batman to divert an incoming meteorite, or Superman to rustle up a reliable informant in the garment district ... well, they'll each likely succeed, but it'll take more stretching than if it were vice-versa.

Quote from: KoltarTonyLB  - Do you know Chuckles??

Fielded (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133446&postcount=44) this one already, but no ... I don't know who he is, and I have no indication that he's anyone I know.

Quote from: KoltarHe is he secretly a friend of yours?

Could be, but if so then it's a secret from me as well.

Ok, you guys are cool, I'm a dork.  rpgpundit you have my e-mail and should be able to get my ip to verify what you need.

Quote from: TonyLB"Should superheroes wear colorful spandex or black kevlar?"

I don't see what all the fighting is about, when you can just get some nice custom red, white, and blue kevlar. I bet vest vendors would fall over themselves to supply The American Guard or The League of Protectors. ^_^

Tony. Have you read the new Mage game?

Quote from: KoltarHe is he secretly a friend of yours?
- Ed C.

Why do you even give a shit, man? What does it matter? How does it make you have fun with games? Or did you decide to play war, too?

Quote from: Thanatos02Tony. Have you read the new Mage game?

Sadly, not yet.  I'm a big fan of the old Mage game (ran a two year campaign that was a blast) but I haven't gotten into the new world of darkness yet.  So many games, so little time :(

Quote from: RPGPunditGood, so you have now admitted that Ron Edwards offended someone, and that this "someone" included regular Roleplayers.

The only thing you refuse to admit is that he did this before regular roleplayers attacked the Forge or the Theory movement.  However, since you refuse to back up your claim that they attacked first, you are essentially conceding defeat on this issue.

In my reading of the situation, I'd say all of the above is probably more or less true.  But why are you so freaked out about it?  I mean who really cares?  Has your gaming been affected?  Is the industry threatened?  This is what I don't get.  I mean we've all been offended at one time or another on the internet.  Your voluminous vociferousness on this issue makes your whole anti-swine movement seem awfully sensitive and thin-skinned.  Also kind of weird and crazy.

Quote from: walkerpIn my reading of the situation, I'd say all of the above is probably more or less true.  But why are you so freaked out about it?  I mean who really cares?  Has your gaming been affected?  Is the industry threatened?  This is what I don't get.  I mean we've all been offended at one time or another on the internet.  Your voluminous vociferousness on this issue makes your whole anti-swine movement seem awfully sensitive and thin-skinned.  Also kind of weird and crazy.

Walker: Its because the Theory guys like to claim, simultaneously at times, that "there is no War", in the sense that no one from the Theory crowd ever attacks regular Roleplayers or Roleplaying, and that if there was, both sides would be equally to blame or something, as if its "impossible to know" who started it.

They like to claim that people like me are attacking the Forge with no reason or basis, and that there aren't a lot of people upset and annoyed at how the Theory and Storygames crowd have acted, because they refuse to admit that they act with utter contempt for the regular Roleplayers and their games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarTonyLB - Do you know Chuckles??
He is he secretly a friend of yours?
- Ed C.

Dude, whenever somebody here starts with that kind of questions always end looking like the retarded bred of an Spanish Inquisitor with McCarthy.
 
What's the next question? Are you a Communist?

Quote from: RPGPunditWalker: Its because the Theory guys like to claim, simultaneously at times, that "there is no War", in the sense that no one from the Theory crowd ever attacks regular Roleplayers or Roleplaying, and that if there was, both sides would be equally to blame or something, as if its "impossible to know" who started it.

They like to claim that people like me are attacking the Forge with no reason or basis, and that there aren't a lot of people upset and annoyed at how the Theory and Storygames crowd have acted, because they refuse to admit that they act with utter contempt for the regular Roleplayers and their games.

RPGPundit

I get your logic, but who cares if they act with utter contempt for regular roleplayers?  There are certain styles and approaches that I think suck.  Some fall under pretentious and self-involved Forgey psychological wanking and some fall under lame Trad number-crunching and comparisons of geek dick-size.  Everybody has their preferences and they tend to hang out with others who share those preferences.  And some of them are going to dis the things they don't like.  

It's the level of the outrage that I don't get.  D&D dominates the market and traditional styles of gaming are far and away the norm and probably won't change.  So where is the threat?  It's like Windows users railing about the Mac.  Or the American government's policy towards Cuba.  Weird resentments of the ruling class.

And strategically, it's not working either.  You can see from the success of the IPR booth and the way they market their games that hiding their true feelings (following your perception of the situation here) is much more effective than railing against their enemy.

But I'm sure you've heard all this before.  My main point is that I really don't get the level of the anger and hurt.  It's not just you, either, but you've placed yourself in the figurehead of this ship of victimhood I'm addressing my general comments to you.

Oh, there's no victimhood here; what we're doing over here is a preventative action.

There was a time before when the influence of utter fuckheads (the White Wolf Swine) ended up derailing gaming as a hobby and damn near destroying the gaming influence.  That's not going to happen again. Not on my watch.

And for the Theory crowd to take over, its absolutely crucial that they be able to hide how much they actually hate regular Roleplaying games that most gamers love, because if the regular gamers knew how the Theory Swine really feel about them, they'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

So my job is to help make sure that regular gamers always know just what the Forge and Storygames people really think about them and the games they love.

RPGPundit

Pundit?

This is fucking pathetic.

It's a less-skilled replay of the Pistols At Dawn match they had a while back. That was very much like Hugh Grant and Colin Firth scrapping it out over Renee Zellweger, this is a bit like they'd gone off and had a few more pints and come back for another go.

...yeah, but scappier and a bit more sober.

This would be what ? The Breakfast Brawl after a night of drinks?


- Ed C.

Hey, I've been away for awhile, but I just found this thread and I've got some questions:

1) Who devised this thread's format/rules?

2) Do you consider yourself a part of the Forge community, such that when someone says "those Forge folks" or "you Forgies" or whatnot, you feel included in that designation?

3) Do you subscribe to the Theory devised at the Forge, such that when someone says "those Theory folks" or "you Theory Wankers" or whatnot, you feel included in that designation? Or such that when someone criticizes "the Theory" you feel they are criticizing your thought or point of view?

4) What RPGs have you played (as complete a list as you can remember)?

5) Practical question: you were saying Capes could use more guidance on playing (say) Batman and Superman together. . .what kind of advice would you give about that?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Melinglor1) Who devised this thread's format/rules?

Pundit.  They're cool, huh?

Quote from: Melinglor2) Do you consider yourself a part of the Forge community, such that when someone says "those Forge folks" or "you Forgies" or whatnot, you feel included in that designation?

Sure.  I post with 'em, I hang with 'em, I've become friends with many of 'em.

Quote from: Melinglor3) Do you subscribe to the Theory devised at the Forge, such that when someone says "those Theory folks" or "you Theory Wankers" or whatnot, you feel included in that designation? Or such that when someone criticizes "the Theory" you feel they are criticizing your thought or point of view?

I subscribe to some bits of the theory that came from the Forge, and reject other bits.  I am, however, a big believer in the concept of theory ... of (as an old teacher of mine memorably put it) "thinking deeply of simple things," and that's usually enough to make me feel that I belong in a camp that gets labelled "you Theory Wankers" or the like.

Quote from: Melinglor4) What RPGs have you played (as complete a list as you can remember)?

Oh God.  Are you serious?  Everything I've played, including the convention games and one-night "let's try this out" things?  Okay ... let me find that alphabetical list of all RPGs ever published, and see what I've played:

AD&D, Adventures of Indiana Jones, After the Bomb, Agon, Albedo, Amber, Angel, Ars Magica, BESM, Brave New World, Breaking the Ice, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Bureau 13, Burning Empires, Burning Wheel, Call of Cthulhu, Capes, carry, Castle Falkenstein, Champions, Changeling (oWoD), Contenders, Covenant, Cyberpunk 2020, DC Heroes, Deryni Adventure Game, DitV, Dream Park, Dungeons and Dragons Basic&Expert, Everway, Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Fading Suns, FATE, Feng Shui, FUDGE, Gamma World, Ghostbusters, Godlike, Grey Ranks, GURPS, Heroes Unlimited, Hero's Banner, In Nomine, InSpectres, Kayfabe, Lace and Steel, Legend of the Five Rings, Macho Women with Guns, Mage (oWoD), Marvel Superheroes, Mechwarrior, Men in Black, MERPG, Mortal Coil, Mountain Witch, My Life with Master, Nephilim, Nobilis, Over the Edge, Paladin, Palladium Fantasy, Paranoia, Perfect, Polaris, PTA, Primitive, Psi World, Riddle of Steel, Rifts, Robotech, Sengoku, Shal-al-Hiri Roach, Shadow of Yesterday, Shadowrun, Shock, Shooting the Moon, Sorceror, Star Trek RPG, Star Wars, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, TMNT, TFOS, Tenra Bansho, Thousand and One Nights, Toon, Top Secret, Torg, Under the Bed, Universalis, Vampire (oWoD), Villains & Vigilantes, Werewolf (oWoD), With Great Power, Wraith (oWoD)

Sheesh.  Over thirty years the list really does stretch out.  I feel old.

