TheRPGSite

It only came a couple of days too late for the Pistols at Dawn thread, but check out this thread over in Storygames (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3409&page=1#Item_0), where the guy talks about how impossible it is to play D&D with a "social contract" and how "D&D and Story-games don't mix", (because D&D is so flawed).  

Essentially, the guy and his regular gang were running "Storygames D&D" full of their pretentious bullshit (fresh out of playing a "Dogs in the Vinyard Iron Heroes" campaign), and a couple of regular gamers who weren't part of their full-time group showed up, and were basically baffled with how the fuck these guys were playing, because they were expecting to play D&D, and not the Storytime Wank Hour where everyone jerks everyone else off about how brilliant they are.

The underlying fault, of course, is with D&D's lack of sophistication and the bad habits it creates in its regular players. :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

I´m fed up with this shit.
Too fed up to even care anymore.

I have no patience whatsoever with these kind of people anymore.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m fed up with this shit.
Too fed up to even care anymore.

I have no patience whatsoever with these kind of people anymore.

You mean Pundy and his incessant trumpeting of his imaginary war?  Yeah, I'm pretty sick of it, too.

!i!

Sort of.
But I´m more sick of your kind.

And what "kind" would that be, pray tell?

!i!

As for me, I'm sick of threads like this one, so let me summarize the next ten pages before they're being written:

1. Tony shows up and muddies the waters

2. Settembrini freaks out

3. Koltar suggests we all switch to GURPS

It's like clockwork.

I do feel some sympathy for the poor schmucks who really want to run DitV or whatever but end up GMing D&D because that's where the player base is.  But to try to bend D&D towards storygaming requires open and clear communication with the players and the assent of all present.  I think anything less will lead to dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for me, I'm sick of threads like this one, so let me summarize the next ten pages before they're being written:

1. Tony shows up and muddies the waters

2. Settembrini freaks out

3. Koltar suggests we all switch to GURPS

It's like clockwork.

Hey, I might make a cheap shot or two! I'll thank you not to leave my vanity posting out of this. :blahblah:

EDIT: Also, Pundy...Iron Kingdoms, not Iron Heroes. Setting, not system. I imagine Protectorate of Menoth (or howevuhthefuck you spell it) types, being the requisite fanatical fire-and-pokey-metal-things monotheists in any setting with pretensions towards the Renaissance.

Right, right.  

3) Christmas Ape posts soemthing he thinks is clever, everyone humors him because they think is avatar is cute

4) Koltar suggests we all switch to GURPS

Proof that Christmas Ape and GURPS are the great uniters.

!i!

What Pierce said.

I figure it's not like War threads MEAN anything, right? Though I admit AM's newsletter has been intriguing me these days - I wouldn't subscribe, but I'll read one I found in a bus terminal to abuse the metaphor. But in general, I'd say these are pretty much always about chest-beating, and who better than an ape?

Is it just chest beating?  Or is it also marking out territory like a dog?  Peeing on someone else's territory just to antagonise the dog in another yard.

!i!

(P.S. I just realised that you and I share semi-simian avatars.  Hail, ape-brother.)

Drop it folks.
Don´t use my thread fatigue to waste the whole Oeuvre of arguments "for" and "against" we have built up and weigehd against already.

Drop your anti-civilizatory bullshit.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIs it just chest beating?  Or is it also marking out territory like a dog?  Peeing on someone else's territory just to antagonise the dog in another yard.

!i!

Another vinyard? ;)

Quote from: One Horse TownAnother vinyard? ;)

D'oh!  You cheeky, antagonistic bastard!

By the way, has anyone made a "Dogs in the Swineyard" quip yet?  Because someone totally should.  I can't because it lacks the ring of sincerity when I post it.

!i!

While a part of me says threat displays are threat displays, another part does detect a foul air around these that would be more appropriate to waste.

Additionally, salutations, fellow lower primate. That reminds me, I really should change up his gaming book. I just can't decide to what...the thing I'm really interested in doesn't have a cover (as I'm hacking out a barbarian style fantasy setting in an incredibly slow and haphazard style).

And an Edit: Well played, OHT. Well played.

And Ian again: Daaaamn. You know where that would have been perfect? Back in the Pistols commentary, where Settembrini's going on about "Storygames Swinewatch!". That would have been so good...I just....aw man. I can't believe I missed that. Fucking migraine.

Ok, well, my only quip here is:

"If you tell everyone your'e going to game X, don't try to trick everyone and secretly run game Y."

For all values X or Y.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw"If you tell everyone your'e going to game X, don't try to trick everyone and secretly run game Y."

For all values X or Y.

Too true, no matter which side of the Swineyard fence you sit on.  It's the classic "GM's Dilemma":

GM: "Guys, I bought this new game last weekend.  Can we take a break from our current campaign to play it?"

Guys: "Uh, no.  We like the game we're currently playing."

GM: "But I'm the one running it for you guys.  Don't I get a say in what game we play?"

Guys: "Sure, but if you want to play a game that we don't want to play, that doesn't mean we have to play it."

GM: "Dag-nabbit, guys!  C'mon...!"

Guys: "Whatever, dude.  I roll to hit."

!i!

What the fuck's an "empowered player" anyway? How does a player become "dis-empowered"? What more power does a player need than the power to say "Yeah, that game sounds fun, I'm in" or "Naw, sounds like your game would just make me wanna vomit on your shoes." Also, what the fuck use is a relationship chart in gaming?

Quote from: Abyssal MawOk, well, my only quip here is:

"If you tell everyone your'e going to game X, don't try to trick everyone and secretly run game Y."

For all values X or Y.

What if I want to set up a game with a start like Top Secret, where the players think they're engaging in "standard" espionage type activites, but then slowly reveal that we're actually playing Dark Matter?

Quote from: Ian Absentia3) Christmas Ape posts soemthing he thinks is clever, everyone humors him because they think is avatar is cute

Can you blame us?  It is a very cute avatar.

Quote from: SigmundWhat if I want to set up a game with a start like Top Secret, where the players think they're engaging in "standard" espionage type activites, but then slowly reveal that we're actually playing Dark Matter?

Years ago, I used to hang out with a group of people who thought this sort of thing was really really cool.

It's totally not. Because people are constantly budgeting their lives and time and they have expectations about what their activities are, when they agree to participate. Playing tricks or duping people is just not respectful of that.

Quote from: SigmundWhat the fuck's an "empowered player" anyway? How does a player become "dis-empowered"? What more power does a player need than the power to say "Yeah, that game sounds fun, I'm in" or "Naw, sounds like your game would just make me wanna vomit on your shoes."

Follows the law of supply and demand, I suppose.  Sometimes, it's the only game in town, so to speak, and you either have to knuckle down and keep your mouth shut, or walk.  And that applies to players and GMs alike.  Truth be told, it makes for some pretty poisonous RPG when the players (and by "players" I'm including the GM) feel stuck playing a game that they don't all like, or playing in a manner that they don't all enjoy.

QuoteAlso, what the fuck use is a relationship chart in gaming?

It's a GM's tool, and it's purely optional.  I've used it before to help me work out some complex relationships in heavily contingent scenarios ("If the players do A to Jim, then Jim will respond with B, which will in turn force Jack to do C; if the players do X, though, then Jim and Jack both will do Y, prompting Jane to do Z").  It's become rather in vogue, though, and as a fad I think it makes people who get along fine without it to think that they're missing out on something.

!i!

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimCan you blame us?  It is a very cute avatar.

No, I don't blame anyone at all.  It is a seriously fucking cute avatar.

!i!

Quote from: Abyssal MawYears ago, I used to hang out with a group of people who thought this sort of thing was really really cool.

It's totally not. Because people are constantly budgeting their lives and time and they have expectations about what their activities are, when they agree to participate. Playing tricks or duping people is just not respectful of that.

I'm totally with Maw on this one.  If you want the campaign to shade out of one genre and into another then you need to make sure players have buy-in upfront with that approach.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYears ago, I used to hang out with a group of people who thought this sort of thing was really really cool.

It's totally not. Because people are constantly budgeting their lives and time and they have expectations about what their activities are, when they agree to participate. Playing tricks or duping people is just not respectful of that.

Leaving aside the intentional or not insinuation that it's immature, it's my understanding that one of the methods of introducing a horror-style feeling is to use this "dawning realization" that the world is a darker and scarier place than was previously realized, and that the characters have stumbled onto something terrifying and completely unexpected. Plus, just because it's "not cool" to you doesn't mean it's "not cool" period. I would like to think I know my fellow player better than any of ya'all. "Playing tricks" might not be fun for some (and I'd probably call those people "uptight", "anal", or just plain "boring"), but for some, who derive enjoyment from the feeling of surprise, "playing tricks" can be ass-kickin fun (shut up, I live in TN ;) )

Quote from: jrientsI'm totally with Maw on this one.  If you want the campaign to shade out of one genre and into another then you need to make sure players have buy-in upfront with that approach.

Takes the surprise right out of it for the players then, don't it. Course the characters can always have all the fun of the unexpected, while the player just sit around and roll the dice for em and yawn.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt's a GM's tool, and it's purely optional.  I've used it before to help me work out some complex relationships in heavily contingent scenarios ("If the players do A to Jim, then Jim will respond with B, which will in turn force Jack to do C; if the players do X, though, then Jim and Jack both will do Y, prompting Jane to do Z").  It's become rather in vogue, though, and as a fad I think it makes people who get along fine without it to think that they're missing out on something.

!i!

So apparently it's not the same Relationship Chart used by people to track genealogies.

Quote from: SigmundTakes the surprise right out of it for the players then, don't it. Course the characters can always have all the fun of the unexpected, while the player just sit around and roll the dice for em and yawn.

Are you being a dick, or do you really think there's no room to surprise a player if they know what genre you're working in?

Quote from: jrientsAre you being a dick, or do you really think there's no room to surprise a player if they know what genre you're working in?

Maybe I am, but you definitely are. I never said there'd be no room for any surprise for a player, just no room for that surprise for a player. Why are you so put out by not knowing exactly what genre you're playing in? Do you not trust that the people you game with would want to share an enjoyable time with everyone in the group enough for you to just go with the game without that knowledge up front? Do you think I don't know whether my group would enjoy something like that or not?

Quote from: jrientsAre you being a dick, or do you really think there's no room to surprise a player if they know what genre you're working in?

There's no way to surprise them regarding the nature of events their characters are experiencing. I'm using these in a big-picture sense...if the PCs know it's a straight up investigative game, a series of grisly murders is always going to have a human at the end of it at the end of the day. Sure, it might be someone they'd never expect, but it'll always be something they expect.

You can sneak up on a player with buy-in, but you can't totally blindside him*. And some players love that.


For a given value of blindsided.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFollows the law of supply and demand, I suppose.  Sometimes, it's the only game in town, so to speak, and you either have to knuckle down and keep your mouth shut, or walk.  And that applies to players and GMs alike.  Truth be told, it makes for some pretty poisonous RPG when the players (and by "players" I'm including the GM) feel stuck playing a game that they don't all like, or playing in a manner that they don't all enjoy.

While I don't strictly disagree with you, this still doesn't tell me what an "empowered player" is.

I'm still trying to figure out WTF = "Social Contract".  "I promise not to fart in front of you if you promise not to hit on my Mom"?

Quote from: Christmas ApeThere's no way to surprise them regarding the nature of events their characters are experiencing. I'm using these in a big-picture sense...if the PCs know it's a straight up investigative game, a series of grisly murders is always going to have a human at the end of it at the end of the day. Sure, it might be someone they'd never expect, but it'll always be something they expect.

You can sneak up on a player with buy-in, but you can't totally blindside him*. And some players love that.


For a given value of blindsided.

I think this is what I'm trying to say :) My "espionage" characters are still going to be "espionage" characters, they are just going to be laying the James Bond-style smack-down on aliens and demons and things-that-go-bump-in-the-night instead of SPECTRE. They just won't realize that at first. It's along the same lines of playing a dimension hopping game where the characters switch to an alternate earth during a hurricane, but dont realize it until they see President John Kennedy Jr. giving the state of the union address and hear a cut off Kurt Cobain's latest solo album on the radio (he went all dance-techno ;) ). If the player are told about this up front it ruins the surprise.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm still trying to figure out WTF = "Social Contract".  "I promise not to fart in front of you if you promise not to hit on my Mom"?

From the Minotaur's Word-Labyrinth itself, the Forge Provisional Glossary (how long has it been "provisional", anyway?): "All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and expectations. All role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract."

From the marginally more credible Wikipedia: "Social contract is a phrase used in philosophy, political science, and sociology to denote a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society."

So, you know. It depends on who you ask, apparently.

Quote from: SigmundMaybe I am, but you definitely are. I never said there'd be no room for any surprise for a player, just no room for that surprise for a player. Why are you so put out by not knowing exactly what genre you're playing in? Do you not trust that the people you game with would want to share an enjoyable time with everyone in the group enough for you to just go with the game without that knowledge up front? Do you think I don't know whether my group would enjoy something like that or not?

Dude, I'm not the one who dropped the phrase "all of the fun of the unexpected" to describe what we're talking about.  If you want to say "some of the fun" then you have a feasible position.  But to say that the players will spend their time yawning and slinging dice totally overstates what could have been a reasonable stance.  That's why I suspected you were being a dick.

But if signing up for Explodey Space Opera to find out the campaign is really a Regency era social romance is your idea of a good time, I say rock on.  Me, I kinda like to know what kind of game I'm signing up for when I agree to a new multi-session campaign.  If I played in one of these bait-and-switch games I'd be suspicious that either the GM had run out of ideas on the original genre (the reason why so many superheros visit Tolkienland at least once) or that I had been deceptively lured in with a genre I liked only to find myself playing in one I didn't.  An enjoyable campaign might make such sins forgiveable, but GMs risk alienating players who thought they were buying Brand X when instead they got Brand Glurple.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm still trying to figure out WTF = "Social Contract".  "I promise not to fart in front of you if you promise not to hit on my Mom"?

I'm not sure either, but that at least I have some ideas about. "Empowered players" (as opposed to what exactly?) baffle me. BTW, I refuse to sign that contract until I know what your mom looks like... she might be worth some minor unpleasantness ;)

Quote from: jrientsDude, I'm not the one who dropped the phrase "all of the fun of the unexpected" to describe what we're talking about.  If you want to say "some of the fun" then you have a feasible position.  But to say that the players will spend their time yawning and slinging dice totally overstates what could have been a reasonable stance.  That's why I suspected you were being a dick.

Ah, then forgive me for exaggerating. I wasn't aware we had to be literal and precise at all times.