Quote from: Melinglor5) Practical question: you were saying Capes could use more guidance on playing (say) Batman and Superman together. . .what kind of advice would you give about that?

Roughly:  If you set up a conflict where the likely outcomes are "Does your character shine in his niche, vs. Does your character prove incompetent even in his field" then you're likely to hook a player who has a strong vision for his character.  They'll spend resources (which means you'll gain resources) in order to defend their image of their character.  At the same time, the type of moral investment that the character shows will tell you something about why they are as they are ... you'll get to dig.  If Batman's issue with finding a stoolie on the docks is that people fear him, and he values that ... that is a really different thing from finding out that Superman's issue with diverting the meteor is that people count on him and he tries to live up to that.

It's really just the general advice of "Figure out what people want to stand up for, then give them a challenge that requires them to stand up for it," but specifically focussed to this (common) issue.

Quote from: TonyLBPundit.  They're cool, huh?

Bullshit. I suggested a thread where you were FORCED to actually answer the fucking questions. This thread is anything but.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBPundit.  They're cool, huh?

Yeah, they're pretty cool. They create this amazing tension; I remember reading as you answered the first passel of Pundit's questions and not remember ing what the page count was--I had this feeling: did he pass the test? Is the thread closed or not? And then scrolling down: he passed! Thread continues!

Follow-up: Have you recieved any indication from Jrients about how he feels you're doing in the thread? Any close calls, almost-closures?

Quote from: TonyLBSure.  I post with 'em, I hang with 'em, I've become friends with many of 'em.

I subscribe to some bits of the theory that came from the Forge, and reject other bits.  I am, however, a big believer in the concept of theory ... of (as an old teacher of mine memorably put it) "thinking deeply of simple things," and that's usually enough to make me feel that I belong in a camp that gets labelled "you Theory Wankers" or the like.

Follow-up: Is Ron Edwards your leader?

Quote from: TonyLBOh God.  Are you serious?

Heh heh. That was fun. I just wanted to see what kind of list you'd spit out. Follow-up: Which edition(s) of AD&D?

Peace,
-Joel

Tony: Is it true that you're missing at least two games off of your list... games that I, personally, have played with you?

Trapped in your web of lies! There is no escape.

yrs--
--Ben

How are you forgies enjoying the last year being constantly on the defensive?

How are you anticipating another year of that? (It's coming!)

Did you notice that other than forgie crap your roleplaying experience completely stops in 1999?

Have you considered that this may have been the year you were done with this hobby and you only hang around out of spite?

I just realized: Every game I've ever played is on that list, and many more. Damn you, Lower-Basch!

Quote from: MelinglorFollow-up: Have you recieved any indication from Jrients about how he feels you're doing in the thread? Any close calls, almost-closures?

No feedback at all, which can be nerve-wracking if I think about it too hard, but is (I think) the right way to do things.  I've sorta been figuring that the feedback, if any comes, will be in the form of a "locked" icon on the thread.

Quote from: MelinglorFollow-up: Is Ron Edwards your leader?

No.

Quote from: MelinglorFollow-up: Which edition(s) of AD&D?

1st and 2nd.  I'm in preparation with my group for a 3.5 run sometime soon, but haven't played it yet.

Quote from: Ben LehmanTony: Is it true that you're missing at least two games off of your list... games that I, personally, have played with you?

Heh.  More than likely.  What'd I miss?  Maybe they weren't really RPGs :p

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow are you forgies enjoying the last year being constantly on the defensive?

I can't speak for all forgies everywhere, but I've had a blast online this year.  If this is the experience of constantly being on the defensive then I like it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow are you anticipating another year of that? (It's coming!)

Rock fuckin' on!  More of the same sounds absolutely great to me.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDid you notice that other than forgie crap your roleplaying experience completely stops in 1999?

I hadn't noticed, no ... in fact, I'm pretty sure that I've played non-forge-inspired games since then.  Are you saying that I haven't played anything that's been published since 1999?  That wouldn't surprise me in the least.  My backlog is long, and new games have to work hard to push out the old stuff I haven't yet gotten a chance to try.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHave you considered that this may have been the year you were done with this hobby and you only hang around out of spite?

Well, I hadn't considered it, but I'll consider it now.

Having considered it (albeit not for very long) I have to say that doesn't mesh with how I feel.  Got no spite for anyone ... nothin' but love for all'y'all crazy dreamers :highfive:

Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit. I suggested a thread where you were FORCED to actually answer the fucking questions. This thread is anything but.

Tony:

Do you think anybody else but Pundit is surprised that he and I would run a game like this differently?

Why did you come to me to ref this little soiree?

Do you think it is a bit of a dodge to have the 'good cop' of the site ref this thread, when clearly it's the 'bad cop' that's dying to nail you to the wall?

Quote from: jrientsDo you think anybody else but Pundit is surprised that he and I would run a game like this differently?

I think the number of people who are surprised is likely very low.  Is there "anybody"?  I dunno.  There's usually a few people surprised by anything, no matter how obvious.  Vive la internet ("l'internet"?)

But, overall, I think people know enough of how conversations between Pundit and myself go to be able to predict them fairly well.

Quote from: jrientsWhy did you come to me to ref this little soiree?

You seem like a reasonable guy, and the ref position (as originally suggested) needed a moderator, who could close the thread at will.  Reasonable guy + Moderator = Good candidate.

Quote from: jrientsDo you think it is a bit of a dodge to have the 'good cop' of the site ref this thread, when clearly it's the 'bad cop' that's dying to nail you to the wall?

I suppose.  There would have been some value (perhaps machismo) or import to the thread we would have had if I asked Pundit to judge whether I was "evading the question," and I suppose I've side-stepped both the value and the import by asking you to referee instead.  But, like I answered above, I think most people have a fairly good sense of how the Pundit-refereed thread would have gone:

QuotePundit:  Is (a) Ron to blame for everything bad to ever happen, or (b) was he forced into everything he did by malevolent, unmotivated attacks from traditional gamers?
Tony:  I don't actually think either of those statements is true.  I suppose I'd have to choose "(c) none of the above."
Pundit:  Hah!  You couldn't even go ONE QUESTION without evading the issue!  Thread closed.

While that would have been entertaining in a sort of "theater of the absurd" way, it wasn't what I had in mind.

Nice straw man.  It's a great false dichotomy, but it's not the question.  As far as I can tell, it never has been.

• Did Ron Edwards write GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory?
• Did the first line of the aforementioned article state, "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much."?
• Did he have any proof other than his anecdotal evidence?
• If no, do you have any idea why he would make this assertion-as-observation?
• Did Ron Edwards write, "Going to the topic rather than the analogy, we're talking about recognizing that role-playing is a Big Model phenomenon, not some 'talk and roll and see what happens' fetish ritual."?
• What do you think Ron Edwards is talking about - to what is he referring to as a fetish ritual?
• Do you see any of the above as being instigated by anyone outside of Ron Edwards personal play experience?
• If so, whom do you think instigated it and can you provide any specific information regarding it?
• It not, do you think it's therefore reasonable to claim that this "conflict" began with Mr. Edwards claims?
• If not, why not?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Not that I've ever seen him present.
4. I suspect that he felt his anecdotal evidence was enough to back an observation.
5. I don't know, but it sounds like him, and I expect you're quoting from somewhere, so I'd guess "Yes."  Perhaps if you were to provide me with a link then I could click it, see that yes he wrote that, and then answer "Yes."
6. I don't know.
7. Yes, I suspect that his thinking comes, at least in part, from internet discussions (as well as other aspects of his life, I expect) which are not play experience.
8. I don't know, and I don't intend to do enough research to even attempt to provide specific information.
9. n/a, since it depends on question 7 being answered "no."
10. n/a since it depends on question 9 being answered "no."

As for the "straw-man dichotomy"?  I was paraphrasing this bit from the second post in this thread:

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; 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.

You can certainly draw your own conclusions about whether I paraphrased in a biased manner.

Well, there you have it.  All you do know is that Ron Edwards didn't start it.  You can't say who did; you can't point to any specific information or instigation.  And, you can't be bothered to do so in order to defend a position you've held on to staunchly in the face of actual quotes from those who fell it was Edwards/GNS/Brain Damage/TBM.

I have Ron Edwards claiming all sorts of stuff based on his feelings.  Luke Crane claims GM Fiat is destroying the hobby - and admits it's only gut instinct that tells him this is so.  You tell us that you can't say who did insitigate it, but you're sure, based on your suspicions, that it wasn't Edwards/GNS/Brain Damage/TBM.

I'm glad we've cleared this up.

Dude, who cares.  Some people think kraft makes good cheese, some people think budweiser is good beer, let people think crazy things, it just means there is more good beer and cheese for the rest of us.

Quote from: chucklesDude, who cares.  Some people think kraft makes good cheese, some people think budweiser is good beer, let people think crazy things, it just means there is more good beer and cheese for the rest of us.

The thread was started almost with the sole purpose of getting Tony to answer questions about "the war," so I'm not thread crapping or anything.

Some people care, some people don't.  See how it works both ways?

So you are coming down on the Kraft side of the equation, well I see ...... :D

I just see people get real worked up about this stuff, and ultimately it doesn't matter, but I guess neither does what my 1st level cleric is gonna do this Monday, so to each there own.

Quote from: chucklesSo you are coming down on the Kraft side of the equation, well I see ...... :D

I just see people get real worked up about this stuff, and ultimately it doesn't matter, but I guess neither does what my 1st level cleric is gonna do this Monday, so to each there own.

Key, nothing like a good Kraft American Cheese Grilled Cheese Sandwich....with a nice bowl of tomato soup...mmm..I'm hungry.

Sometimes someone insults you, you walk away.  Sometimes you get in his grill.  When someone insults you, then says he didn't or that he didn't start it, well, that a time I get in his grill.

1st Level?  What domains?

You're like 20 miles from Wisconsin, what's wrong with you ...


Actually he's gonna be a favored soul, cause it's a one-shot with a meat grinder GM, so Favored soul will be pretty easy to stat up, and has a decent chance of surviving, well as much as anything at 1st level.  But it should be fun, I haven't played with a hard ass GM for years really.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, there you have it.  All you do know is that Ron Edwards didn't start it.  You can't say who did; you can't point to any specific information or instigation.

If it's good enough for a fictional character on a geeky tv series, it's good enough for me, damnit!

I thought we'd all agreed that Ron Edwards did start it.  

The problem is what now?  Does he go to bed without desert?  Lose recess privilege?

This is where the issue gets tough.

We take away his protagonisation, obviously. Duh.

Quote from: chucklesYou're like 20 miles from Wisconsin, what's wrong with you ...

I want you to read that statement again, and then think about it... :p

Quote from: chucklesActually he's gonna be a favored soul, cause it's a one-shot with a meat grinder GM, so Favored soul will be pretty easy to stat up, and has a decent chance of surviving, well as much as anything at 1st level.  But it should be fun, I haven't played with a hard ass GM for years really.

To be honest, I think favored soul is where they are going to go with clerics in 4th...but that's just speculation.

You're right, I guess that question answers itself. :D

I think the favored soul has more of a old school feel to it then the cleric, you have a small amout of buffs to help the party, and you don't have to pick through a big list.  I hate that clerics have to pick there spells now, and that they have juiced there spells up quite a bit, it doesn't feel right.

Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions Tony.  :)

Why do Forge regulars feel the need to evangelize their theories to every single message board that deals with RPGs?

Why is it that even when the regular posters of a message board, the moderators, and the stated goals of the site should make it clear that GNS/Forge theory is not welcomed or appreciated, this does not stop Forge regulars from attempting to colonize another site.

Can you acknowledge that Forge / GNS theory is not a good model for creation of all types of desktop RPGs or RPG type games?  And if so, can you understand why trying to force any and all game design discussion into the Forge / GNS world view it's actually disruptive to any useful or productive discussion?  If yes, then why do so many Forge regulars continue to do this?

Do you understand how attempts to introduce Forge / GNS jargon into a discussion can be disruptive if the other participants are not in agreement with the Forge / GNS theories?

Do you understand that memorizing an invented vocabulary (whether GNS/TBM or Klingon) is not a sign of a scholarly approach to RPG theory?

Do you recognize that RPG design, like other forms of design, is not a Science but and Art -- and therefore is not well served by the same academic approach you might use in Ron Edward's personal academic background?  Do you see how approaching painting in the same way you might chemistry, and trying to convince others to do the same is not helpful to painting as an art-form, and will not lead to better paintings?

Why do Forge regulars not require senior Forge designers to take responsibility for their own actions?  In the example of Vincent's recent game, why would Forge regulars that have not read or played the game go to such great lengths to defend gameplay that they would otherwise condemn if it had been produced by a game / designer outside of the Forge?  Why instead of saying: "Ask him" or "I'm sure he'll explain it" do Forge regulars try to invent justification for senior Forge designers actions and statements -- which is often at odds with what these same designers come out and say themselves?

Would you rather sit down to play a game that made sense according to the Forge / GNS and was moderately enjoyable for the group, or that didn't make sense according to Forge / GNS but was very enjoyable for the group?

What is the best game you've ever played that Forge / GNS theory does not adequately explain?

Why is the Forge / GNS theories something we should move past?

Stuart:  You use a few terms here that I suspect are, for you, freighted with meaning:  things like "evangelize" and "good model" and stuff like that.  I'm not 100% sure that I understand what you're trying to ask, but I'm going to make my best attempt at answering anyway.  If I don't address the meaning the terms have for you, I hope that you will clarify, so that I can answer the question you intended.  I really do want to answer your intent, but I have a feeling I'm going to miss at least some of what you meant to address.

Quote from: StuartWhy do Forge regulars feel the need to evangelize their theories to every single message board that deals with RPGs?

I don't know.  Different people no doubt have different reasons for what they do.  As for myself, I hang out at RPG message boards because I like RPGs and I like talking about them.  Often, the ways I talk about them are informed by the things I've thought and heard about theory.  If that's "evangelizing" then the answer is that I do it because I find it fun and stimulating.  If you've got something more specific in mind with the term "evangelizing" then I hope you'll help me by explaining further.

Quote from: StuartWhy is it that even when the regular posters of a message board, the moderators, and the stated goals of the site should make it clear that GNS/Forge theory is not welcomed or appreciated, this does not stop Forge regulars from attempting to colonize another site.

As above, for myself ...  I like RPGs, I like talking about them.  I don't mind people saying "Tony, you're a stupid-head and your theory is dressed funny," and I certainly don't pass up a fun forum just because of such statements.

Quote from: StuartCan you acknowledge that Forge / GNS theory is not a good model for creation of all types of desktop RPGs or RPG type games?

Nope.  I know several terrific games that have been arisen directly from ideas that people came to and refined in Forge discussions.  The ways of thinking about game design that have emerged from the Forge are certainly not the only good ways to design games, but I believe that the evidence shows that these ideas can help produce good stuff.

Quote from: StuartAnd if so, can you understand why trying to force any and all game design discussion into the Forge / GNS world view it's actually disruptive to any useful or productive discussion?

I think trying to force anything into a single rigid structure is disruptive to progress.  Keeping an open mind is pretty key to figuring out anything new.  So even though I disagree with you about whether Forge-type though contains A good model, I can certainly agree that it doesn't contain THE ONLY good model.

Quote from: StuartIf yes, then why do so many Forge regulars continue to do this?