QuoteBut if signing up for Explodey Space Opera to find out the campaign is really a Regency era social romance is your idea of a good time, I say rock on.  Me, I kinda like to know what kind of game I'm signing up for when I agree to a new multi-session campaign.  If I played in one of these bait-and-switch games I'd be suspicious that either the GM had run out of ideas on the original genre (the reason why so many superheros visit Tolkienland at least once) or that I had been deceptively lured in with a genre I liked only to find myself playing in one I didn't.  An enjoyable campaign might make such sins forgiveable, but GMs risk alienating players who thought they were buying Brand X when instead they got Brand Glurple.

And of course there's no exaggeration here, what with equating "signing up for Explodey Space Opera to find out the campaign is really a Regency era social romance" to "signing up for modern espionage to find out the campaign is really modern horror-style espionage". The reality is, my entire group likes both espionage and horror style games, and we're tired of fantasy for the moment. I'm not trying to "lure them in" to anything. See, this is where the trust comes in. They don't even ask what genre we're playing, just what kinda characters they need (which is usually when the genre comes up kinda by default). They trust that I will do my best to make each session and campaign as fun as I can, to the best of my ability. When it's their turn they do the same. When we're talking about what to play next, if one of my buds were to say, "I really don't want to play horror/conspiracy right now." and I then went and started that kinda game anyway that would be different. The thing is ,though, I like the people I game with. The game isn't fun for me if it isn't fun for them, so I have no reason to "trick" my fellow players in such a manner. Any "tricks" I pull are meant to be in-game, appropriate to the genre, and enjoyable. Please tell me why this is such a problem.

Quote from: Christmas ApeFrom the Minotaur's Word-Labyrinth itself, the Forge Provisional Glossary (how long has it been "provisional", anyway?): "All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and expectations. All role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract."

From the marginally more credible Wikipedia: "Social contract is a phrase used in philosophy, political science, and sociology to denote a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society."

So, you know. It depends on who you ask, apparently.

In other words it's something only anthropologists, philosophers, and pretentious people actually need to refer to directly. Got it.

Quote from: SigmundSo apparently it's not the same Relationship Chart used by people to track genealogies.

Not strictly, no.  It's a chart that shows how individuals or groups affect one another, which goes beyond a strict lineage chart.  They're used in both literature/writing studies and in sociology, and can be very useful for organising complex cause-and-effect relationships.  But, as the saying goes, "The map is not the territory," and getting too wrapped up in a relationship chart can be just as detrimental to a GM as, say, getting too wrapped up in writing NPCs or drawing dungeon maps instead of actually running the game and letting the other players determine the flow of events.

QuoteWhile I don't strictly disagree with you, this still doesn't tell me what an "empowered player" is.

Oh, one who doesn't feel dis-empowered. :deflated: No, seriously, I think it really boils down to a player who doesn't feel that he's playing a game he doesn't really want to play.  Sometimes it means the GM giving the players a little more control over contributing to the setting, and sometimes it just means not playing with a set of rules that they don't enjoy.  Oh, hell, to be honest, I'm just really not sure myself.

!i!

[Edit:  "...and hear a cut off Kurt Cobain's latest solo album on the radio (he went all dance-techno :) )"  A propos of virtually nothing, a few months back I heard a dance-remix that Bob Mould did of Nirvana's "Heart Shaped Box".  It was...troubling. :D ]

Quote from: Ian Absentia[Edit:  "...and hear a cut off Kurt Cobain's latest solo album on the radio (he went all dance-techno :) )"  A propos of virtually nothing, a few months back I heard a dance-remix that Bob Mould did of Nirvana's "Heart Shaped Box".  It was...troubling. :D ]

Heh, point. Well, except that in our world Kurt Cobain is deceased... I think.

Habeas corpus, smarty-pants. :p

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOh, one who doesn't feel dis-empowered. :deflated: No, seriously, I think it really boils down to a player who doesn't feel that he's playing a game he doesn't really want to play.  Sometimes it means the GM giving the players a little more control over contributing to the setting, and sometimes it just means not playing with a set of rules that they don't enjoy.  Oh, hell, to be honest, I'm just really not sure myself.

So... what I said in my original question, only gussied up in fancy terminology. Maybe.

Here's a new question (not strictly aimed at you IA, just didn't wanna make a separate post), is "hippie gamers" an alternative label for "story gamers"? I haven't seen that particular label before so I'm curious if it's just that one poster, or if that's a term used by lots of folks.

Quote from: SigmundAh, then forgive me for exaggerating. I wasn't aware we had to be literal and precise at all times.

Go ahead and exagerrate if you want, man.  Don't let me stop you.  Just be prepared for some people not to get your message.  I must say I find it funny that we're talking about an issue related to group communication and you think the best way to discuss it is through hyperbole.

QuoteAnd of course there's no exaggeration here, what with equating "signing up for Explodey Space Opera to find out the campaign is really a Regency era social romance" to "signing up for modern espionage to find out the campaign is really modern horror-style espionage".

I thought you'd like that bit.  You're a big fan of exaggerating the other party's position, right?

QuoteThe reality is, my entire group likes both espionage and horror style games, and we're tired of fantasy for the moment. I'm not trying to "lure them in" to anything. See, this is where the trust comes in. They don't even ask what genre we're playing, just what kinda characters they need (which is usually when the genre comes up kinda by default). They trust that I will do my best to make each session and campaign as fun as I can, to the best of my ability. When it's their turn they do the same. When we're talking about what to play next, if one of my buds were to say, "I really don't want to play horror/conspiracy right now." and I then went and started that kinda game anyway that would be different. The thing is ,though, I like the people I game with. The game isn't fun for me if it isn't fun for them, so I have no reason to "trick" my fellow players in such a manner. Any "tricks" I pull are meant to be in-game, appropriate to the genre, and enjoyable. Please tell me why this is such a problem.

It's not a problem, so long as you're reading your audience right.  As I already said, you're taking an extra risk that you will alienate players but a good campaign might be enough to excuse this behavior.  If you're wrong about one of your players, that person will have signed on for the campaign you promised but ended up in a different campaign.  That's trickery, however strongly you feel you understand your group's dynamic.

Quote from: jrientsIt's not a problem, so long as you're reading your audience right.  As I already said, you're taking an extra risk that you will alienate players but a good campaign might be enough to excuse this behavior.  If you're wrong about one of your players, that person will have signed on for the campaign you promised but ended up in a different campaign.  That's trickery, however strongly you feel you understand your group's dynamic.

Some might also call it a legitimate mistake. You know, a "Shit, Ted, I didn't figure the real-world connection was that important to you in that espionage campaign. Introducing some modern horror elements seemed like it'd lend a fun twist to the campaign, but if it's really throwing you I'll switch it off. Anything else you wanted to mention about the campaign?" kind of thing.

I don't expect perfect telepathy in my group. We've been gaming together for a decade and we still misfire sometimes. Then we talk, and we fix it. Nobody feels "tricked", no matter how bad you want to win an argument on the internet. ;) :p

I kid. You're cool by me, robo-warlock. But I get Sigmund's thing.

Quote from: jrientsGo ahead and exagerrate if you want, man.  Don't let me stop you.  Just be prepared for some people not to get your message.  I must say I find it funny that we're talking about an issue related to group communication and you think the best way to discuss it is through hyperbole.

Well, I guess I just figured the exaggeration was pretty obvious, especially since it's used in all sorts of discourse about a great variety of topics fairly frequently without being commented on except by people who have run out of more useful things to say.

QuoteI thought you'd like that bit.  You're a big fan of exaggerating the other party's position, right?

Indeed I am.

QuoteIt's not a problem, so long as you're reading your audience right.  As I already said, you're taking an extra risk that you will alienate players but a good campaign might be enough to excuse this behavior.  If you're wrong about one of your players, that person will have signed on for the campaign you promised but ended up in a different campaign.  That's trickery, however strongly you feel you understand your group's dynamic.

I don't happen to see it as "extra risk", or "behavior" that needs "excused". It's just one tool (of many) to use in order to have fun with a game. Apparently I'm in one of those rare groups that trusts one another enough to both "sign on" to games of unknown genres, and to speak up if they're not having fun. I thought there was more of us.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't feel like our group has this dynamic of what seems almost to be some sort of business deal where we all must agree to some sort of universal terms beforehand and that not strictly adhering to these terms religiously is tantamount to breach of contract or treachery or some such. I've never even encountered a group with this kind of feel, and probably wouldn't stay long if I had the misfortune to. We're just some people getting together to play a game and hang out. Whatever happens happens, and if any of us get bored or annoyed, we say so and they rest try to alleviate it... because we're friends. It's really not such a complicated or involved concept.

Quote from: Christmas ApeSome might also call it a legitimate mistake. You know, a "Shit, Ted, I didn't figure the real-world connection was that important to you in that espionage campaign. Introducing some modern horror elements seemed like it'd lend a fun twist to the campaign, but if it's really throwing you I'll switch it off. Anything else you wanted to mention about the campaign?" kind of thing.

I don't expect perfect telepathy in my group. We've been gaming together for a decade and we still misfire sometimes. Then we talk, and we fix it. Nobody feels "tricked", no matter how bad you want to win an argument on the internet. ;) :p

I kid. You're cool by me, robo-warlock. But I get Sigmund's thing.

CA, for the moment anyway, you are way, way, ass-kickin' (I can't stop usin it) better at presenting my argument than I am. Also, 99.9% of the time I fully agree with ( and often get a great kick outa) the things jrients posts, just not this time.

Sigmund and CA have the right of it. Jrients has the left...I think. On another thread I argued that players have the right to know what they are getting into...obviously surprise (and individual group) trumps whatever disempowerment "feelings" they may have. One of the advantages of gaming with adults is communication, so I'm always assured that I'll be told when I'm heading into "dodgy" territory.

I feel sorry from the Pundit...his life must be pretty dull if he has to spy on other sites for "enemy" activity for a made up war.

Regards,
David R

Hey Jeff -

QuoteBut to try to bend D&D towards storygaming requires open and clear communication with the players and the assent of all present. I think anything less will lead to dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria.

I think the local aggression is getting to you a little bit. It goes like this:

You went into the dungeon on behalf of the local village, whose kids are tired of getting eaten by trolls. You're killing shit and getting treasure.

Then you kill this one big troll; there's a hot chick tied up with the treasure. You untie her; she says, well, I'm this princess, and if we go now, we can stop Robard the Unfortunate from marrying my younger sister and claiming the kingdom. Maybe you can be the king instead, you beefy barbarian stud.

And you say, hmm. I gave my word to these villagers that I'd kill all the trolls and save their kids, and I know there's a +4 battleaxe in here somewhere I could really use, but on the other hand, this lady's pretty hot, and being a king sounds good. Hmm...

Blammo, fucker, you're playing D&D and you're playing a storygame. At the same time!

None of this is worth the time that anyone is putting into it.

I should add though - if your players think this sort of thing is a hassle you shouldn't hit them with it over and over. Most people enjoy it as an occasional change of pace, some people want it almost all the time, some never. My point is just there are some 'thematic' choices that are easily expressed in and handled by very conventional D&D play. Shit, even the thing where you have to choose between the Siren and the two bags in S1: Tomb of Horrors can be taken that way if you want to.

Don't give up anything you don't want to give up.

Wow, by Cali's description I was playing story games with AD&D...how the fuck did that happen?  How do I get a hold of management?  How do I get my money back?

I'm afraid I disagree on what you use as the determining factor that it's a story game.

Quote from: James J SkachWow, by Cali's description I was playing story games with AD&D...how the fuck did that happen?  How do I get a hold of management?  How do I get my money back?

I'm afraid I disagree on what you use as the determining factor that it's a story game.

By that description I've been playing story games since I've been playing. But no..

I just don't accept that, because it always comes down to some kind of "but what was the MORAL?" kinda thing or whatever. I dunno.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaD'oh!  You cheeky, antagonistic bastard!

By the way, has anyone made a "Dogs in the Swineyard" quip yet?  Because someone totally should.  I can't because it lacks the ring of sincerity when I post it.

!i!

 What???

 You mised that other thread where I referred to it as "PUppies in the Swineyard"?

- Ed C.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for me, I'm sick of threads like this one, so let me summarize the next ten pages before they're being written:

1. Tony shows up and muddies the waters

2. Settembrini freaks out

3. Koltar suggests we all switch to GURPS

It's like clockwork.

 Wish I had seen this earlier - I needed that laugh.

 Thank you .

- Ed C.

Quote from: SigmundWhat the fuck's an "empowered player" anyway? How does a player become "dis-empowered"? What more power does a player need than the power to say "Yeah, that game sounds fun, I'm in" or "Naw, sounds like your game would just make me wanna vomit on your shoes." Also, what the fuck use is a relationship chart in gaming?

 Empowered Player?

 Just means they read too many Dr. Phil books and are feeling overly self-confident  and buying new hair products.


 Relationship Chart ?

 Could be how the significant others of the players influence the game directly or indeirectly - don't know ...you got me on that one.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm still trying to figure out WTF = "Social Contract".  "I promise not to fart in front of you if you promise not to hit on my Mom"?

That depends. Is your mum hot? If she's hot enough, it could be worth putting up with your farts to be able to have my wicked way with her and a jar of Nutella.

I got offered a written Social Contract by a GM once. It was about four pages of size 8 font, as best I remember. It included such gems as "the players have the right to know the rules of the game." Maybe he'd just been reading Gygax's introduction to the DMG where Gygax said that if players looked in the DMG their characters should lose a magic item. Can't think why else he'd write such a thing.

Um, sorry. I'll let you guys get back to the War. :what:

Quote from: KoltarWhat???

 You mised that other thread where I referred to it as "PUppies in the Swineyard"?

Clearly I need a clipping service for threads around here.

QuoteRelationship Chart ?

 Could be how the significant others of the players influence the game directly or indeirectly - don't know ...you got me on that one.

RTFM, man! RTFM!

!i!

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm still trying to figure out WTF = "Social Contract".  "I promise not to fart in front of you if you promise not to hit on my Mom"?

Have you ever been bowling? You know how if you go up for your turn and the guy in the lane next to you to is already set up, so you wait for him to go before you go? You know, so you won't distract him?

That's social contract. Apply it to RPGs, and you get stuff like, "This game is all about combat, so attacking NPCs is cool," or "In this game, it's every man for himself, so we can expect PCs to betray each other."

Maybe it's the sunburn talking, but after reading some of the posts on the SG thread, was it WW fanbois or hyperventilating indie guys who have brain damage?

I can't remember.

(I mean, seriously. At some point, if you worry and angst so much about your "hobby," maybe you need to find a new one.)

Quote from: David RI feel sorry from the Pundit...his life must be pretty dull if he has to spy on other sites for "enemy" activity for a made up war.