Again, many reasons.  The one that stands out for me is that I suspect many people are so jazzed about the general idea of applying some sort of rational structure to thinking about games that they conflate the use that general principal has given them with the specific structure that someone has pitched them.

So they get hella excited by hearing a clear description of how (for instance) people should get on the same page about what they expect and want from their game.  But then, they conflate that excitement with the structure used to first introduce them to the concept ... and thus you get a GNS zealot.  On some level he thinks that he's pitching the general idea of getting people on the same page, but in reality all he's talking about one specific structure that purports to make that happen ... which means he's likely to offend everyone who (a) agrees with the general sentiment, but (b) disagrees with that structure.

Anyway, that's one of my guesses.

Quote from: StuartDo you understand how attempts to introduce Forge / GNS jargon into a discussion can be disruptive if the other participants are not in agreement with the Forge / GNS theories?

Oh yeah.

Quote from: StuartDo you understand that memorizing an invented vocabulary (whether GNS/TBM or Klingon) is not a sign of a scholarly approach to RPG theory?

I am so tempted to go out and find an english->klingon translator, so that I can type back "I understand" in klingon.  Yeah, you're absolutely right:  Rote learning is in many ways the bane of flexible, inquisitive exploration.

Quote from: StuartDo you recognize that RPG design, like other forms of design, is not a Science but and Art -- and therefore is not well served by the same academic approach you might use in Ron Edward's personal academic background?

I disagree with you on the distinction ... but then, math and beauty are very tightly intertwined for me.  The line between science and art seems to be variously sharp, fuzzy or non-existent in a way that depends much more upon the person judging the line than it does upon any intrinsic reality.

Quote from: StuartDo you see how approaching painting in the same way you might chemistry, and trying to convince others to do the same is not helpful to painting as an art-form, and will not lead to better paintings?

I really don't agree.  I get a huge kick out of cross-pollinated fields like molecular gastronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_gastronomy), for instance.

Quote from: StuartWhy do Forge regulars not require senior Forge designers to take responsibility for their own actions?

'cause we're not their parents, either literally or figuratively.  If Ben Lehman says something wildly offensive (unlikely, but...) that's his thing to deal with, or not.  He's a big boy.  I might come up to him and say "Wow, you were a real TWIT that one time!", but I'm certainly not going to require him to do anything about it.

Quote from: StuartIn the example of Vincent's recent game, why would Forge regulars that have not read or played the game go to such great lengths to defend gameplay that they would otherwise condemn if it had been produced by a game / designer outside of the Forge?

I'm sure you're getting bored of the "Lots of reasons" answer by now, but ... seriously ... the Forge is not a mono-mind.  People do things for lots of reasons.  You got'cher people who will support Vincent because they trust him to not have been doing such things out of prurient interest, you got'cher people who think that perverse stories are fine prurient or otherwise, you got'cher people who think that the AP has been blown out of proportion, you probably even got'cher people who think that they're defending their side in some sort of "War."  And then you've probably got dozens upon dozens of other reasons.  I can't keep track of 'em all.

Quote from: StuartWhy instead of saying: "Ask him" or "I'm sure he'll explain it" do Forge regulars try to invent justification for senior Forge designers actions and statements -- which is often at odds with what these same designers come out and say themselves?

I don't know.  I've always found the notion that a person would say "Oh, Vincent meant X, even though he clearly said not-X," to be a little wacky.  I've had people telling me that kind of thing, about myself, for a while now ... and I never understood it in that context either.  If you see people doing that kind of thing, and you scratch your head ... I'm right with you there.

Quote from: StuartWould you rather sit down to play a game that made sense according to the Forge / GNS and was moderately enjoyable for the group, or that didn't make sense according to Forge / GNS but was very enjoyable for the group?

I'd always rather play the game that's more fun.

Quote from: StuartWhat is the best game you've ever played that Forge / GNS theory does not adequately explain?

I've had Ron tell me on several occasions that the game-play I describe for Capes is impossible, and I must be misinterpreting it.  I don't know if Capes is the "best" game that I've played that some Forge-fellow can't explain with their personal set of theory, but it's my favorite.

But, then, I've had plenty of people tell me that Capes perfectly fits their sense of what Forge-theory is.  So ... not a mono-mind, which makes this question a little bit tricky to answer.

Quote from: StuartWhy is the Forge / GNS theories something we should move past?

Today's theory (much less yesterday's) is always something that we should move past.  The new stuff is toward the horizon ... whatever horizon you choose to hare off toward.

My definition is the same as the rest of the world's.  Here's the Wikipedia version:

Evangelism is an activity whereby a Christian explains or presents the christian gospel of Jesus to one seen as a non-Christian, with the intention of enabling that person to respond to this by becoming a Christian.

The term is also used in a non-religious sense to describe an individual who takes up a cause and convinces others to it.

A technical or technology evangelist is a person whose job or role is to promote technologies, usually new technologies. This may be, officially or unofficially, on behalf of a company or organisation, or on a personal basis, for instance open source evangelism. An evangelist promotes the use of a particular product or technology through talks, articles, blogging, user demonstrations, recorded demonstrations, or the creation of sample projects. The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism because of the similar recruitment of converts and the spreading of the product information through the ideological or committed.

In that context, the questions are:

Why do Forge regulars feel the need to evangelize their theories to every single message board that deals with RPGs?

Why is it that even when the regular posters of a message board, the moderators, and the stated goals of the site should make it clear that GNS/Forge theory is not welcomed or appreciated, this does not stop Forge regulars from attempting to colonize another site?  

(Please feel free to use "convert" instead of "colonize" if that term is confusing ;))

Tony, I think you misunderstood another question (although perhaps not and you are making a strong statement):

Can you acknowledge that Forge / GNS theory is not a good model for creation of all  types of desktop RPGs or RPG type games?  

To further clarify:

Can you acknowledge that some types of desktop RPGs or RPG type games are not suited to use Forge / GNS theory in their development?  Or -- do you contend that it is a universal theory for design of any and all desktop RPGs or RPG type games without exclusion?

Quote from: TonyLB................
I am so tempted to go out and find an english->klingon translator, so that I can type back "I understand" in klingon.  Yeah, you're absolutely right:  Rote learning is in many ways the bane of flexible, inquisitive exploration.
...............................................

I didn't even see that exchange till the second time I read those two or three responses.

Tony - There IS a translator page somewhere on the web. I forget where, I'm not really as obsessed as People think I am with that stuff.

If there were "real Klingons" , they wouldn't play Forge/Indie type games. They would be more of the Kill monsters, take their stuff school of RPG players. Slaqying a dragon ? Oh hell yeah !! Thats a huge beast  you're killing. Great songs are composed in your honor afterwards and there are celebrations and parties where Klingon women enjoy jumping into the beds with Klingon men....and you get the idea... (kind of the ultra-fun mix of Viking and Samurai cultures all thrown into a cultural blender of party!! Party!!)


 Oh yeah a question or 2 for Tony :

You prefer Klingons  smooth or crunchy? (Thats forehead looks)

Starfleet ships with ....or without Ship's counselors?

GMs with power ? or Without ?


- Ed C.

Thanks for clarifying!

Quote from: StuartEvangelism is an activity whereby a Christian explains or presents the christian gospel of Jesus to one seen as a non-Christian, with the intention of enabling that person to respond to this by becoming a Christian.

....

Why do Forge regulars feel the need to evangelize their theories to every single message board that deals with RPGs?

Because they're enthusiastic about the ideas, and geeks of all stripes talk to people about their enthusiasms.  It doesn't surprise me to see them "presenting the ideas to non-Forge-folk with the intention of enabling that person to respond to this by adopting the ideas."  That's ... basically just explaining your enthusiasm in a comprehensible way, isn't it?

I'm certainly enthusiastic about many (though certainly not all) theory ideas, and I hope that I explain the ones I like in such a way as to enable other people to consider the same ideas.  By the stated definition, I think that means I'm an "evangelist" for my ideas ... but then, so are you (for your ideas) and so are most people on this board (for theirs).

Quote from: StuartWhy is it that even when the regular posters of a message board, the moderators, and the stated goals of the site should make it clear that GNS/Forge theory is not welcomed or appreciated, this does not stop Forge regulars from attempting to colonize another site?

They're still enthusiastic, even if they encounter people who don't like the ideas.