Regards,
David R

Actually, I practically never read Storygames; I have informants who send me this stuff.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for me, I'm sick of threads like this one, so let me summarize the next ten pages before they're being written:

1. Tony shows up and muddies the waters

2. Settembrini freaks out

3. Koltar suggests we all switch to GURPS

It's like clockwork.

I have to concur. Every time I log onto theRPGsite it seems to be increasingly clogged with the kind of bullshit that got Pundit banned from other forums (i.e., increasingly paranoid vitriol-laden screeds). Why Pundit is making it a point to post this BS in the other forums instead of tucking it away in his own as he originally did, I don't know.

What I do know is that as this forum becomes increasingly defined by its hostility toward others, I find it a much less satisfying place to visit (or recommend to others). I quit participating at the Forge for much the same reason, actually. There, you get plenty of 'holier than thou' -- here, you get a lot of that too, though Pundit serves it up with a heap of 'totally clueless'.

Quote from: RPGPunditI have informants who send me this stuff.

That, right there, is so embarrassingly pathetic.  What is this -- an elementary school playground?  What's next?  Notes passed in class?

QuoteRebecca! Do you have a crush on Pundy?!?

[  ] Yes

[  ] No

Don't tell anyone I asked!

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat, right there, is so embarrassingly pathetic.

Again, I find myself nodding in agreement. I'm 98% sure that Pundit is lying, though, as he's been known to maintain multiple sockpuppet accounts at various sites that he has previously been banned from and/or not welcome at. I have a very hard time believing that anybody actually has so much free time that they've dedicated a significant portion of their life to spying on behalf of Pundit's imaginary war.

Sett, have you been "informing" the Pundit?

Also... Borgstrom has a crush on Pundit?
Excuse me, I need to go gouge out my mind's eye. Back in a minute.

We should sell that at conventions: Pundit's vitriol ; good against both vicious swine and the random Orc. Only $4.99 a bottle.

 It would be a good novelty item - all funds collected go to charity or to heplp fund the rpgsite.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWe should sell that at conventions: Pundit's vitriol ; good against both vicious swine and the random Orc. Only $4.99 a bottle.

You'd be better off making Pundit dartboards.

Quote from: jdrakehYou'd be better off making Pundit dartboards.

Nah.  It's my experience that Pundit's vitriol is largely one-sided.  The objects of his frothing hate by and large just dismiss him as a kook and go about their business.

Quote from: jdrakehAgain, I find myself nodding in agreement. I'm 98% sure that Pundit is lying, though, as he's been known to maintain multiple sockpuppet accounts at various sites that he has previously been banned from and/or not welcome at. I have a very hard time believing that anybody actually has so much free time that they've dedicated a significant portion of their life to spying on behalf of Pundit's imaginary war.

Multiple Sockpuppet accounts?! Now who's fucking lying?! You've just fabricated a blatant lie out of thin air to suit your own ends...

You know what, you stupid cunt? If this place is so "negative" and you hate it so much, get the fuck off it. No one is forcing you to be here, no one even wants you or your kind here. Leave.

But of course you won't, because you're here to attack and derail this place, because the freedom of speech I've allowed here lets you get away with that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sigmund"playing tricks" can be ass-kickin fun (shut up, I live in TN ;) )

What part?

Quote from: RPGPunditActually, I practically never read Storygames; I have informants who send me this stuff.

RPGPundit

This is what I love about this guy, he's not just a man - he's an organization!

Quote from: beejazzAlso... Borgstrom has a crush on Pundit?
Excuse me, I need to go gouge out my mind's eye. Back in a minute.

Rebecca Borgstrom has had a crush on Pundit ever since he dunked her pigtails in an inkwell back in gradeschool. :D

Quote from: RPGPunditActually, I practically never read Storygames; I have informants who send me this stuff.

You mean Rats are telling on Swine ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditMultiple Sockpuppet accounts?! Now who's fucking lying?! You've just fabricated a blatant lie out of thin air to suit your own ends...

That's not a lie. You've as much admitted that you have access to several sites that you've been banned from in the past. I simply assumed that, barring the admins welcoming you back with open arms (which I know they haven't at most of the sites you've been banned from), you were using sock puppets. If you haven't been using sock puppets, you have access to some clever new tool that I'm unaware of.

QuoteNo one is forcing you to be here, no one even wants you or your kind here.

My kind? You mean people who dare to have fun in more than one way? Your brand of One True Wayism is no better than that which you've devoted all of your free time to condeming. It's still ego-driven condemnation of that which you personally dislike for no other reason than that you personally dislike it. You're no better than Ron Edwards, you're just the other end of the egotistical lunatic spectrum.

QuoteBut of course you won't, because you're here to attack and derail this place, because the freedom of speech I've allowed here lets you get away with that.

That's right. You're a fucking martyr! Note that I've never attacked theRPGsite -- I've simply taken issue with you and your hypocritical bullshit war against all things that don't bend to your will. There isn't a single behavior you ascribe to the Forge that you yourself don't demonstrate here on a daily basis.

That this kind of BULLSHIT is now being seeded (by you) all over the forums here is ruining an otherwise fantastic website for me. I mean, thanks to your best efforts, this is very quickly becoming theFUCKALLTHINGSPUNDITDOESNTPLAYsite. I can only assume that's intentional. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Quote from: JimBobOzI got offered a written Social Contract by a GM once. It was about four pages of size 8 font, as best I remember. It included such gems as "the players have the right to know the rules of the game." Maybe he'd just been reading Gygax's introduction to the DMG where Gygax said that if players looked in the DMG their characters should lose a magic item. Can't think why else he'd write such a thing.

This is where I'd exercise my "empowerment" as a player and run, not walk, the fuck outa there and go back to playing WoW until I could find some other gamers more like me.

Quote from: mearls(I mean, seriously. At some point, if you worry and angst so much about your "hobby," maybe you need to find a new one.)

Nice summation sir.

Quote from: jeff37923What part?

Not far south of Knoxville.

Quote from: jeff37923This is what I love about this guy, he's not just a man - he's an organization!

HA! Now that's funny right there.

Quote from: James J SkachWow, by Cali's description I was playing story games with AD&D...how the fuck did that happen?  How do I get a hold of management?  How do I get my money back?

I'm afraid I disagree on what you use as the determining factor that it's a story game.

Wow, who thought this thread might have a serious point?

Here is the thing, I don't think the whole "story games" approach is really that new.  I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many folks on this forum, regardless of their posture w.r.t. the Forge and Story Games, actually include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying.

Quote from: KoltarWe should sell that at conventions: Pundit's vitriol ; good against both vicious swine and the random Orc. Only $4.99 a bottle.

I am sure, I would find a use for more than just one bottle. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CalithenaHey Jeff -

I think the local aggression is getting to you a little bit. It goes like this:

You went into the dungeon on behalf of the local village, whose kids are tired of getting eaten by trolls. You're killing shit and getting treasure.

Then you kill this one big troll; there's a hot chick tied up with the treasure. You untie her; she says, well, I'm this princess, and if we go now, we can stop Robard the Unfortunate from marrying my younger sister and claiming the kingdom. Maybe you can be the king instead, you beefy barbarian stud.

And you say, hmm. I gave my word to these villagers that I'd kill all the trolls and save their kids, and I know there's a +4 battleaxe in here somewhere I could really use, but on the other hand, this lady's pretty hot, and being a king sounds good. Hmm...

Blammo, fucker, you're playing D&D and you're playing a storygame. At the same time!

None of this is worth the time that anyone is putting into it.

Word.

Word.

How is this not insanely obvious to everyone involved?!? All RPG's are Story Games if you feel like using them to tell a story.

I'm completely confused that this is even an issue and I can't make heads or tails of that thread.

Can someone explain?
-E.

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimWow, who thought this thread might have a serious point?

Here is the thing, I don't think the whole "story games" approach is really that new.  I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many folks on this forum, regardless of their posture w.r.t. the Forge and Story Games, actually include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying.

Okay... I'm not an ignorant mutant for thinking and completely agreeing with this... either that or we're all ignorant mutants down here.

Either way can someone concisely explain the opposing viewpoint?

For clarity: my issue has always been with some of the perspectives on The Forge seem to advocate that other games are better than D&D for this kind of play. I find that completely the opposite: I think traditional roleplaying is so dominant because it delivers story-gaming goodness and immersion for those who want both... but it's also completely adaptable to other gaming styles... sometimes even during the same session.

I'm fascinated by the idea that another gaming model might deliver a better roleplaying experience than the traditional D&D one... but so far everything I've seen looks significantly less useful to me.

Cheers,
-E.

I note that in the second post Joshua BishopRoby criticises the original poster for baiting and switching.

I further note that Judd, AKA Paka I believe, makes a similar comment.

The OP is being called in other words on his arguments by the story games regulars.

Not sure I see a problem.

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimWow, who thought this thread might have a serious point?

Here is the thing, I don't think the whole "story games" approach is really that new.  I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many folks on this forum, regardless of their posture w.r.t. the Forge and Story Games, actually include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying.

There's one slant on many indie games that, especially when applied to D&D, drives me nuts.

Story games are basically about telling a good story.

D&D is basically a game that makes some concessions to modeling comic book/movie/adventure novel reality.

Sometimes, D&D is a poor story game. You roll four straight crits to kill the dragon. The climbing rules are unwieldy and what should be an exciting fight on a cliff face turns into a falling fest.

Sometimes, to make a better story, a DM fudges things. The dragon gets a few more HP to survive the flurry of crits, or it drops dead and comes right back as a dracolich. The DM shelves the Climb rules, or tweaks the situation to get what he wants.

A lot of indie designers and gamers have an attitude that straying from the written rules is unforgivably bad. In a weird way, they want a strictly simulationist approach to the rules qua rules. If you don't use the rules as written, the game is flawed, play something else.

IME, you can have games that fully embrace good stories, but many of the times they have rules that, in the end, not very interesting as games. They make good stories, but they're not much fun to play in the same manner that you play Halo or Axis & Allies.

A DM wears a lot of hats, and one of those hats is "entertainer." A good DM knows how to build fun adventures, how to present an entertaining game, and when to pull strings to make a game even more exciting.

If while chasing a fleeing thief through the streets of Waterdeep, the party's fighter runs around a tight corner and knocks Elminster into the mud, that could be a fun diversion from the current encounter. Maybe the party owes Elminster for the aid he gave them in the past, or maybe he's sort of pissed at them for freeing a demon from a ruined temple in Anauroch.

The players don't know that the DM may have just tossed that into the encounter to make things more interesting. By the same token, if the thief gets +20 on his Climb check to escape, the players don't know that. All they care is that the game as they see it is entertaining and fun. What goes on behind the screen doesn't matter as long as the end product is enjoyable.

I think it's a noble goal to say that a game should never be houseruled, but there's a world of difference between fudging things to move the game along and massively rewriting the combat system so that the average fighter doesn't die from a self-inflicted crit.

More telling than that post is the recent "amusing WOTC anecdote" that somehow nobody thinks to at least metally append the phrase "...we just don't promote that stuff at the library convention.."

It's the weird smugness that gets to me.

Anyway.

Quote from: mearlsA lot of indie designers and gamers have an attitude that straying from the written rules is unforgivably bad. In a weird way, they want a strictly simulationist approach to the rules qua rules. If you don't use the rules as written, the game is flawed, play something else.

Yep. There's a wierd vibe going round at present that you should trust the game designer and not the GM at your own table...

Quote from: jdrakehThat's not a lie. You've as much admitted that you have access to several sites that you've been banned from in the past. I simply assumed that, barring the admins welcoming you back with open arms (which I know they haven't at most of the sites you've been banned from), you were using sock puppets. If you haven't been using sock puppets, you have access to some clever new tool that I'm unaware of.

Yes, its called "the silent majority"; having people who are just as pissed off at things as I am, but less willing to be vocal about it, sending me shit.

QuoteMy kind? You mean people who dare to have fun in more than one way? Your brand of One True Wayism is no better than that which you've devoted all of your free time to condeming. It's still ego-driven condemnation of that which you personally dislike for no other reason than that you personally dislike it. You're no better than Ron Edwards, you're just the other end of the egotistical lunatic spectrum.

I allow you to exist here. That makes me better for starters.
The games I like are liked by most gamers. That also makes me better.

Get over the fact that no one wants the shit you're selling.

QuoteThat's right. You're a fucking martyr! Note that I've never attacked theRPGsite -- I've simply taken issue with you and your hypocritical bullshit war against all things that don't bend to your will. There isn't a single behavior you ascribe to the Forge that you yourself don't demonstrate here on a daily basis.

That this kind of BULLSHIT is now being seeded (by you) all over the forums here is ruining an otherwise fantastic website for me. I mean, thanks to your best efforts, this is very quickly becoming theFUCKALLTHINGSPUNDITDOESNTPLAYsite. I can only assume that's intentional. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Well, I'll thank you for the compliment, because this "fantastic website" exists because of me. Take me out of the equation, and theRPGsite is gone.

And yes, I did intentionally create the site to be a place where we defend mainstream RPGs and the styles of play that are liked by the majority of gamers, and specifically condemn GNS and all other Theories that start from the basis that mainstream games are "broken".  Its in the fucking mission statement, read it:

4. TheRPGsite is meant to be a general, non-commercial forum for anything and everything related to Mainstream tabletop RPGs. This doesn't mean that you can't also talk about other games, electronic games, off-topic posts, or even talk about non-mainstream RPGs. Its just that the overall focus of the site is on mainstream RPG gaming as a hobby (not an "art" or a "lifestyle"), and that this will be the dominant paradigm under which this site operates.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe games I like are liked by most gamers. That also makes me better.

:confused:

Quote from: One Horse TownYep. There's a wierd vibe going round at present that you should trust the game designer and not the GM at your own table...

Yes, what an utterly despicable vibe. Thank god for designers like Mike Mearls being in the right positions to make sure that those who support this don't get their way.

RPGPundit

Mike Mearls, I couldn't agree with you more. Glad to see some reason.

Quote from: TonyLB:confused:

Well, if you don't believe in Democracy, you might think it doesn't make me better, and that its perfectly ok for a tiny cabal of utter fuckheads to attack and try to change a hobby into something the MAJORITY of the hobby don't want it to be.

But see, I do believe in democracy, and I believe that fighting for the rights of the majority is something that makes me better than Ron Edwards, the fact that I have The People firmly on my side.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzI got offered a written Social Contract by a GM once. It was about four pages of size 8 font, as best I remember. It included such gems as "the players have the right to know the rules of the game."

Tell me you're kidding.

Quote from: pigames.netTell me you're kidding.

I bet you he's not!

There used to be all kinds of gimmicky "tips and techniques" like this.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI bet you he's not!

There used to be all kinds of gimmicky "tips and techniques" like this.

A question comes to mind then.... what is the purpose of the rules if you need to write 4 pages of your own? :)

Quote from: One Horse TownYep. There's a wierd vibe going round at present that you should trust the game designer and not the GM at your own table...

Heh.

I read that thread before seeing this one.  It's talking about how drifting D&D (that is, adding more mechanics to make it a different sort of game) so much that it's a StoryGame is a bait and switch and thus unfair to folk who come to the table expecting D&D.  D&D isn't a StoryGame, it's its own beast, and trying to make it a StoryGame was unsatisfactory for some of the participants.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Why twist this into something it's not?

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI read that thread before seeing this one.  It's talking about how drifting D&D (that is, adding more mechanics to make it a different sort of game) so much that it's a StoryGame is a bait and switch and thus unfair to folk who come to the table expecting D&D.  D&D isn't a StoryGame, it's its own beast, and trying to make it a StoryGame was unsatisfactory for some of the participants.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Why twist this into something it's not?

Because it immediately turned into some kind of supremacist screed about how D&D isn't about story.

In truth, D&D just isn't about heavy handed moralizing and tackling various issues, but some people have got the idea all twisted up in their minds that their flailings at morality equal story.

Well, thats my guess, anyhow.

Quote from: RPGPunditI allow you to exist here. That makes me better for starters.

Ron Edwards also "allows" me to post at the Forge. Your allowing me to "be here" doesn't make you any better (or different) than Ron. If anything, you're pointing out that despite claims of being a democratic whole, theRPGsite is really your own personal sandbox where you have absolute control, makes you just like Ron (i.e., not "better").

QuoteThe games I like are liked by most gamers. That also makes me better.

Oh, the old "I think more people like what I do, therefore I'm morally superior to people who dig things that I don't!" argument. :rolleyes: You're the antiRon, dude. That's literally THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM. All the hate, all the closed-mindedness and vitriol -- you're just desperately trying to fit in rather than be different. That's the only difference here.

QuoteGet over the fact that no one wants the shit you're selling.

What I'm selling? Do you even read my threads here? Have you ever read anything that I've written? With the possible exeption of Formless, I'm all about traditional roleplay. That I'm not about promoting it at the expense of other playstyles might not fit in with your rabidly hateful worldview but aside from that, we're "selling"  the same thing.

QuoteWell, I'll thank you for the compliment, because this "fantastic website" exists because of me. Take me out of the equation, and theRPGsite is gone.

Well, although this site wasn't started by you, it does still exist because of your financial contributions (I'll give you that). Make no mistake, however -- your personal camapign of hate toward all playstyles and games that don't personally pique your interest doesn't do anything to make this site better. This site is productive in spite of your personal vendetta, not because of it.

Quote4. TheRPGsite is meant to be a general, non-commercial forum for anything and everything related to Mainstream tabletop RPGs. This doesn't mean that you can't also talk about other games, electronic games, off-topic posts, or even talk about non-mainstream RPGs.

That doesn't say "Talking about non-mainstream games is frowned up and discouraged by the administration!" nor does it say "TheRPGsite is dedicated to bashing non-mainstram games!" -- which is what you're making a conscientious effort to do here. Posting multiple threads damning other playstyles and people who enage in them is an attack. You need to change the mission statement, as its current words don't reflect reality.

TheRPGsite isn't what the mission statement claims it is, thanks to your seeding of anti-X threads all over the place. It's fast becoming a glowing bastion of  white-hot Forge hate, not a general discussion board for RPGs or even a booster club for traditional RPGs. Now, that havign been said, I wouldn't have an issue with that.

My issue here is specifically that you're engaging in the EXACT SAME KIND OF ELITISM that you criticize the Forge for. This takes all of the air out of your arguments. It's hard to believe that you seriously want to end the proliferation of elitist attitudes in the roleplaying community when you're claiming moral superiority over others due to majority rule.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut see, I do believe in democracy, and I believe that fighting for the rights of the majority is something that makes me better than Ron Edwards, the fact that I have The People firmly on my side.

Y'know ... I'm pretty sure that the principles of democracy don't imply that a person who sides with the majority is morally superior to a person who is in the minority.

Obviously the Punani is a Rousseauian.

And doesn't a democracy insure that all voices are represented, not merely either a majority or a select minority?  Minority voices are actively shouted down by Pundy.

!i!

Quote from: TonyLBY'know ... I'm pretty sure that the principles of democracy don't imply that a person who sides with the majority is morally superior to a person who is in the minority.

Well, in pure democracies of the type criticised by the Greeks when they coined the concept democracy is about the rule of the majority.

Happily we all live in representative democracies, which are not about that.

To be honest though, was that really an argument on his part needed refuting?  Sometimes Pundit has good arguments, sometimes not so much.

This whole thread is a non-event, as I said, Joshua and Judd called the OP in that thread so if anything it's evidence that the storygames community can police itself and that it is not supportive of what is being described in this thread.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know ... I'm pretty sure that the principles of democracy don't imply that a person who sides with the majority is morally superior to a person who is in the minority.

Democracy implies nothing of the sort. This is a hallmark of Fascism.

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimHere is the thing, I don't think the whole "story games" approach is really that new.  I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many folks on this forum, regardless of their posture w.r.t. the Forge and Story Games, actually include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying.

Sort of. I don't really expect five people to sit around contributing whatever they reckon is good and fun at that moment and have some sort of coherent neat story come out of it. It's sort of like expecting the movement of the soccer ball across the pitch to produce a group dance in the team. Sure, some moments will look like a dance, sometimes a few passes and headers and then whammo! GOAL! - sometimes that'll look like a perfectly choreographed dance. But most times there'll just be a lot of passing back and forth, and a lot of confusion.

So in an rpg session, I think you can get those moments, the goal set-up which works well. For example, I look at the aims, desires and fears of the PCs and NPCs, and try to present them with dilemmas - Love vs Duty, that sort of thing. From decisions made about those dilemmas, you get situations with new dilemmas, and so on - until the PCs figure out how to resolve it all, and then that's it, they won. Yay.

Then looking back, you pick out a coherent "story" from it, ignoring all the confusion and passing back and forth you had. You find the pattern in the chaos.

I don't find the game system makes a lot of difference to this. I've done it with GURPS and Fate, supposedly one an example of a "simulationist" and the other of a "narrativist" type of game. The only time I've found it difficult is with systems where there are no personality mechanics at all - RuneQuest, d6, and so on. But really I could probably have managed it then, too. I find that if the players write down their character's aims, desires and fears, they tend to follow them - whether it's supported by the game system or not. It's only when they write nothing that they do nothing.

Which I suppose is pretty obvious, but what can I say, I'm a slow learner ;)

Quote from: One Horse TownYep. There's a wierd vibe going round at present that you should trust the game designer and not the GM at your own table...

There's quite a lot of them on this website.

The debate about whether RPGPundit is a prick belongs in his own subforum. The debate about the goals of therpgsite belongs in Help. Since they never split threads here, I am going to ignore those bits and focus on the much more interesting rpg-related stuff. The rest of you should shut the fuck up and roll the dice! :p

Quote from: pigames.netTell me you're kidding.

Alas, no.

Quote from: pigames.netA question comes to mind then.... what is the purpose of the rules if you need to write 4 pages of your own?

Well, the rules in the rpg usually just deal with the characters. The idea of the "Social Contract" is that it deals with the players. Because it involves actual human beings and not abstractions, it's something which gets glossed over in rpg theory a lot.

Whereas even old Gygax knew about that stuff. "Dealing with troublesome players" was one section of his DMG. I liked it when he suggested "removing a point or two of Charisma (appropriately)" from the offending player's character. :p

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's quite a lot of them on this website.

This website J :raise:

If anything I think this is a pro GM website.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzThe debate about whether RPGPundit is a prick belongs in his own subforum.

So does the initial post in this thread, which was my point. How is "Fuck those stupid fuckers!" game related (past the target of said attack being a poster on another game-related message board)? I think there's merit in discussing what was said at Story Games, though the topic of this thread (and the tone of the first post) makes it perfectly clear that this isn't why  Pundit posted it. This is part of his 'war' on things he doesn't like and, as such, the whole fucking thing should have been his Subform of Hate from the start.

Quote from: David RThis website J :raise:

If anything I think this is a pro GM website.

Regards,
David R

You mean you've gone all this time here and missed out on the GM Paranoia Brigade?  Eliot and Stuart and the rest of the paranoid fuckers who insist on knowing absolutely everything going on behind the GM screen lest he be "cheating"?  All those flamewars about "OMG FUDGING IS TEH DEVIL!"?  Or theo nes about the evils of "illusionism"?

There's plenty of anti-GM rhetoric around here, and it's really even coming from the same spoiled-brat-player motivations as the stuff on the Forge or elsewhere, the words are just different.

Quote from: jdrakehSo does the initial post in this thread, which was my point. How is "Fuck those stupid fuckers!" game related (past the target of said attack being a poster on another game-related message board)?

That's true, but several posts in the thread were rpg-related, rather than rpg theory politics, and my two recent posts were rpg-related, too. And at the moment it's still in the rpg subforum.

So shut the fuck and roll the dice! :D

Quote from: J ArcaneYou mean you've gone all this time here and missed out on the GM Paranoia Brigade?  Eliot and Stuart and the rest of the paranoid fuckers who insist on knowing absolutely everything going on behind the GM screen lest he be "cheating"?  All those flamewars about "OMG FUDGING IS TEH DEVIL!"?  Or theo nes about the evils of "illusionism"?

There's plenty of anti-GM rhetoric around here, and it's really even coming from the same spoiled-brat-player motivations as the stuff on the Forge or elsewhere, the words are just different.

Oh, you meant the "anti fudging/no cheating" paranoia. I thought you meant the "collaborative/equal power group because the GM should not be trusted with the most power/influence" paranoia.  

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David ROh, you meant the "anti fudging/no cheating" paranoia. I thought you meant the "collaborative/equal power group because the GM should not be trusted with the most power/influence" paranoia.  

Regards,
David R

Believe me, they are one in the same, just couched in different terms.  They're both fundamentally about a combination of lack of trust in the GM, trusting the game designer over the GM, and players demanding all the power in the player/GM relationship.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo shut the fuck and roll the dice! :D

The original topic is ... what? ... D&D and Story-Gaming type stuff?

Works fine together.  It's not as if people thought up this idea of morally charged games without ever having played one.  And, at least for me, the system I played a lot of mine in was D&D.  It's got the chops to do it.

I'm interested to see the reimporting of specific techniques that people have developed in different contexts into D&D, because I'm always interested to see ideas getting shuttled back and forth.  Like, I think a relationship map would be an awesome thing to lay over certain old scenarios (like Village of Hommlet).

But I was DMing and playing morally charged stories in D&D (and Champions and White Wolf, etc., etc.) long before I ever knew of the Forge or any of the ideas there, so that's just an interest in the techniques, not in the general notion of telling charged stories in the system.

'course, all of this gets complicated as hell when you try to define what "Story Gaming" is, since it's one of those terms that people just grab and apply willy-nilly, so who the %#%* can possibly say what it actually means.  So maybe the stuff I was doing wasn't story gaming, it's just the kind of thing that I like and that a lot of other folks on the Story Games board seem to like too.  Who-TF knows?

Quote from: J ArcaneBelieve me, they are one in the same, just couched in different terms.  They're both fundamentally about a combination of lack of trust in the GM, trusting the game designer over the GM, and players demanding all the power in the player/GM relationship.

Since you mentioned Elliot, I think his position is a bit more nuanced then just "trusting the designer". I've clashed with him a couple of times on this issue and I didn't get this vibe. I thinks it's more to do with knowing what to expect from a game....which I guess is a form of social contract (correct me if I'm wrong Elliot).

Regards,
David R

I don't think in my time here, i've ever had a post quoted so much! :eek:

Outside of the real world of playing games i doubt this comes up much, but there's definitely been a paradigm shift on some boards. I find the view that the ruleset is still basically the designers once you've bought it very strange. No game survives contact with a gaming group.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I'll thank you for the compliment, because this "fantastic website" exists because of me. Take me out of the equation, and theRPGsite is gone.

If you honestly believe that, how about a bet?

1) Pundit doesn't visit or post here for four months. An IP ban is in place to ensure that he doesn't sockpuppet his way in.

2) Full control of the site is given to smoeone else. It doesn't really matter who, so long as they're committed to not making random Pundit rants. Jrients, JimBob, Settembrini, MCrow, or pretty much damn near anyone willing to follow that single stricture would work.

3) Whatever funding requirements will come up in those four months are known about in advance and gauranteed to be handled somehow (I'll happily do it if it's not too crazy).

4) If, at the end of that time, this website has disappeared or is even noticably near death, I'll give Pundit $100 and never return. The money can be put in an intermediary account since I know he won't trust a blatant liar like myself.

5) If, however, the site is still going strong, Pundit never returns.

What do you think? Are you so sure of your necessity that you'll put it on the line?

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, if you don't believe in Democracy, you might think it doesn't make me better, and that its perfectly ok for a tiny cabal of utter fuckheads to attack and try to change a hobby into something the MAJORITY of the hobby don't want it to be.

But see, I do believe in democracy, and I believe that fighting for the rights of the majority is something that makes me better than Ron Edwards, the fact that I have The People firmly on my side.

RPGPundit

Dude, uhhh... Democracry doesn't mean that the majority is better. Hell, it doesn't even mean they're always right.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat do you think? Are you so sure of your necessity that you'll put it on the line?

I, for one, think this is a spectacularly BAD idea.  I've said ... ahem ... a bit more than that to James privately, but I want to also register my feeling (which I would have thought went without saying) that Pundit is a valued member of this community, no matter how much we disagree.

Quote from: One Horse TownI don't think in my time here, i've ever had a post quoted so much! :eek:

Outside of the real world of playing games i doubt this comes up much, but there's definitely been a paradigm shift on some boards. I find the view that the ruleset is still basically the designers once you've bought it very strange. No game survives contact with a gaming group.

I think you're right about this.  I have on numerous occasion questioned whether the anti-GM types even actually play, simply because the objections they seem to have and the attitudes they hold, would get them thrown out of basically every game I've ever been in.  

I think there's certainly an element of bitter players having a bad experience, and then generalizing way to far based on that experience, and bitching about it online when they realize they can't get anyone to play exactly their way.  

Frankly, the attitudes piss me off.  I LIKE GMs goddamnit.  As someone who is very much a player at heart, the importance of a good GM is unparalleled.  I just want to make my guy, and the sit back and enjoy the scene and being that guy.  

As long as he's making an enjoyable game, I don't give two flaming shits how he does it, or what he's doing behind the screen, and I sure as hell don't want "shared narrative control" or whatever the fuck.  