Quote from: StuartCan you acknowledge that some types of desktop RPGs or RPG type games are not suited to use Forge / GNS theory in their development?

Oh, absolutely.  In fact, it is my steadfast hope to continue to design games that confound the current state of theory.

Quote from: StuartOr -- do you contend that it is a universal theory for design of any and all desktop RPGs or RPG type games without exclusion?

Like some grand unified theory of RPG design, with nothing left to discover or invent?  God, I sure hope not.  That'd be dead boring.

Quote from: StuartDo you recognize that RPG design, like other forms of design, is not a Science but and Art -- and therefore is not well served by the same academic approach you might use in Ron Edward's personal academic background?

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with you on the distinction ... but then, math and beauty are very tightly intertwined for me. The line between science and art seems to be variously sharp, fuzzy or non-existent in a way that depends much more upon the person judging the line than it does upon any intrinsic reality.

That there is beauty in the natural world, mathematics, and art doesn't change the fact that the academic approaches to both science and art are different.

I started my Academic career in the sciences, and worked in a research lab.  I switched to the Arts (Fine Arts at that!) and they are very, very different in their approaches to scholarly analysis of a topic.  I consider myself well balanced between the Arts and Sciences, but using a formula like you would in math or chemistry to judge the merits of a painting or sculpture isn't applicable.

Quote from: TonyLBI really don't agree. I get a huge kick out of cross-pollinated fields like molecular gastronomy, for instance.

As a matter of fact my research work was in this area. :)  Cellular transport across the membranes in the gastric tract.   Again, this isn't applicable to my latter studies in the arts.

gotta run... more later...

Edit: Okay, "Molecular gastronomy" seems to refer to what we call Food Science at our school.  It's part of our Agricultural College.  My previous studies were in Gastrointestinal Disease Research, and involved looking at how molecular transport across the lining of the intestine was affected under different conditions.  There's definitely more "Art" in Food Science than GI Research -- but they're both definitely science though, and you wouldn't find them approaching things in the same way you would something like English Literature, or Film & Theatre Studies.

Quote from: KoltarYou prefer Klingons  smooth or crunchy? (Thats forehead looks)

Crunchy.  They strike me as so much more their own people in the later series' than they were when they were just an evil foil for the Federation.

Quote from: KoltarStarfleet ships with ....or without Ship's counselors?

Man, I like the idea of a ship's counselor in theory, I just think it was so thoroughly fucked up by the way Deanna Troi was scripted (and in many cases acted) in TNG.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the ship's counsellor with a different, slinkier uniform, indicating that she's not really Star Fleet, whose only job is to act as a sort of Empathic Sensor Array and tell the captain that she senses "hostility" from the aliens who are CURRENTLY FIRING ON THE SHIP.  GAH!

I think you could play a counsellor who is part chaplain, part shrink, part psych-ops warrior, part secret police ... and they would fuckin' rock.  This is the guy who wears the Star Fleet uniform because he thinks the way Star Fleet thinks (only more so).  The guy who views the crew, with it's collective mindset and many personalities, the way the chief engineer views the parts of the warp core.  The guy who will push PEOPLE beyond their stated safe limits in order to achieve the seemingly impossible.  The guy who, when things are going straight to shit and the captain's possessed by a light entity, he's the one who subtly engineers the necessary mutiny.  The guy who's too important to discard, and too manipulative to ever trust.  

It's one of the things I've wanted to go back to ST roleplaying specifically to do.  Why do you excite me so for things that none of my friends want to GM for me?  Why? :(

Quote from: KoltarGMs with power ? or Without ?

With.  Totally with.  If the role of GM has a purpose in the game then they need a fair dollop of power to do their job.  If the role doesn't serve a purpose then the game should be redesigned so it can be played without saddling someone with an unnecessary job.

Quote from: TonyLBI've had Ron tell me on several occasions that the game-play I describe for Capes is impossible, and I must be misinterpreting it.

Yes, when our experimental data doesn't match our model it means you must be misinterpreting the data.  What else could it be?  Surely not that the model needs revision!  We never, ever, change our initial hypotheses when doing research... right? ;)

If you believe a Scientific approach to studying the Arts is good idea, shouldn't a more disciplined scientific method be used?

Wouldn't frequent examples that disproves a scientific theory suggest that the theory is not useful in predicting future outcomes?

Quote from: StuartYes, when our experimental data doesn't match our model it means you must be misinterpreting the data.  What else could it be?  Surely not that the model needs revision!  We never, ever, change our initial hypotheses when doing research... right? ;)

These questions are rhetorical, right?

Quote from: StuartIf you believe a Scientific approach to studying the Arts is good idea, shouldn't a more disciplined scientific method be used?

I dunno about "disciplined" ... I know a fair number of scientists (and particularly mathematicians) whose approach I would hesitate to call disciplined.  But I certainly think that the evidence of actual play should be looked at with an open mind, rather than through the filter of what matches your current theory.  If you're just looking to verify what you think you already know then you'll never find anything new.

After all, as I'm fond of telling people, the sound of a scientific breakthrough is not "Eureka, I've solved it!", but rather the humbler "Wait ... that can't be right."  It's looking honestly at the results you didn't expect that makes for progress (in both science and the arts).

Frankly, my usual practice is to look at any theory, say "Okay, what kind of test could I perform that just might prove this totally wrong" and then go out and try that test (in RPG terms, by playing a game).  If I don't find something hugely unexpected then I try to think of another test.  That's the main use I get out of theories ... they tell me what wacky experiments to try.

Quote from: StuartWouldn't frequent examples that disproves a scientific theory suggest that the theory is not useful in predicting future outcomes?

It would and does.

Quote from: TonyLBIt would and does.

Very good Tony, you've taken your first step into a larger world.



:haw:

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: StuartWouldn't frequent examples that disproves a scientific theory suggest that the theory is not useful in predicting future outcomes?

It would and does.

• Do you believe there are frequent examples of games and play that disprove GNS/TBM? If so:

[LIST=a]

• Do you believe this makes them decreases their utility in predicting future outcomes?
• Does each example decrease the utility further?
• At what point will enough examples render the theiry useless in your eyes?

• If not:

[LIST=a]

• Do you believe there are any examples of games and play that disprove GNS/TBM (I realize you sort of answered this to Stuart, but I'm being complete)?
• Are the number of examples that disprove, in your opinion, increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable?

[/LIST]

Every time I see the acronym for "The Big Model"  in this thread I keep forgetting thats what it stands for.

 So every time I see this:

Quotetyped by lots of people:   GNS/TBM

My head translates it as "Gamist,Narrativist,Simulationist"/The Bowel Movement" ...and I go Huh?

 Then I realize its meant to refer to the The Big Model.

Quote from: StuartVery good Tony, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

Yeah, yeah :p  ... I mean, I get the joke:  Tony says something that isn't the same as whatever the perceived Forge Mono-mind opinion is, and people are all like "Wow, for the first time he's having a thought different from the hive!"

Just as long as you're phrasing it as a joke, that's cool.  If anyone seriously thinks that's what's happening then ... oy.  Where to even begin?

It's more that you've got off the fence and expressed a definite, unqualified opinion on something. People like that shit. Mazeltov!

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe there are frequent examples of games and play that disprove GNS/TBM?

Personally?  Yeah, I think the evidence runs counter to what the theory predicts, particularly in the question of hybrid styles (where two different priorities of play can be consistently served by the same actions).

But the thing is, it's a theory that (to my mind) is based upon the subjective perceptions of the people playing the game ... and so I don't know what it would take to give an objective example that would disprove it.  It's like, you can often disprove it to a guy by playing certain types of games with him, because you give him the subjective experience ... but you can't disprove it to anyone else by describing that game, because they weren't there experiencing it themselves, and the objective game-play record doesn't prove or disprove anything about the subjective experience.

Which ... frustrating, yeah ... but also, it makes me inclined to think that I don't need to butt heads with the guys who say that GNS perfectly describes all of their play.  We can just agree that it describes everything they've done, not everything I've done, and talk about other things.  I only need to smack into the guys who insist that it must perfectly describe all of my play.

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe this makes them decreases their utility in predicting future outcomes?

Well no, but only because that's not really how science works.  A theory doesn't start out useful and then eventually become less accurate.  You just think it's useful, and eventually you realize that it was always inaccurate.