The GM does all that work so that I don't have to, and as far as I'm concerned, deserves some damn respect for his efforts, not paranoid screeds, relentless nitpicking, or having his role in the game stripped to nothing but a rules lawyer.  Fuck that.

Quote from: TonyLB'course, all of this gets complicated as hell when you try to define what "Story Gaming" is, since it's one of those terms that people just grab and apply willy-nilly, so who the %#%* can possibly say what it actually means.  So maybe the stuff I was doing wasn't story gaming, it's just the kind of thing that I like and that a lot of other folks on the Story Games board seem to like too.  Who-TF knows?

Not me ;)

That's the problem with a lot of jargon stuff. Sometimes someone will say their game session was X-like, and so will someone else, but when they describe them they're entirely different. And sometimes someone will say their game was X-like, and someone else says their own was Y-like, but when they describe them they sound exactly the same.

So sometimes games are called something different but are the same, and sometimes they're called the same thing but actually are different.

It's all rather confusing and so I prefer just to focus on the people around the game table, and how they get along. There at least I have psychology and stuff to fill in the blanks, I don't have to break any new ground.

James M, you don't really need to respond (anymore) to the Pundit's paranoid, egotistical rants. His "Pundit" persona if it wasn't already is slipping into caricature. When he loses the plot nobody takes him seriously or bothers pointing out the route back. Chill out and enjoy the show.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: J ArcaneI think you're right about this.  I have on numerous occasion questioned whether the anti-GM types even actually play, simply because the objections they seem to have and the attitudes they hold, would get them thrown out of basically every game I've ever been in.

I dunno about that, but an awful lot of thought is going into thought about RPGs rather than actual play by the sound of it. I might be wrong about that, however. Personally, i write what i find fun, i play what i find fun and don't dwell on negative experiences, of which i honestly can't recall any that would make me want to examine the way i play.

Play is play, as soon as you start trying to catagorise, analyze and compartmentalise then you start to lose spontaneity as you're more concerned with the why than with having fun. When you laugh at a joke, do you seriously analyze why you find it funny? If you do, does that realisation really add to your enjoyment or change the way you view humour and thus jokes? Kids don't analyze fun. They have it.  

Those are all general 'you's' BTW. :)

Quote from: TonyLBI'm interested to see the reimporting of specific techniques that people have developed in different contexts into D&D, because I'm always interested to see ideas getting shuttled back and forth.  Like, I think a relationship map would be an awesome thing to lay over certain old scenarios (like Village of Hommlet).

Here it is again. Why would this "relationship map" be useful? I just don't get it, when I played in VoH we had a great time... how would this "relationship map" thing help? I honestly don't understand.

Quote from: SigmundHere it is again. Why would this "relationship map" be useful? I just don't get it, when I played in VoH we had a great time... how would this "relationship map" thing help? I honestly don't understand.

Obviously you're pre-disposed to be hostile towards anything unfamiliar, but I'll bite anyway.  Relationship maps are very handy for GM prep work -- they give a clear representation of who knows who and what they care about and make for a simple way to increase the social complexity to realistic and interesting levels without having to sit down and write a novel's worth of background.

Quote from: HalfjackObviously you're pre-disposed to be hostile towards anything unfamiliar, but I'll bite anyway.  Relationship maps are very handy for GM prep work -- they give a clear representation of who knows who and what they care about and make for a simple way to increase the social complexity to realistic and interesting levels without having to sit down and write a novel's worth of background.

I second this -  they're just a plain old good way of keeping track of entangling relationships/alliances/enemies so that the GM doesn't have to remember as much, or even better, doesn't forget something.


.

I've used relationship maps somewhat, never had a name for them though.  Ever since I saw them in the first few sourcebooks for first edition Vampire I thought they were a good idea.  Although nowdays people make them a little more complex than they were then.

Helps me keep track of who is against who and plotting what in any game where there is a lot of NPC politics going on that the PCs are involved with also.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, the rules in the rpg usually just deal with the characters. The idea of the "Social Contract" is that it deals with the players. Because it involves actual human beings and not abstractions, it's something which gets glossed over in rpg theory a lot.

That was a rhetorical question :pundit:

Quote from: TonyLBI, for one, think this is a spectacularly BAD idea.  I've said ... ahem ... a bit more than that to James privately, but I want to also register my feeling (which I would have thought went without saying) that Pundit is a valued member of this community, no matter how much we disagree.

I'm not saying he isn't. He's definitely a member of the community, and his value is inversely propoortional to the amount of lunacy in the post, which means he has many useful posts and many that are only there to spawn drama.

What I'm saying is that he isn't the lynchpin that he claims he is. This community and this website will not disappear if he is absent. It won't even change overly much.

I don't honestly expect him to take up the challenge. He has way too much of his self worth tied into this place to lose it trying to prove something he knows was a lie. Perhaps if he honestly believed his caricature's ego, but I seriously doubt that.

After reading the original storygames post, what I got out of it was this:

The poster told his game group that they were going to play D&D, then he switched to DitV instead for the game system, this bait and switch tactic pissed off some of his group who felt cheated by this. The poster then whines about how the pissed off players should have thanked him for lying to them in the first place about what to expect in the game session.

It strikes me that the guy posting doesn't have a Hell of a lot of experience with interpersonal communication.

It's like I always say, jeff, in response to the Forgers' "System Matters". I say,  "Fuck System! People Matter."

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

Part of "people" is, "being reliable and trustworthy." If you don't show up when you say you will, or bring the snacks you were supposed to, or play the character as you said you would, or give people the game you said you would, then you're a bit unreliable and untrustworthy. And surprise surprise, the session will not be a smashing success.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not saying he isn't. He's definitely a member of the community, and his value is inversely propoortional to the amount of lunacy in the post, which means he has many useful posts and many that are only there to spawn drama.

What I'm saying is that he isn't the lynchpin that he claims he is. This community and this website will not disappear if he is absent. It won't even change overly much.

I don't honestly expect him to take up the challenge. He has way too much of his self worth tied into this place to lose it trying to prove something he knows was a lie. Perhaps if he honestly believed his caricature's ego, but I seriously doubt that.

Who even cares? You're right and he's wrong. Just let it go already.

Well Cheetoist philosophy aside IME system does matter, if it matters to the people. If it wasn't so, I'd be running my own GURPs Napoleonic Nautical Opera instead of In Harms Way Nautical Opera :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWell Cheetoist philosophy aside IME system does matter, if it matters to the people. If it wasn't so, I'd be running my own GURPs Napoleonic Nautical Opera instead of In Harms Way Nautical Opera :D

Regards,
David R

 John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, Burgess Meredith and  Patricia O'Neal in the Napoleonic time - huh what ??


- Ed C.

Quote from: David RWell Cheetoist philosophy aside IME system does matter, if it matters to the people. If it wasn't so, I'd be running my own GURPs Napoleonic Nautical Opera instead of In Harms Way Nautical Opera :D

System matters in the same way that the amount of sugar in your tea or salt in your soup matters. Provided you don't go to an extreme, the preference is entirely individual and subjective and even changes from day to day - mostly people are just used to doing it in a certain way. It doesn't really change the substance of the thing that much, it just changes how people perceive that substance. Basically it's all tea, or all soup. By saying that system comes last, I am not saying that the choice of it is irrelevant, just that it'll have the least effect on the tone of the game session. The kind of tea or soup you're having is far more important to the enjoyment of the meal than how much sugar or salt you have in them.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned was setting, not system. Which is teh tea or soup itself.

Damn it Jim I'm a gamer not a cunning linguist, by this I mean your analogy (it sounds Chinese) escapes me.

I will say that choice of system does effect the tone of the game and you know what, the amount of sugar or salt in tea or soup does effect my enjoyment of it. Unless I'm misreading your analogy, which just may be the case.

Regards,
David R

I'm a Cheetoist myself, but I'm going to disagree with the caveat that system matters when you tell your players that you will be using one system and then use another different system. I know, that goes back to being honest with your game group which should be foremost.

The OP kind of digs at me a bit. I like the Iron Kingdoms d20 setting, and since I like it then I've bought the sourcebooks and No Quarter magazines supporting it. Its all either d20 system or War Machine (the wargame version of Iron Kingdoms). Now if I was invited to an Iron Kingdoms game, hauled my books and minis to the game, and then was told that instead of using the d20 system (on which all of the RPG books are based) we were going to use something else, my first question to the GM would be, "Why the fuck didn't you tell me this up front when you first invited me?" It would feel like like going to a job interview and then being told that it is actually a pyramid scam.

Quote from: David RI will say that choice of system does effect the tone of the game and you know what, the amount of sugar or salt in tea or soup does effect my enjoyment of it. Unless I'm misreading your analogy, which just may be the case.

I think you mean "affect" I only point out the difference because "affect" means "change a bit" while "effect" means "create."

If you are saying that the amount of sugar in your tea creates your enjoyment of the tea, then I would say you don't really like tea very much. So if the system you use in your game session actually creates your enjoyment of the game session, then you don't really like actual roleplaying experience of being socially creative very much.

If you are saying that the amount of sugar in your tea changes a bit your enjoyment of it, then of course that is true. But basically you are either a tea-drinker or you're not - the essential part is the tea. The sugar is just flavouring and personal taste. How much sugar you like will vary a lot more day to day than whether or not you like tea at all. Likewise, what system you enjoy using in your game session will vary a lot more day to day than whether or not you actually enjoy being socially creative.

The substance of a roleplaying game session is being socially creative. The system is just the gloss on that substance. A greater contributor to the substance is the people in it, or the snacks, or the setting.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe substance of a roleplaying game session is being socially creative. The system is just the gloss on that substance. A greater contributor to the substance is the people in it, or the snacks, or the setting.

Jim, just a thought here, couldn't the game system be considered the method of arbitrating disputes in the social creativity of a game session?

Quote from: jeff37923Jim, just a thought here, couldn't the game system be considered the method of arbitrating disputes in the social creativity of a game session?

It depends on what you mean by "disputes."

If you mean, "disputes about what a character can and cannot do at the moment", then a game system is often but not always that method.

If you mean, "disputes between players", then a game system is rarely if ever that method.

If Anna's player says, "I want to arm wrestle Bob," then the rules will usually tell us if Anna can defeat Bob or not. But if Anna's player says, "that rule is stupid", then the rules do not usually arbitrate that dispute for us, except to say that the GM's word is law, or something.

But you should start a new thread if you want to discuss this sort of thing. People will be annoyed if they come to read about Story-Game Swinedom and get this, and people who are interested in this may miss it here amongst all this other stuff ;)

Quote from: JimBobOzBut you should start a new thread if you want to discuss this sort of thing. People will be annoyed if they come to read about Story-Game Swinedom and get this, and people who are interested in this may miss it here amongst all this other stuff ;)

Good point.

Quote from: jdrakehRon Edwards also "allows" me to post at the Forge. Your allowing me to "be here" doesn't make you any better (or different) than Ron. If anything, you're pointing out that despite claims of being a democratic whole, theRPGsite is really your own personal sandbox where you have absolute control, makes you just like Ron (i.e., not "better").

Talk to Ron Edwards on the Forge like you talk to me on here, and see how long he allows you to "be there".

QuoteWell, although this site wasn't started by you, it does still exist because of your financial contributions (I'll give you that). Make no mistake, however -- your personal camapign of hate toward all playstyles and games that don't personally pique your interest doesn't do anything to make this site better. This site is productive in spite of your personal vendetta, not because of it.

There's my vendetta, my commitment to free speech, my hard work at drawing people to this site, etc etc... I mean fuck, I'm sick to fucking death of you shitheads pretending that if I wasn't in charge this site would have just organically grown to be what it is today; right, because the predecessors to this site (which were similar in all respects aside from the fact I wasn't the guy running it) did SOOO well... :rolleyes:

But yeah, you go on and claim that I've done nothing good for theRPGsite, that I've just been a harmful presence, and that everything that this site is today just magically happened in spite of, and not because of, my own blood and sweat, you fucking parasite.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd doesn't a democracy insure that all voices are represented, not merely either a majority or a select minority?  Minority voices are actively shouted down by Pundy.

!i!

No one here is persecuted for their "voices", no one here is censored or banned, in spite of occasional mob-demands for exactly that, and in spite of my own status as the "executive branch" and my often aching desire to just ban a fucking metric shitload of annoying sons of bitches from time to time; I let the angels of my better nature and the mission statement of this site act as a more powerful conviction than my base desire to just get my way and bludgeon my enemies with my mod powers. That's democracy.  And it is unique on this site compared to the other major RPG or Swine gaming fora.

RPGpundit

Hey James, here's an alternative proposal:

How about you do this:
1. You realize what an utterly insignificant little omega-male you are.
2. You go and fuck yourself with a spoon.

Your little revenge-porn fantasies about me willingly banning myself are utterly pathetic.  When are you going to figure out that you are not in charge here, and will never be so?  I mean fuck, how about if instead I ban you for 4 months and see if anyone even gives a fuck at this point?  You might learn something, like how not to be a pathetic whining little weasel...

I mean again, you and others here can fantasize all you like, but the point is this is my site, and I'm not going anywhere. Ever. Until I'm dead.  This site will continue to be mine, and will continue to be run by me with all my faults, foibles, and virtues intact.  The Theory Swine, the WW-Swine, and overall social retards like yourself will NEVER be able to have the free reign here that they have on other sites to shit all over mainstream RPGs or generally feel like big men; and this site will continue to primarily cater to fans of mainstream RPGs.  I wear the fucking viking hat, all of you whiners are my bitches; I've proven to be successful and right in every project I've undertaken (funny how some of the same people who are now claiming this site would be better off without me were the ones who predicted that this site would be a failure in the first place, and before that who claimed my blog would be a failure, and have had to taste the bitter ashes of being shown up for the utter cunts they are again and again). Suck it, bitch. I win, as usual.

You, on the other hand, are free to leave anytime you like, and if you keep pulling pathetic stunts like this one, you might find yourself obliged to at some point.

RPGPundit

I do think that therpgsite needed RPGPundit to bring it to life. That's undeniable, just look at it before and after he took over.

I don't think it needs RPGPundit to keep it going, though. It has its own momentum now. That's not saying against RPGPundit, quite the contrary - it's not so difficult to keep something going through constant effort, but to set it up so that it can prosper even without you takes some talent, luck, etc.

That doesn't mean I think that every post from RPGPundit is a wonderful contribution, though. But in this he is no different from any of us :p

Nice rant, though, RPGPundit.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think you mean "affect" I only point out the difference because "affect" means "change a bit" while "effect" means "create."

I meant affect but really both terms work for me.

QuoteSo if the system you use in your game session actually creates your enjoyment of the game session, then you don't really like actual roleplaying experience of being socially creative very much.