I think that as people play games that are deliberately built to do things that are "funky" in GNS terms, they've been spotlighting more and more types of things that GNS never modelled fully.  

Like I said, I look at an RPG theory and I say "So what sort of wierd game can I play to find new types of things that this theory wouldn't cover?"

And remember ... I think this is a good thing.  I think it's the natural and desirable path of doing theory.  Your theories are supposed to be proven wrong/incomplete/whatever, so that you can create a new theory that's better.

Quote from: James J SkachDoes each example decrease the utility further?

As above, no but each example makes the shortcomings more obvious.  I'm sorry to get caught up in the wording, but I actually think the distinction, though subtle, is pretty important.

Quote from: James J SkachAt what point will enough examples render the theiry useless in your eyes?

You think I use GNS?  Where'd you get that idea?  I don't use GNS to design (or to play) and I never have.  It may be useful to someone else (and more power to 'em!) but that's their business.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's more that you've got off the fence and expressed a definite, unqualified opinion on something. People like that shit. Mazeltov!

Yeah ... y'know, it's just amazing the kind of stuff I'm able to get across when people are asking me what I think about RPG theory, rather than asking me what Ron thinks about it.

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally?  Yeah, I think the evidence runs counter to what the theory predicts, particularly in the question of hybrid styles (where two different priorities of play can be consistently served by the same actions).

I call bullshit on this reply - jrients?

Se, I didn't ask you anything that had to do with this shit, did I?

Quote from: TonyLBBut the thing is, it's a theory that (to my mind) is based upon the subjective perceptions of the people playing the game ... and so I don't know what it would take to give an objective example that would disprove it.  It's like, you can often disprove it to a guy by playing certain types of games with him, because you give him the subjective experience ... but you can't disprove it to anyone else by describing that game, because they weren't there experiencing it themselves, and the objective game-play record doesn't prove or disprove anything about the subjective experience.

Which ... frustrating, yeah ... but also, it makes me inclined to think that I don't need to butt heads with the guys who say that GNS perfectly describes all of their play.  We can just agree that it describes everything they've done, not everything I've done, and talk about other things.  I only need to smack into the guys who insist that it must perfectly describe all of my play.

I didn't ask for objective proof, did I?

I asked you a simple set of yes/no questions.  And isn't it interesting how you sidestepped certain ones - why is that, Tony?

Quote from: TonyLBWell no, but only because that's not really how science works.  A theory doesn't start out useful and then eventually become less accurate.  You just think it's useful, and eventually you realize that it was always inaccurate.

So, no. I don't need the commentary that really has nothing to do with the question.  It's just you trying to dodge saying no - or at least rationalize it away somehow. Especially because you end up saying yes.  WTF?

Quote from: TonyLBI think that as people play games that are deliberately built to do things that are "funky" in GNS terms, they've been spotlighting more and more types of things that GNS never modelled fully.  

Like I said, I look at an RPG theory and I say "So what sort of wierd game can I play to find new types of things that this theory wouldn't cover?"

And remember ... I think this is a good thing.  I think it's the natural and desirable path of doing theory.  Your theories are supposed to be proven wrong/incomplete/whatever, so that you can create a new theory that's better.

And I care about this, why, again?  I mean, if this is the way you dance around having to call GNS/TBM a heaping pile of shit without alienating all of your Camp Nerdly buddies, that's no skin off my nose.  But you don't need to keep the shields up for us.

Quote from: TonyLBAs above, no but each example makes the shortcomings more obvious.  I'm sorry to get caught up in the wording, but I actually think the distinction, though subtle, is pretty important.

Well a distinction not worth the effort, but that's another debate.  You say it's becoming more obvious with each example that it's wrong.  I'm just using Stuart verbiage as it sounded nicer.  But we'll stick with yours.  That is, every time somene plays D&D and has fun, it's a little more obvious that GNS/TBM is wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBYou think I use GNS?  Where'd you get that idea?  I don't use GNS to design (or to play) and I never have.  It may be useful to someone else (and more power to 'em!) but that's their business.

Nice sidestep - at what point did I say you use GNS?  I asked you when, in your opinion, would all of the examples simple make it worthless.  It's funny you side step this.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah ... y'know, it's just amazing the kind of stuff I'm able to get across when people are asking me what I think about RPG theory, rather than asking me what Ron thinks about it.

The thing is that so many of the things you post are equivocation, "no wait I don't think that means what you think it means," or full of qualifications and hedges. "Well I think that in my experience it is often the case that it may be possible that some people find -" etc. I realise that's a natural response to years on the internet with moronic pedantic nitpickers, but it's still a bore and a pain.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, yeah :p  ... I mean, I get the joke:  Tony says something that isn't the same as whatever the perceived Forge Mono-mind opinion is, and people are all like "Wow, for the first time he's having a thought different from the hive!"

Tony, many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

:D

James, seriously ... what the hell?

You asked a bunch of questions that (apparently) you were dead certain I would say "No" to (because you're dead certain that I defend GNS with my life) and instead I say "Yes" (because I don't personally think much of GNS) and so I'm dodging the question?  What.  The.  Hell?

Quote from: James J SkachSe, I didn't ask you anything that had to do with this shit, did I?

You asked me whether GNS failed to accurately predict, and I said "Yes, and here are some of the specific areas where I think it particularly falls down."

Quote from: James J SkachI didn't ask for objective proof, did I?

You asked if I thought it was disproven, and I said "Yes, I feel it's disproven ... and here's why I think that sentiment hasn't spread further."

Quote from: James J SkachI asked you a simple set of yes/no questions.  And isn't it interesting how you sidestepped certain ones - why is that, Tony?

I answered them, and provided details.  I seriously find it boggling that you're so pissed off when I'm agreeing with you.  Why is that, James?

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I care about this, why, again?

Apparently you don't.  I thought you might be interested in, y'know, what I think rather than ... whatever it is you're looking for here.  Crazy of me, apparently :(

Quote from: James J SkachNice sidestep - at what point did I say you use GNS?

You asked me when GNS would become useless in my eyes ... which is a question that (like "When will you stop beating your wife?") assumes that I find it useful now, or at least did so in the past.  I don't, and never have.

And you're pissed off about this ... why? :confused:

OK...really?  You've got to be kidding.

See, you've translated what I've asked into what you think I've asked. In reality, I asked a straightforward set of questions (minus the last one which I could see being misinterpreted – see below) based mostly on Stuarts line of reasoning, which I liked.  Instead, you answered a bunch of questions you either thought I asked or that you wanted to answer.

Quote from: TonyLBYou asked a bunch of questions that (apparently) you were dead certain I would say "No" to (because you're dead certain that I defend GNS with my life) and instead I say "Yes" (because I don't personally think much of GNS) and so I'm dodging the question?  What.  The.  Hell?

I did not expect yes or no, which is why I offered follow-up questions for each possibility (at least that I could think of without going 10 layers deep in a LIST tag). Look at the quote above; see how you answer what you think I'm asking?  I, personally, had no idea how you'd answer.  I thought your answers to Stuart were interesting and so tried to get some more detail on your thoughts.

Quote from: TonyLBYou asked me whether GNS failed to accurately predict, and I said "Yes, and here are some of the specific areas where I think it particularly falls down."

I did not ask whether GNS failed to predict.  I asked if you thought examples of play that disprove GNS/TBM decrease it's utility in predicting future outcomes. And hilarious that you claim to answer "Yes" when your first two words were "Well no."  See how confusing it all is when you can't even tell how you answered?

Quote from: TonyLBYou asked if I thought it was disproven, and I said "Yes, I feel it's disproven ... and here's why I think that sentiment hasn't spread further."

I did not ask if it's disproven – and ironically it's not how you answered.  See Kyle's admonition about "Yes, but...really no," answers.  Also ironic is how you are reluctant to discuss anyone else's view on the topic (ex: "Gee, isn't it great when I don't have to answer for Ron?"), but in this case felt the need to do just that – by saying how other people view it.

Quote from: TonyLBI answered them, and provided details.  I seriously find it boggling that you're so pissed off when I'm agreeing with you.  Why is that, James?