Huh? How does having the right system (whatever that system may be) which brings out the roleplaying potential or enhances the experience mean that without it I don't actually like the roleplaying experience of being socially creative. If at all, it means I know what I like about the experience and seek out systems that help me make the experience better .

QuoteLikewise, what system you enjoy using in your game session will vary a lot more day to day than whether or not you actually enjoy being socially creative.

IME what system we use depends on the tone/atmosphere I (we) are trying to create. And what tone/atmosphere we are trying to create is what the whole roleplaying experience is about.

QuoteThe substance of a roleplaying game session is being socially creative. The system is just the gloss on that substance. A greater contributor to the substance is the people in it, or the snacks, or the setting.

In your opinion. The people part is important no doubt about it. But system and setting is the expression of social creativity IMO.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzI do think that therpgsite needed RPGPundit to bring it to life. That's undeniable, just look at it before and after he took over.

I don't think it needs RPGPundit to keep it going, though. It has its own momentum now. That's not saying against RPGPundit, quite the contrary - it's not so difficult to keep something going through constant effort, but to set it up so that it can prosper even without you takes some talent, luck, etc.

That doesn't mean I think that every post from RPGPundit is a wonderful contribution, though. But in this he is no different from any of us :p

Nice rant, though, RPGPundit.

Thank you, and I agree. And there's a big difference between saying "RPGPundit has created a forum good enough in its running that he can now leave it for any length of time and it will continue to run itself", and saying "The RPGPundit should leave the forum so that everyone could see how much better it'd be without him".

RPGPundit

Quote from: HalfjackObviously you're pre-disposed to be hostile towards anything unfamiliar, but I'll bite anyway.  Relationship maps are very handy for GM prep work -- they give a clear representation of who knows who and what they care about and make for a simple way to increase the social complexity to realistic and interesting levels without having to sit down and write a novel's worth of background.

Sure, make assumptions about someone you don't even know. Thanks for the explanation though, I've never even heard of a "relationship map" outside of genealogical research before. Doesn't sound like something I'd use, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote from: David RHuh? How does having the right system (whatever that system may be) which brings out the roleplaying potential or enhances the experience mean that without it I don't actually like the roleplaying experience of being socially creative. If at all, it means I know what I like about the experience and seek out systems that help me make the experience better .

Correct me if I'm wrong JBO, but I believe what he's saying is that if you really are a fan of the activity of roleplaying, given a group of people to game with that you like, and a setting you like, you could have fun even using a system that you might not like as much. Maybe not quite as much fun as you might using your favorite system, but fun all the same. He's saying that the people you're gaming with will have the largest influence on whether you're enjoying the experience. What you seem to be saying is that as long as you are playing a system and setting you like, the people don't matter as much, which I find hard to believe. I can tell ya from personal experience that it's not true for me. I don't think that's what you're saying though, just seems to me ya'all are talkin' past each other.

Quote from: SigmundCorrect me if I'm wrong JBO, but I believe what he's saying is that if you really are a fan of the activity of roleplaying, given a group of people to game with that you like, and a setting you like, you could have fun even using a system that you might not like as much. Maybe not quite as much fun as you might using your favorite system, but fun all the same.

Sure. But I think a blanket statement like "system does not matter and if it does you really don't like the socially creative experience of roleplaying" is ...well..bullshit.

QuoteWhat you seem to be saying is that as long as you are playing a system and setting you like, the people don't matter as much, which I find hard to believe.

Where did I say this or give this impression, Sigmund. I'm the "play well with others" guy. Please point it out.

QuoteI don't think that's what you're saying though, just seems to me ya'all are talkin' past each other.

Forget my second para :D Premature response on my part.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: pigames.netWho even cares? You're right and he's wrong. Just let it go already.

Why not tell everyone who speaks against him that? There are others more vocal and more abusive towards him than I, but because (according to him) I piss him off the most, I get the crap. Tell it to everyone in every thread that talks against him or stop playing favorites (or is it anti-favorites?).

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's my vendetta, my commitment to free speech, my hard work at drawing people to this site, etc etc... I mean fuck, I'm sick to fucking death of you shitheads pretending that if I wasn't in charge this site would have just organically grown to be what it is today; right, because the predecessors to this site (which were similar in all respects aside from the fact I wasn't the guy running it) did SOOO well... :rolleyes:

But yeah, you go on and claim that I've done nothing good for theRPGsite, that I've just been a harmful presence, and that everything that this site is today just magically happened in spite of, and not because of, my own blood and sweat, you fucking parasite.

RPGPundit

When I first came here and signed up, the site was called theRPGSite. It started to grow like crazy. We had some good conversations. Then the powers that be stepped in and changed it back to squirrel something. The did word substitutions, derailed threads, mixed forums up, made up rules that made no sense, and generally made the place unappealing. When you took control, you changed it back to theRPGSite and it began to grow again. This is not a hard concept. Essentially, by doing nothing the site grows. I can only assume the last guys thought other wise or were having fun at the expense of the posters.

Essentially, I would expect there to be little difference between you running the site and say, Jeff, simply because the key is to do very little. We would, possibly after time, gain a different rep from "Pundit's Forum". Hopefully, it would change to "The RPG Forum" but that is pure speculation.

And for the record, I am not here to support your agenda, thought processes, or "Your" forum. I am here to chat with people who share may hobby, passion and profession.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditNo one here is persecuted for their "voices", no one here is censored or banned, in spite of occasional mob-demands for exactly that, and in spite of my own status as the "executive branch" and my often aching desire to just ban a fucking metric shitload of annoying sons of bitches from time to time; I let the angels of my better nature and the mission statement of this site act as a more powerful conviction than my base desire to just get my way and bludgeon my enemies with my mod powers. That's democracy.  And it is unique on this site compared to the other major RPG or Swine gaming fora.

So what you're saying is that I'm free to start up a thread about George Bush's politics and how they relate to Hitler without fear of retribution, despite my inability to go to the Off Topic Forum and therefor a need to post it in RPG Main?

Or am I not free to discuss anything I want, and therefor censored?

Read what you write before hitting send and you'll save yourself these little embarassments. :D

Quote from: RPGPunditHey James, here's an alternative proposal:

How about you do this:
1. You realize what an utterly insignificant little omega-male you are.
2. You go and fuck yourself with a spoon.

Got anything besides pointless name calling in that head of yours?

QuoteYour little revenge-porn fantasies about me willingly banning myself are utterly pathetic.  When are you going to figure out that you are not in charge here, and will never be so?  I mean fuck, how about if instead I ban you for 4 months and see if anyone even gives a fuck at this point?  You might learn something, like how not to be a pathetic whining little weasel...

Didn't think so.

QuoteI mean again, you and others here can fantasize all you like, but the point is this is my site, and I'm not going anywhere. Ever. Until I'm dead.  This site will continue to be mine, and will continue to be run by me with all my faults, foibles, and virtues intact.  The Theory Swine, the WW-Swine, and overall social retards like yourself will NEVER be able to have the free reign here that they have on other sites to shit all over mainstream RPGs or generally feel like big men; and this site will continue to primarily cater to fans of mainstream RPGs.  I wear the fucking viking hat, all of you whiners are my bitches; I've proven to be successful and right in every project I've undertaken (funny how some of the same people who are now claiming this site would be better off without me were the ones who predicted that this site would be a failure in the first place, and before that who claimed my blog would be a failure, and have had to taste the bitter ashes of being shown up for the utter cunts they are again and again). Suck it, bitch. I win, as usual.

*snicker*

QuoteYou, on the other hand, are free to leave anytime you like, and if you keep pulling pathetic stunts like this one, you might find yourself obliged to at some point.

*snicker, the sequel*

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy not tell everyone who speaks against him that? There are others more vocal and more abusive towards him than I, but because (according to him) I piss him off the most, I get the crap. Tell it to everyone in every thread that talks against him or stop playing favorites (or is it anti-favorites?).

If I noticed them as much as I notice you, I would. This thread is a bitch to sort out because of so many topics being discussed. I'm just saying that no matter how much you or anyone thinks that the Pundit may be an utter pile of crap, can't we just stick to the topic at hand. I'm not taking sides one way or the other, except for my own -- I just want to be able to read this thread without having to figure out which posts are one person bitching at another and which ones have anything to do with the original post.

Understandable. Sorry about dumping on your enjoyment.

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimWow, who thought this thread might have a serious point?

Here is the thing, I don't think the whole "story games" approach is really that new. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many folks on this forum, regardless of their posture w.r.t. the Forge and Story Games, actually include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying.

Wow, who would have though you could have missed the point so quickly and easily?

See, that was a serious point I was making using humor – it’s called sarcasm (//”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm”).  The point being exactly what you repeated, though without the knock on people who question the Forge or Story Games (no bias there, eh?) and without the assumption that “people on this forum” play any specific type of game (trust me, these mother fuckers are all over the board!).

The reason people have this “posture” is because they were doing exactly what you mention – including plenty of elements of story in their role-playing.  I won’t speak for everyone else, but I’ll say it was one of the things that got me into the fucking hobby. And guess what? My tool of choice was D&D (in various flavors). Others used other rule systems by preference.  But along came the Forgeries who started spouting nonsense about how these games can’t really deliver story properly for any number of reasons – not the least of which is to say the people playing were broken!

I’m perfectly happy to live and let live – got no problem with whatever games people want to play. But, see, people keep wanting to say this game is for this and that game is for that – hell, they do so right in this thread.  For example:

Quote from: C. W. RichesonI read that thread before seeing this one. It's talking about how drifting D&D (that is, adding more mechanics to make it a different sort of game) so much that it's a StoryGame is a bait and switch and thus unfair to folk who come to the table expecting D&D. D&D isn't a StoryGame, it's its own beast, and trying to make it a StoryGame was unsatisfactory for some of the participants.

Makes perfect sense to me. Why twist this into something it's not?

That’s not Pundit or some other crazy-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth RPGSite nutcase, is it? So who has what postures? I doubt CW means it, but you have to “twist D&D into something it’s not” to get a story? Not in my experience. Apparently not in other peoples’ experience either. But this kind of rhetoric, whether implied or explicit, intentional or not, surely paints a picture where D&D, and by extension it’s brethren from a time past, can’t create stories – at least not those deemed right and proper stories by the all-knowing cabal of…ummm…who are these people again? That might just end up rubbing folks the wrong way – especially those who “include plenty of story elements in their roleplaying” even while using D&D.

Of course, CW meant D&D is not a Story Game (look! It has capital letters and everything!).  What’s that? What’s the definition? What delineates it from other kinds of games? What are the other games if they are not Story Games? Why is DitV a Story Game and D&D is not?

See, I don’t really care, until someone comes along and starts saying shit that just don’t jibe with my experience or understanding.  Then I just have to say something – it’s in the Skach blood.

Quote from: James McMurrayUnderstandable. Sorry about dumping on your enjoyment.

Thank you.

Quote from: James J SkachI doubt CW means it, but you have to "twist D&D into something it's not" to get a story?

Eh, the way I read it, what CWR meant by that was: "Why twist this thread into some attack against D&D when it's not?"

Quote from: GrimGentEh, the way I read it, what CWR meant by that was: "Why twist this thread into some attack against D&D when it's not?"

Ahhh...that makes sense....

Shall we now pronounce that all intercine conflict is ended as it is wholly based on a complete miscommunication?

Dare to dream...

Quote from: pigames.netWho even cares? You're right and he's wrong. Just let it go already.

Yeah, I'm thinking that's one sure fire way for McMurray to deal with his Pundit problem.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy not tell everyone who speaks against him that? There are others more vocal and more abusive towards him than I...

Not that I've seen. People tell him to go fuck himself quite a bit, but you start threads to bait him, et al..

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurraySo what you're saying is that I'm free to start up a thread about George Bush's politics and how they relate to Hitler without fear of retribution, despite my inability to go to the Off Topic Forum and therefor a need to post it in RPG Main?

James, why in the hell would you WANT to start a thread like that one? Those kinds of threads are boring  on every forum they happen on - be it SJG forums, The Big Paurple , or any other forum.


- Ed C.


 Sorry to respond to him ...now that I think about it...

Quote from: KoltarJames, why in the hell would you WANT to start a thread like that one? Those kinds of threads are boring  on every forum they happen on - be it SJG forums, The Big Paurple , or any other forum.

I don't. I was just pointing out that this place isn't as censorship and ban free as Pundit likes to tell people.

Also, just because they're boring to you doesn't mean nobody likes them. I could just as easily have said a non-RPG related thread about the the newest hit movie/TV show. The point wasn't the type of thread, but rather my inability to post it, despite his claims of Free Speech and a censorship free environment.

Quote from: James J SkachThat's not Pundit or some other crazy-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth RPGSite nutcase, is it? So who has what postures? I doubt CW means it, but you have to "twist D&D into something it's not" to get a story? Not in my experience.

Not in mine either, I've had many great experiences playing D&D and left the table with many great tales of adventure.

QuoteOf course, CW meant D&D is not a Story Game (look! It has capital letters and everything!).  What's that? What's the definition?

D&D doesn't have mechanics that create a story the way that, say, Capes or Dogs does.  With Story Games you tend to be using explicit mechanics to drive story.  With D&D you're using implicit mechanics - the troll dies because we fireballed it so the story notes "The party incinerated the Troll Captain, finally gaining access to the airship controls."  The Troll doesn't die because I set "Take control of the airship" as my side's objective and the GM set "Force the PCs to walk the plank" as his before rolling Tactics vs. Tactics or something.

For me, a guy who enjoys D&D, Storyteller, FATE, and dozens of other disparate games, these are both fine ways to structure an RPG.  But it may be that unless you really break them apart it's hard to just glue on one concept or mechanic in order to force one game to be something different.

Quote from: GrimGentEh, the way I read it, what CWR meant by that was: "Why twist this thread into some attack against D&D when it's not?"

Yep, that's what I was trying to say.  Sorry for the lack of clarity! :D

Quote from: C.W.RichesonNot in mine either, I've had many great experiences playing D&D and left the table with many great tales of adventure.

I love finding common ground!!!

Quote from: C.W.RichesonD&D doesn't have mechanics that create a story the way that, say, Capes or Dogs does. With Story Games you tend to be using explicit mechanics to drive story.  With D&D you're using implicit mechanics - the troll dies because we fireballed it so the story notes "The party incinerated the Troll Captain, finally gaining access to the airship controls."
The Troll doesn't die because I set "Take control of the airship" as my side's objective and the GM set "Force the PCs to walk the plank" as his before rolling Tactics vs. Tactics or something.

OK, you had me until the difference between implicit and explicit, and the description of, essentially, conflict resolution. Because when we played in that long ago campaign that was the longest I ran in, we played AD&D, and our alignment (yes, much maligned and sometimes rightly so) as our "objective." In other words, when the slavers came, we battled them because our alignments were shorthand for our world-view that excluded Slavery as Right and Good. So our obejctive was Do Right and Good and the DM's was Collect Slave for the Market (acting as the NPC's) before we rolled To-Hit versus AC.