Perhaps because instead of answering in a straightforward way, we end up getting all kinds of obfuscations, shades of gray, misdirections, etc.  Is it possible to answer questions in a simple way?  I'm all for you being able to say "Hey, this is a wife beating question. Rephrase or drop it." But these answers don't ever seem to be straightforward. Most of the time I can't even tell if we're in agreement or not. Ever think of that and how frustrating it might be? Ever think succinct might be in your best interests?

Quote from: TonyLBApparently you don't.  I thought you might be interested in, y'know, what I think rather than ... whatever it is you're looking for here.  Crazy of me, apparently :(

I ask the same question more an more lately about you – what is it you're looking for, Tony? I thought it was one thing.  Crazy of me, apparently.

Quote from: TonyLBYou asked me when GNS would become useless in my eyes ... which is a question that (like "When will you stop beating your wife?") assumes that I find it useful now, or at least did so in the past.  I don't, and never have.

This is fair. Ironically, it's about the only one you answered with any sort of certainty, but is the one I wrote most poorly.  So I'll rephrase:

At what point, do you think, will enough examples of game/play that disprove GNS/TBM exist to render the theory irellevant to those who think it relevant?

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you're pissed off about this ... why? :confused:

I'm "mad" because your behavior after the infamous thread of putting up a poll so singularly designed to advocate a position makes me think your intentions here are not as pure as you've led me to believe. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and it appears I was wrong. You continue to claim that you're not acting a certain way, and then you act that way.  Perhaps it's unintended, but then it's the worst case of clueless-about-how-you-are-perceived-on-the-site. This thread, which had all but died, the more I look at it is part you answering questions about your game, part you dodging questions or obfuscating so as (it appears) not to hurt your friends on other sites, and part you laughing at people in condescension.

Quote from: James J SkachLook at the quote above; see how you answer what you think I'm asking?  I, personally, had no idea how you'd answer.

And when I answered, I didn't have any idea what answer you thought I'd give either.  But when I say "Yes" and you say "BULLSHIT!" then I tend to think that you expected an answer of "No."  Additional data refines my reading of past intent.  It may refine it in the wrong direction, but it does refine it.  Please don't assume that I had that additional data when I answered the question, 'kay?

Quote from: James J SkachI did not ask whether GNS failed to predict.  I asked if you thought examples of play that disprove GNS/TBM decrease it's utility in predicting future outcomes. And hilarious that you claim to answer "Yes" when your first two words were "Well no."  See how confusing it all is when you can't even tell how you answered?

I think you haven't gotten my point about the actual utility of a theory, vs. the perceived utility.  Let me try to be more succinct:

No evidence can change how well GNS actually does or does not predict future outcomes.  It either predicts them well or it doesn't.

Further evidence can only help people to realize that it doesn't predict some things well, and never has.  I think this is happening a lot.

Example:  Newtonian physics was never a good model for sub-atomic reactions ... but we needed to be able to measure (or at least conceive of) sub-atomic reactions before we could realize that.

Quote from: James J SkachIs it possible to answer questions in a simple way?

It is possible, but not always wise.  The short answer is sometimes the enemy of the clear answer, particularly if the question carries different weight for you than it does for me.

"Do you believe RPGs can create art?"  "Yes."

Without elaboration, people who hear that answer may very well think that I'm talking about the kind of art one hangs in a museum or venerates forever ... and they'll totally misunderstand me.  Elaboration is, to my mind, called for.

Quote from: James J SkachMost of the time I can't even tell if we're in agreement or not. Ever think of that and how frustrating it might be?

Every single time I say "Yes," and you hear "No."

Quote from: James J SkachEver think succinct might be in your best interests?

I answer succinctly any time I think it won't actually cloud communications.

Quote from: James J SkachI ask the same question more an more lately about you – what is it you're looking for, Tony?

I like to talk about games with people who are passionate about it.  I like to talk about what I think (and to help people understand that) and I like to ask people about what they think (and try to understand that).

Quote from: James J SkachAt what point, do you think, will enough examples of game/play that disprove GNS/TBM exist to render the theory irellevant to those who think it relevant?

I don't think that'll ever happen.  I think the only thing that renders the theory irrelevant to most people is their personal experience of a game session that it doesn't explain.

Who's the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who follows him?

:)

Quote from: StuartWho's the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who follows him?

The fool, definitely.  The fool who follows him will end up in the same bad fix, but at least he'll have somebody to blame.

And that really sums up your whole problem, doesn't it?

Lose the Forge, Tony.

:haw:

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd that really sums up your whole problem, doesn't it?

J., it was a joke.

I don't think I can take you seriously if you're going to snipe at even my one-liner responses to Star Wars quotes.

In comedy there is often far more truth than in public relations . . .

Quote from: TonyLBJ., it was a joke.

I don't think I can take you seriously if you're going to snipe at even my one-liner responses to Star Wars quotes.

You take him seriously?

You take any of us seriously?

You silly sod.

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with you on the distinction ... but then, math and beauty are very tightly intertwined for me.  The line between science and art seems to be variously sharp, fuzzy or non-existent in a way that depends much more upon the person judging the line than it does upon any intrinsic reality.

As a physical scientist who likes to think he's picked up a thing or two about the arts, I have to say what the hell?

Quote from: WarthurAs a physical scientist who likes to think he's picked up a thing or two about the arts, I have to say what the hell?

Have you seen any of the sculptures that physically model mathmatical computations? I remember seeing one in an art book (or a math book?) in highschool, and I was really impressed. That's about as literal as you get, but there are also a lot of mathmatical projections that go into sculpture, painting, and in a larger sense, architecture, which is an art in itself.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou take him seriously?

You take any of us seriously?

You silly sod.

Sounds like a lot of people are taking this thread seriously, which seems like a mistake in its own right.

Quote from: Thanatos02Sounds like a lot of people are taking this thread seriously, which seems like a mistake in its own right.

I'm seriously upset about all these people taking things seriously!

Quote from: WarthurAs a physical scientist who likes to think he's picked up a thing or two about the arts, I have to say what the hell?

I'm gonna need a more focussed question if you want any specific answer.  If you're just boggled by the mere concept that math and art could intersect ... well then, I'll just suggest you check out the aesthetics of the golden ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio), just for starters.  This isn't some modernist concept.  Math and art are not newlyweds.  They're an old married couple.

Tony, while there's of course a deep relationship between mathematics, science, art, and philosophy, do you understand that the Academic approach to each of these is quite distinct?  Do you also understand that the narrowed view used to study the sciences is not the same narrowed view used to study the arts?

On the subject of attempting a purely mathematical approach to art -- what do you think is meant by the phrase: "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing?"

In that context, do you think the approach used to study physical biology is the correct approach to study literature, performance, design, or philosophy?

What is your academic background?

If your head was made out of veal, how much would it cost?

Quote from: StuartTony, while there's of course a deep relationship between mathematics, science, art, and philosophy, do you understand that the Academic approach to each of these is quite distinct?

Yes.

Quote from: StuartDo you also understand that the narrowed view used to study the sciences is not the same narrowed view used to study the arts?

Yes.

Quote from: StuartOn the subject of attempting a purely mathematical approach to art -- what do you think is meant by the phrase: "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing?"

Personally, I take it as a suggestion to put some of yourself into any of your endeavours, not merely to rely upon objective craft (no matter how perfect).

Quote from: StuartIn that context, do you think the approach used to study physical biology is the correct approach to study literature, performance, design, or philosophy?

I think that anything worth studying can be tackled from many different approaches.  So it's not THE approach to studying (say) literature, but it can be A valid approach.

FWIW, I've done statistical literary analysis.  It's fun, and often illuminating.

Quote from: StuartWhat is your academic background?

I studied lots of stuff in college, but primarily math and computer science, with a secondary interest in literature.

Quote from: StuartIf your head was made out of veal, how much would it cost?

I don't know ... and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be comforted by the knowledge if I found out.

Quote from: Thanatos02Have you seen any of the sculptures that physically model mathmatical computations? I remember seeing one in an art book (or a math book?) in highschool, and I was really impressed. That's about as literal as you get, but there are also a lot of mathmatical projections that go into sculpture, painting, and in a larger sense, architecture, which is an art in itself.

But that's very much a one-way street, art taking inspiration from science. I can't think of many instances where scientific breakthroughs have arisen from art.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm gonna need a more focussed question if you want any specific answer.  If you're just boggled by the mere concept that math and art could intersect ... well then, I'll just suggest you check out the aesthetics of the golden ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio), just for starters.  This isn't some modernist concept.  Math and art are not newlyweds.  They're an old married couple.