This goes back to my very first thread here, IMHO, the lack of difference between "Conflict" and "Task" Resolution.  I'll grant that there are differences though I think they are more of scale/granularity - certainly moreso than if either of these machanics inherently better facilitates Story. (and please, everyone: no side tracks on this - go necro that thread if you want).

And it's why I get so frustrated, even with good natured guys like you, CW.  You are right to assert that these games use different mechanics to drive Story elements.  I'll be damned, though, if I've seen one that's ineherently better than the other. It's all a matter of the taste or style of the group that sits down to play.
 

Quote from: C.W.RichesonFor me, a guy who enjoys D&D, Storyteller, FATE, and dozens of other disparate games, these are both fine ways to structure an RPG.  But it may be that unless you really break them apart it's hard to just glue on one concept or mechanic in order to force one game to be something different.

We agree on how they are both fine ways to strucutre an RPG, though I would also add they are both fine ways to tell a story - different stories, perhaps, but good stories. Where we disagree is that you have to "break them apart" or that you need to "glue one concept or mechanic."

What we really need is a lense that filters for granularity. That's it.  Want to play at this meta level - great.  Want to play at this crunchy, detailed level, great.  Let's just all agree that, in the end, we are all telling cool stories, good stories, as a by-product of playing these games and that mechanics simply facilitate one level of granularity or another.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't. I was just pointing out that this place isn't as censorship and ban free as Pundit likes to tell people.

Also, just because they're boring to you doesn't mean nobody likes them. I could just as easily have said a non-RPG related thread about the the newest hit movie/TV show. The point wasn't the type of thread, but rather my inability to post it, despite his claims of Free Speech and a censorship free environment.

Get back on the naughty step, you! :whistleblower:  :D

Quote from: James McMurrayAlso, just because they're boring to you doesn't mean nobody likes them.  

This is true on many levels about many of these discussions, directed at many people.

James: I'm not entirely clear on what your argument is.  I really don't see anywhere where we disagree - rather I think you're reading me wrong.

QuoteWhere we disagree is that you have to "break them apart" or that you need to "glue one concept or mechanic."

My argument is that when you add mechanics to a game to make that game do something else, sometimes that doesn't work.  One potential reason is that the new rules aren't consistent with the old rules, and it could be that the best solution is carefully breaking down the game system to see how everything works.  Is this a controversial statement?

I never said you had to "break apart" or "glue on" a mechanic.  Rather, I'm saying that modifying a game doesn't always work and I'm offering one potential reason and solution.

:(

Quote from: C.W.RichesonJames: I'm not entirely clear on what your argument is.  I really don't see anywhere where we disagree - rather I think you're reading me wrong.



My argument is that when you add mechanics to a game to make that game do something else, sometimes that doesn't work.  One potential reason is that the new rules aren't consist with the old rules, and it could be that the best solution is carefully breaking down the game system to see how everything works.  Is this a controversial statement?

I never said you had to "break apart" or "glue on" a mechanic.  Rather, I'm saying that modifying a game doesn't always work and I'm offering one potential reason and solution.

Yeah - it's probably me misreading while handling phone calls from the hospital :(

It's certainly not an argument.

But it does beg the question - if we're really talking about how different mechanics might impact play, why the need for a classification of "Story Games." It's just always bugged me that this is the line drawn - and it's roughly equivalent to "Narrativism" form Forged thought. So there seems to be some hard-on people have about "story" with traditional systems (D&D).

So that's mostly to what I am reacting.

Quote from: James J SkachBut it does beg the question - if we're really talking about how different mechanics might impact play, why the need for a classification of "Story Games." It's just always bugged me that this is the line drawn - and it's roughly equivalent to "Narrativism" form Forged thought. So there seems to be some hard-on people have about "story" with traditional systems (D&D).

So that's mostly to what I am reacting.

I think that 95%+ of the time it's just meant to be a helpful, vague term.  But I'm with you, unnecessary divisiveness sucks.

Quote from: David RSure. But I think a blanket statement like "system does not matter and if it does you really don't like the socially creative experience of roleplaying" is ...well..bullshit.

As I said before, I could be wrong, but I didn't get that from what he wrote. What I got was that, although it's better to play a system one likes, it's the people one is playing with that have the greatest impact on the enjoyment of a game. He listed them in order of priority, with system as last. I didn't get from this, however, that he was saying that system had no impact, just that it had the least impact of the elements he had mentioned. What he said was certainly true for me. I've played Shadowrun many times, and I really didn't like the system that much for reasons that have been discussed many times in other threads. I had a blast though, because I enjoy the setting, and really really liked the people I was gaming with.

Quote from: SigmundAs I said before, I could be wrong, but I didn't get that from what he wrote. What I got was that, although it's better to play a system one likes, it's the people one is playing with that have the greatest impact on the enjoyment of a game. He listed them in order of priority, with system as last. I didn't get from this, however, that he was saying that system had no impact, just that it had the least impact of the elements he had mentioned.

JimBob did list them in order of priority. But then he said this about system creating enjoyment of the game:

QuoteSo if the system you use in your game session actually creates your enjoyment of the game session, then you don't really like actual roleplaying experience of being socially creative very much.

I think this is wrong, IME of course.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James McMurraySo what you're saying is that I'm free to start up a thread about George Bush's politics and how they relate to Hitler without fear of retribution, despite my inability to go to the Off Topic Forum and therefor a need to post it in RPG Main?

Or am I not free to discuss anything I want, and therefor censored?

Read what you write before hitting send and you'll save yourself these little embarassments. :D

You weren't censored, you were punished for asinine behaviour that was harmful to the Off Topic forum. Punished like a child, because that seems to be the only language you seem to understand.

RPGpundit

He did say that, and I am not sure whether I agree with that one. I kinda understood it in the context of the tea analogy, but on it's own it loses quite a bit :) I think I can enjoy a game system on it's own merits, but I still contend (and I believe that he was contending, but only he can say for sure) that even my favoritest system ever, plugged perfectly into my favoritest setting ever, and run by a supremely competent GM, is gonna suck if I don't enjoy the company of the group I find myself playing the game with. Analogies aside I believe that's the point trying to be made. I can say that's the point I'm trying to make anyway :)

Quote from: SigmundAnalogies aside I believe that's the point trying to be made. I can say that's the point I'm trying to make anyway :)

If that's the point I agree with you (and JimBob) 100%.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditYou weren't censored, you were punished for asinine behaviour that was harmful to the Off Topic forum. Punished like a child, because that seems to be the only language you seem to understand.

RPGpundit

Whatever helps you sleep at night, big fella. :D

Can someone point me to a definition of "Story Game?" I'm with the folks that said they tell stories with traditional RPGs all the time, and am wondering what the distinction is.

It just happened as a kind of a joke from what I recall.

Quote from: droogIt just happened as a kind of a joke from what I recall.

First I heard of it was in a discussion where people were condemning my (crazy!) choice to label Capes as an RPG.  They said "You should call it, like, a STORY GAME instead!" and I said "But shit man, nobody knows what the hell Story Game means."

I'm feeling ... pretty good about that position, in retrospect :D

Quote from: James McMurrayCan someone point me to a definition of "Story Game?" I'm with the folks that said they tell stories with traditional RPGs all the time, and am wondering what the distinction is.

Ironically, the meaning (or at least "the story behind") the term is right there in the very thread linked in the first post, which apparently few people actually read before forming an opinion on the matter. :)

Edit: What Tony said, but longer.

-Andy

Quote from: RPGPunditI allow you to exist here. That makes me better for starters.
The games I like are liked by most gamers. That also makes me better.

...And, I'm done with this site.

See y'all later.

Again, someone confuses RPGPundit for therpgsite.

It's sort of like confusing D&D with Gary Gygax.
"Oh no, if I play D&D I'll become a fatbeard!"
"Er, no..."

Don't be a cocksmock, Levi.

He'll be back, I bet. People just can't seem to stay away...

Maybe levi took it personally? Has he been censoring people on his forum? I don't know... in any case, that's what the "I allow you to be here" comment referred to, that Ron Edwards would not allow the level of criticism of him on his site that I allow of me on mine.

If Levi didn't want to get that, well, then fuck him, I guess... what can you do?

RPGpundit

Oh c'mon!!

 Not the turtle Guy!!

 Levi , c'mon back dude.

Its just Pundit, for pity's sake.

 I like reading your comments.

 Zheesh!!


- Ed C.

I hope Levi changes his mind like Grubman, but the Pundit's rhetoric does not make it easy when inviting folks over here. It's like separating Unlce Ron from the Forge. And no, at least with the gamers I speak to, free speech is not such a big draw esp since they do alright (translation: have a good time) at tBP and various other forums.

Regards,
David R

It's not really like Uncle Ronny and the Forgers. Try telling Uncle Ronny he's a cocksmock and see what happens. Or try discussing a game he hates.

Uncle Ronny rants and raves and dominates his forum, and uses moderator tools to do it. RPGPundit rants and raves and dominates his forum, and vaguely hints at use of moderator tools to do it. RPGPundit is like the guy who draws a knife and says, "I could stab you... but I won't." Uncle Ronny pretends not to have a knife then sticks you in the neck when you're not looking. Neither is particularly great, but...

therpgsite - despite RPGPundit's rants and raves about "the War" - is genuinely accepting of a variety of playstyles. Shit, just look at that Holocaust "rpg" thread. We've had 200+ posts of pretty civil conversation about it. Sure, we condemned it - but we discussed it rationally and explained why we were condemning it. Imagine that thread at rpg.net - it'd explode in moments. Now imagine it at the Forge - it'd be praised with very little criticism. But here? It got condemnation, but intelligent discussion of why we were condemning it. Nobody just said, "fuck off you freaky weirdo", which let's be frank is an idea which occurred to many of us. If we'll seriously discuss that Onanistic Misery Tour, as it was so memorably called, that shows we're pretty fucking open-minded.

Of course the forum's not for everyone - but then no forum is. For me, the best art is being able to say "bullshit." Without it actually being said to someone, the knowledge of the possibility just raises the level of conversation. Most posters put more thought into what they write because of it. A few - the Warriors - post some absurd or muddled stuff. But most people speak frankly and thoughtfully.

That's something you sometimes get on rpg.net, but not on the Forge or story-games (where they're thoughtful but not always frank), or SJGames or ENWorld (where they are usually neither thoughtful nor frank).

I think that rather than the tone of the place, what holds it back from even greater success is exactly the topic of this thread - this Swine vs Traditional Gamers bollocks. The War. Can't we just stick to arguing whether d20 roxxorz or suxxorz like everyone else?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron. Shit, just look at that Holocaust "rpg" thread. We've had 200+ posts of pretty civil conversation about it. Sure, we condemned it - but we discussed it rationally and explained why we were condemning it. Imagine that thread at rpg.net - it'd explode in moments.

There is a thread about it there, in the ads/promo forum, mind you. I think it's got about 6 replies in 3 days.

Quote from: One Horse TownThere is a thread about it there, in the ads/promo forum, mind you. I think it's got about 6 replies in 3 days.

Yes but almost no-one looks at that subforum. I mean, who goes to look at ads?

Start a thread discussing it in rpg.net's Tabletop Roleplaying Open and see what happens.

Yes Kyle, free speech and very little to no moderation ,so yeah in that way The Pundit is different from Uncle Ron but then again Uncle Ron does not represent "mainstream" gamers whereas the Pundit by his own words does...even though most "mainstream" gamers think what he says is utter bollocks. And yet free speech and no moderation is not really a big draw.

I think the Holocaust thread was a fantastic example of what this site is, but even then most gamers really could not be bothered except to observe as tourists.

This make believe War and the bellicoes speech it produces from some quarters is the reason this site does not attract more folks. And most times the shit comes form the Pundit. For every "good" thread that shows off the potential of this site there a dozen "screw ups" - normally related to the "war" - which invites tourist and sniggers.

Regards,
David R

Jim...um err KYLE ...thats just crazy talk - and you know that .

 I'm NOT going to be the one to start a thread about the Shoah/Holocaust game over on the Big Purple & Pink.

Now if someone they kind of thought was neutral on everything were to start that thread - thatsa  a different story.

 I'm just glad the guy who started that thread appears to be re-thinking his agenda and motives.

- Ed C.

Quote from: David RAnd yet free speech and no moderation is not really a big draw.

RPGPundit's claims to represent "mainstream" gamers are irrelevant, bearing not at all on the tone of therpgsite. I dunno about free speech and no moderation, but the tone and style of therpgsite is draw enough to get a good number of conversations going.

Could it be more successful in number of posters and interesting and usefulness of conversations? Yes. Would I like it to be? Yes. But is it worthwhile as it is? Yes.

The quest for more active posters seems to me to be like the quest for more money - at some point, you have to admit that while more would always be nice, really you have got enough to do what you want to do. We have enough active posters.

Does that mean I don't want more? No. Of course I want more. It would help if RPGPundit were not a sexist bugger, and if we had less Settembrini-style muddled rambling about nothing much, and less of this Swine and War nonsense. But realistically we're not going to change that stuff. So I do what I can by starting a few threads I think will help us have interesting and useful conversations (after Subpoena Saturdays I plan for Free PDF Fridays). I try to psot interesting and useful things to threads where I can make a useful contribution, or at least be funny.

Rather than worry about how bad it could become, I try to make it better - by talking about rpgs, and trying to get others to talk about them, too.

Quote from: David RI think the Holocaust thread was a fantastic example of what this site is, but even then most gamers really could not be bothered except to observe as tourists.

That's no different from any other site. You might get 100 people registering, and maybe only half of them will ever sign in again. Of those, maybe only half of them will post. Of those, maybe only half of them will post regularly. Of them, maybe only half of them will post interesting, useful or fun stuff. So abotu 6 in every 100... You're really not going to do better than that. That's just the nature of message boards. This one is neither better nor worse than most.

Quote from: David RThis make believe War and the bellicoes speech it produces from some quarters is the reason this site does not attract more folks. And most times the shit comes form the Pundit.

I agree that it's a contributing factor, but it's not the only one. But again, how many members is enough?

Quote from: David RFor every "good" thread that shows off the potential of this site there a dozen "screw ups" - normally related to the "war" - which invites tourist and sniggers.

I don't agree with that as the ratio. Of the 30 threads on the front page of the "Role-playing Games" subforum, only 1 - this one - has as its focus the Swine War. The rest is rpg and rpg industry discussion. That seems to be a typical ratio.