But maths and science aren't the same thing. Maths is a tool that science uses.

Tony, would it be fair to say that you are much more familiar with the Academic study of the sciences compared to the Arts?

What do you think is meant by the saying: "When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"?

Have you done much formal academic study of:
Literary Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory)?
Film Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_theory)?
Theatre Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre)?
Performing Arts Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_arts)?
Game Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies)?
Have you directed a film, a play, or acted on stage or in front of a camera?

I did my thesis on Interactive Cinema, and I'm very familiar with the above areas of study.  I only did 1 year in the sciences though... so I'd have to differ others with more knowledge of math and biology (such as Chiropteran anatomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat)) for certain topics. However I'm quite certain that the Forge approach to RPG analysis and design, grounded in the academics of the Sciences, is not the best approach for the subject matter.

It's always interesting to look at things in new and unorthodox ways, but the Forge / GNS approach certainly shouldn't be THE dominant approach to RPG analysis and design that's evangelized on every single internet forum that deals with RPGs.  It should be a fringe activity and interest at best, much like using mathematics to study Shakespeare, and attempting to use the knowledge gained through that pursuit  to author new plays.

In that context, would it not seem logical that Forge / GNS evangelists should "STFU Yo!" rather than thread-crap any and all discussion they find where people are trying to study and design games?  Would it not make more sense for people who have an interest in RPG theory and design to look to actual academic theory and research on the topic, rather than the faux academic theories offered by the Forge, or used as the foundation for most of the discussion and design done by so-called "Hippy" gamers?

Is it possible that attempting to use the wrong academic theories to analyze RPGs could result in real and literal brain damage?  What do you think the symptoms of this brain damage would be?  Would people suffering from this damage recognize they were all screwed up?  Is it possible that turning off the computer and going outside to watch the clouds for a while could cure them?  Is it possible this could cure a lot of things?

If a nice veal brisket at the deli is $8 a pound, and your head is about 11 pounds, you'd have to pay $88 for a new veal-head if you lost your first one!  Do you think that's a reasonable price for a new head?  Do you think you could get a cheaper head if you went to the Safeway?

Safeway is way expensive for meat.

Quote from: AosSafeway is way expensive for meat.

 Where did THAT come from??

 Locally we have KROGER'S.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWhere did THAT come from??

 

my foot itches.

Quote from: StuartTony, would it be fair to say that you are much more familiar with the Academic study of the sciences compared to the Arts?

I don't think so, no.

Quote from: StuartWhat do you think is meant by the saying: "When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"?

That the tools you have at your disposal change the way you look at problems.  Or was that a rhetorical question?

Quote from: StuartHave you done much formal academic study of:
Literary Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory)?

A couple years of consistent, formal study.

Quote from: StuartFilm Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_theory)?

A little.

Quote from: StuartTheatre Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre)?

Nope.

Quote from: StuartPerforming Arts Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_arts)?

Nope.

Quote from: StuartGame Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies)?

I've certainly had formal study in the topics that the Wikipedia subject links, though I hadn't heard of "Game Studies" as a discipline back in the early '90s when I was deep in academia.  In fact, I'm not sure it was recognized back then ... certainly the references are all late '90s, early 2000's.

Quote from: StuartHave you directed a film, a play, or acted on stage or in front of a camera?

I have acted and directed for stage (as well as done lighting ... lighting is the least stressful of the three).  I haven't directed live action film, but as a lone animator I suppose I would have technically been the director of the two animated shorts I created.  Seems an awful uppity title for what amounted to being an all-around gopher, though.

Quote from: StuartIn that context, would it not seem logical that Forge / GNS evangelists should "STFU Yo!" rather than thread-crap any and all discussion they find where people are trying to study and design games?

Not really, no.  I don't see how you make the leap from "the Forge methodology shouldn't be the only way that people study and design games" (which I agree with) to "They should just shut the fuck up!" (which I don't agree with).  They should put forth their methodology when appropriate, in the hope that someone else can benefit from it, and they should try to benefit from the methods and insights of others.

Quote from: StuartWould it not make more sense for people who have an interest in RPG theory and design to look to actual academic theory and research on the topic, rather than the faux academic theories offered by the Forge, or used as the foundation for most of the discussion and design done by so-called "Hippy" gamers?

I don't think academia has the faintest fuckin' clue about RPGs, for the most part.  I'd take the opinion of a gamer with twenty years of actual play under his belt over that of a professor with a PhD in RPG Studies, any day.

Quote from: StuartIs it possible that attempting to use the wrong academic theories to analyze RPGs could result in real and literal brain damage?

No.  The brain is much too flexible and adaptable to be damaged by that kind of trivia.

Quote from: StuartWhat do you think the symptoms of this brain damage would be?  Would people suffering from this damage recognize they were all screwed up?  Is it possible that turning off the computer and going outside to watch the clouds for a while could cure them?  Is it possible this could cure a lot of things?

All of those questions are predicated upon a "Yes" answer to the brain damage question, right?

Quote from: StuartDo you think that's a reasonable price for a new head?

No.  A thinking, feeling, living head is worth much more than a comparable weight of inert meat.

Quote from: StuartDo you think you could get a cheaper head if you went to the Safeway?

I'm pretty sure they don't sell heads.  I'll check my circular, though.

A VEAL head, Tony.  You're not paying attention to the important questions. :rolleyes:

Quote from: TonyLBI don't see how you make the leap from "the Forge methodology shouldn't be the only way that people study and design games" (which I agree with) to "They should just shut the fuck up!" (which I don't agree with).  They should put forth their methodology when appropriate, in the hope that someone else can benefit from it, and they should try to benefit from the methods and insights of others.

It's not appropriate when people, and sites (like this one), go out of their way to say their methodologies are not appropriate, and not appreciated.

Would you think it appropriate if creationists attended conferences on evolution en masse and made sure that all conversations were about, or based on creationist theory?

Would it not be cool for the evolutionary theory people to say "Hey, it's awesome that you guys have other ideas about this stuff -- but we're not really interested in talking about your theories at our conference.  Thanks anyway!"

Quote from: TonyLBI don't think academia has the faintest fuckin' clue about RPGs, for the most part.  I'd take the opinion of a gamer with twenty years of actual play under his belt over that of a professor with a PhD in RPG Studies, any day.

You'd be surprised how many Academics are also RPG nerds. :)

Quote from: StuartWould you think it appropriate if creationists attended conferences on evolution en masse and made sure that all conversations were about, or based on creationist theory?

No.  A conference about evolution is about that one theory.  Creation science isn't a theory with any comment to make on evolutionary theory other than "Nuh-uh!"

However, if it were a conference on (for instance) "the origin of life" then creationists would clearly be legitimate attendees, as their theory addresses the topic.

Quote from: TonyLBNo.  A conference about evolution is about that one theory.  Creation science isn't a theory with any comment to make on evolutionary theory other than "Nuh-uh!"

However, if it were a conference on (for instance) "the origin of life" then creationists would clearly be legitimate attendees, as their theory addresses the topic.

Like this one, Tony?

International Conference on the Origin of Life (http://www.dbag.unifi.it/issol2008/)

QuoteOn behalf of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL), we have the great pleasure to invite all those interested in the scientific aspects of the origin of life and related issues to attend the 15th International Conference on the Origin of Life scheduled to take place in Florence, Italy, from 24 to 29 August, 2008.

Because of the multidisciplinary character, the study of the origin and early evolution of life, the aim of the conference is to discuss and integrate recent discoveries in manifold scientific fields of exo/astrobiology, including interstellar chemistry, comparative planetology, Precambrian paleobiology, chemical evolution and prebiotic chemistry, microbial evolution, genomics, extremophiles, the search for life in the Solar System, as well as historical and educational aspects related to the origin of life.

I think you were absolutely incorrect. :D

Quote from: StuartLike this one, Tony?

Yep.

Except, I think, Tony, that he's pointing out how that conference, on the origins of life, plans in no way to address to handle the creationist perspective on the origins of life.  It's a scientific examination of the subject.

The point being that...oh forget it...

Just for good measure, I'm going to disbelieve in this thread, too.