I agree that 1 in 30 is too high. I've many times given this example, but it's again relevant - with restaurants, one happy customer tells one person, one unhappy customer tells ten people (that's the actual ratio determined by market research groups - not just a made-up figure). So if you make 10 out of 100 customers unhappy, and the other 90 happy, then you'll find 90 potential customers with a positive perception of your place, and 100 with a negative perception. A 90% satisfaction rating leads to a 47% reputation.

On the internet, my impression is that the ratio is even worse, because there are a lot of lonely and idle people who like to complain. So that 1 in 30 thread becomes half the place's reputation.

Even with this one thread though, if a potential user actually read it through, they'd find people like David R and me responding that it was all bollocks - by actually reading a thread, they'd get a more balanced and sane view. So what'll happen is that people who don't read threads before responding to them will be put off from coming to therpgsite. To be honest, I find it hard to mourn much the loss of people who don't read before posting.

Again, yes I would like more members. And again, yes, the antics of these guys put off potential posters. But we should not forget that we have quite a lot of posters already, and many of them are active, and post interesting, useful and funny things. We have enough, I think.

If you don't think we have enough posters, how many do you think would be enough? Or is it only the loss of particular individuals like Levi which you mourn? In which case, what is really the problem - RPGPundit's obnoxiousness, or Levi's mistaking the site owner for the entire site?

Quote from: Kyle AaronRPGPundit's claims to represent "mainstream" gamers are irrelevant, bearing not at all on the tone of therpgsite. I dunno about free speech and no moderation, but the tone and style of therpgsite is draw enough to get a good number of conversations going.

Of course it has a bearing on the tone of this site. Just as his views - and he is the person who weilds the most power - on free speech was a draw for many of the posters here -and judging by the consultation threads, they mean for him to practise what he preaches - his disdain of certain gamers/playstyles is a big turn off for some gamers. Notice that the Pundit draws the most flak for his views simply because the perception is that he has the most influence on this site.

Also he apparently wants more d20 gamers who are dissatified with tBP to come over here. Just another example of what he wants this site to be. Granted we all have the right to do this, but like I said, he's the one with the rep that helps or hurts this place.

QuoteThe quest for more active posters seems to me to be like the quest for more money - at some point, you have to admit that while more would always be nice, really you have got enough to do what you want to do. We have enough active posters.

In your opinion. I want more gamers. I want more diverse opinions.

QuoteSo I do what I can by starting a few threads I think will help us have interesting and useful conversations (after Subpoena Saturdays I plan for Free PDF Fridays). I try to psot interesting and useful things to threads where I can make a useful contribution, or at least be funny.

No argument here.

QuoteRather than worry about how bad it could become, I try to make it better - by talking about rpgs, and trying to get others to talk about them, too.

I'm not worried about how bad it will become, I'm eager to make this place a success. And I think one measure of that is that if we can attract more gamers here and they contribute productively.

QuoteThat's no different from any other site. You might get 100 people registering, and maybe only half of them will ever sign in again. Of those, maybe only half of them will post. Of those, maybe only half of them will post regularly. Of them, maybe only half of them will post interesting, useful or fun stuff. So abotu 6 in every 100... You're really not going to do better than that. That's just the nature of message boards. This one is neither better nor worse than most.

*shrug* I'll take your word on this. My concern is attracting more gamers to this site.

QuoteI agree that it's a contributing factor, but it's not the only one. But again, how many members is enough?

No idea. I do know that I (and I doubt I'm alone) want more gamers posting here. How many more? I don't have an answer.

QuoteI don't agree with that as the ratio. Of the 30 threads on the front page of the "Role-playing Games" subforum, only 1 - this one - has as its focus the Swine War. The rest is rpg and rpg industry discussion. That seems to be a typical ratio.

What I was getting at - dodgy of the cuff ratio on my part- was that threads like these, about the war are what folks remember of this site.

QuoteTo be honest, I find it hard to mourn much the loss of people who don't read before posting.

I'm more concerned of the people who do read these kinds of threads and decide this place ain't for them.

QuoteAgain, yes I would like more members. And again, yes, the antics of these guys put off potential posters. But we should not forget that we have quite a lot of posters already, and many of them are active, and post interesting, useful and funny things. We have enough, I think.

We do have many interesting posters and these folks and their discusions should be the draw but unfortunately the Pundit and his proxies constant babbling of their war drowns almost everybody out.

QuoteOr is it only the loss of particular individuals like Levi which you mourn? In which case, what is really the problem - RPGPundit's obnoxiousness, or Levi's mistaking the site owner for the entire site?

Oh please, the only thing Levi has to do with this, is that he left (I assume) because of the Pundit's usual crappy behaviour. If James M, is told to moderate his behaviour for the betterment of this site , I see no reason why the Pundit should not be told to do the same.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn which case, what is really the problem - RPGPundit's obnoxiousness, or Levi's mistaking the site owner for the entire site?

Well, y'know, I tend to agree that Pundit being obnoxious is not a good reason to condemn him and leave the site he's part of.  But there have been plenty of people (Pundit included!) arguing the opposite:  arguing, in fact, that the only way one can make an impression on somebody firmly entrenched in their own ideological viewpoint is to publically disclaim them and sever all ties.

Maybe Levi was convinced. :idunno:

David R, if your only answer to "how many members is enough?" is "I don't know", then I don't think you can ever be satisfied. So I don't think that's very productive or helpful.

I understand that you want a diversity of views. I do, too. It's why I live in multicultural mixed-up Melbourne instead of somewhere like Brisbane or Canberra. I think we do reasonably well here, given that the style of therpgsite isn't the only factor.

For the thespy side of gaming views, the closing of the Forge Theory subforum caused a diaspora of Forgers, and they cluster together at story-games and in their blogs. We won't see them here except to proselytise, or the occasional particularly stubborn individual like TonyLB. The tone and who's in charge make no difference to them, because they have their own place to chat. That's the way of forums - people seek out like-minded people, form cliques, and eventually exclude others - see for example that Andy K's got an "application" to join his forum. He doesn't want a true diversity of views, he wants a diversity of views within a certain narrow range.  

For the hacky side of gaming views, most hacky types rarely post to forums at all, and if they do it's to places like ENWorld to talk about rules and stuff. They'll never come here. They've no interested in a diversity of views, they just want to talk about prestige classes and stuff like that. No theory or craft or unusual settings or games.

The people in the middle, neither really thespy or hacky, most don't post to forums at all, and those who do - we'll get some of them. It's to them that tone and style make a difference.

Again, I don't see this changing. RPGPundit, his demeanour online either reflects the way he actually is (or some strong aspect of him), or else he's put years of effort into developing the persona and so isn't likely to ditch it now, not when it's got him a relatively successful rpg forum. The macho nature of the place isn't likely to change in the near future, either.

All we can really do is try to produce good content - interesting, useful and funny stuff. If there's going to be one Swine War thread for every 30 (say), then people like you and me have just got to make another 30 threads that stay up, so there's only a fifty-ifty chance of that rubbish being on the front page.

Also, if you want a Swine War thread to die, the best thing to do is to stop posting to it. Our conversation is keeping this dead thread alive. We should go and start a new one in Off Topic, Help, or better yet just forget it and start posting some good stuff to outweigh the bad.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, y'know, I tend to agree that Pundit being obnoxious is not a good reason to condemn him and leave the site he's part of. But there have been plenty of people (Pundit included!) arguing the opposite: arguing, in fact, that the only way one can make an impression on somebody firmly entrenched in their own ideological viewpoint is to publically disclaim them and sever all ties.

As I understand it, RPGPundit &co aren't arguing that you should publicly diclaim them and sever ties to make an impression on the guy. Rather they argue that if you want to convince anyone that you disagree with the guy, you have to publicly say so, and challenge that guy in his own backyard.

Nobody expects to change Uncle Ronny's mind on his silly ideas. But RPGPundit, as I understand it, says, "if you want to convince us you don't agree with Uncle Ronny, say so publicly and forcefully, and tell him in the Forge what you think of his ideas." As I understand it, the second part is optional.

So if Levi wants to tell the online gaming world that he disagrees with RPGPundit, and wants to do so by RPGPundit's guidelines, then he should just say, "I think you are completely wrong" right here on therpgsite. Which he already has, many times.

More likely Levi is just being a wuss. Or has his own statement to make in his own way.

He'd make a more useful statement by staying here and posting interesting, useful and funny stuff despite the site owner. If you remember back when I was banned from rpg.net, some people said they'd leave the place in protest. I told them this, too: stay, and make the place good despite the moderation you think is so bad.

Kyle:  This is an interesting conversation, but hasn't got much to do with RPGs.  I've made a thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=115857#post115857) in Off-Topic.

So ... original topic here was Story-Games (whatever people choose to believe they are) and D&D.

Last I checked, most everyone seemed content to say "Sure, D&D will do that, as will other systems.  But if you try to just cut and paste pieces of rules-systems together willy-nilly, hoping that they'll graft their powers into some mutant specimen ... well, not necessarily gonna work.  Keep bactine on hand."

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...And, I'm done with this site.

See y'all later.

rolls fucking eyes... :rolleyes:

taking my ball and going home....and posting about it here, on my livejournal, maybe skype'ing a few friends, tossing up a podcast, then maybe updating my blogopedia entry.

jesus, kids today.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDavid R, if your only answer to "how many members is enough?" is "I don't know", then I don't think you can ever be satisfied. So I don't think that's very productive or helpful.

I don't think playing the numbers game is productive which is why I thought my vague "attracting more folks here" would suffice. *shrug*, it's not really important.

QuoteAlso, if you want a Swine War thread to die, the best thing to do is to stop posting to it. Our conversation is keeping this dead thread alive.

Very true. I'm out of here.

Regards,
David R

Pundit's a nutjob.

His protests to the contrary, it seems like there's a very, very thin line separating him from exactly the kinds of behavior he accuses others of ("I won't ban you for disagreeing with me, just make ridiculous accusations!").  His One True Wayism and rabid paranoia are just irritating, and quite honestly he seems like an egotistical dick.  Statements like, "You're here because I allow you to exist" are just icing on the cake.  In short, I just really don't like him or his way of trying to shoehorn every disagreement into the little schemas he's constructed in his head.

With that said, this site was in its death throes before he took the helm.  It went from only a handful of new posts per day to hundreds, and I'm not crazy enough to think it's not because of him and his efforts.  Part of it is that some folks like Settembrini followed him over here - it's tough not to when you're dangling from his balls.  Part of it is that the people who wanted to tell him off found a good forum for it, since he'd been banned everywhere else.  Another part of it is that he really has done some hard work to promote the site.

So yeah, I was nodding along and giving mental high-fives to jdrakeh, but I'll give credit where credit's due and completely disagree with James McMurray that this site would be anywhere near as active as it is without our resident paranoid nutcase administrator.

-O

Quote from: J ArcaneThe GM does all that work so that I don't have to, and as far as I'm concerned, deserves some damn respect for his efforts, not paranoid screeds, relentless nitpicking, or having his role in the game stripped to nothing but a rules lawyer.  Fuck that.

Word.

Quote from: obrynSo yeah, I was nodding along and giving mental high-fives to jdrakeh, but I'll give credit where credit's due and completely disagree with James McMurray that this site would be anywhere near as active as it is without our resident paranoid nutcase administrator.

I never said that, so it's kinda hard to disagree with me on it. What I said was that the place wouldn't cease to exist like Pundit said it would.

Quote from: RPGPunditMaybe levi took it personally? Has he been censoring people on his forum? I don't know...

So why would you even suggest it?  Weak sauce, jackass.

!i!

Quote from: James McMurrayI never said that, so it's kinda hard to disagree with me on it. What I said was that the place wouldn't cease to exist like Pundit said it would.

Well, ok.  As long as you split the hair finely enough.

-O

Quote from: obrynWell, ok.  As long as you split the hair finely enough.

-O

Don't look at me, I'm just the barber. ;)

Quote from: David RI'm more concerned of the people who do read these kinds of threads and decide this place ain't for them.

Why? So what? They hear something they don't like and don't come. What's the big deal?

Seanchai

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo why would you even suggest it?  Weak sauce, jackass.

!i!

Because I'm upset that Levi quoted me out of context and used that as an excuse to take his ball and go home.  I like Levi and expected different from him. I'm allowed to be emotional sometimes too, right?

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy? So what? They hear something they don't like and don't come. What's the big deal?

I think the big deal is that instead of drawing new posters the place ends up being the home for bitter, jaded folk who enjoy the hate circus of the big StoryGames and RPG.net threads more than the RPG threads.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI think the big deal is that instead of drawing new posters the place ends up being the home for bitter, jaded folk who enjoy the hate circus of the big StoryGames and RPG.net threads more than the RPG threads.

So is it then the solution for this place to become no different than RPG.net or Storygames?

Honestly, while there are certain threads that are clearly expressing criticism of those sites, that may be due to the fact you're not able to actually express those criticisms ON those sites.  Should we now forbid that, and become just like those places?

RPGPundit

Since this thread is now discussing the moderation of therpgsite and not roleplaying games or the industry, it belongs in Help or Off Topic. Could we split or move it?

Alternately, you could start a new thread on the moderation of therpgsite.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron, it belongs in Help or Off Topic. Could we split or move it?

Alternately, you could start a new thread on the moderation of therpgsite.

As if by magic, i've just noticed that for some bizarre reason that there are 125 people viewing the help forum!!

Quote from: RPGPunditSo is it then the solution for this place to become no different than RPG.net or Storygames?

The fact of the matter is that, no matter what you're discussing, someone else is discussing it somewhere else, just like you are.  The difference lies in the people with whom you're discussing it.  Discussion groups tend to be self-selecting demographics.  Probably better than half the time, people on theRPGsite, RPG.net, and Story-Games are all discussing the same sort of thing, but amongst the company that they prefer and in terms that they're more comfortable with.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe fact of the matter is that, no matter what you're discussing, someone else is discussing it somewhere else, just like you are.  The difference lies in the people with whom you're discussing it.  Discussion groups tend to be self-selecting demographics.  Probably better than half the time, people on theRPGsite, RPG.net, and Story-Games are all discussing the same sort of thing, but amongst the company that they prefer and in terms that they're more comfortable with.

!i!

Yes, good point. And in your argument for making this place an "emotionally safe environment" or whatever, you are suggesting that we make this a place that would be MORE appealing to the sort of people who "prefer the company" of people on RPG.net, or Storygames, and therefore less appealing to those who are actually happy with theRPGsite as it currently is.

I would think the strategy would be not to silence criticism in order to try to appeal to people who are already happy with their own sites in some vain effort to make this place into "Rpg.net's little buddy" in the hopes of getting some of the people that post there to post here, but to actually try to recruit people who would in fact enjoy the environment as it already is here more than they currently enjoy being where they are.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, good point. And in your argument for making this place an "emotionally safe environment" or whatever, you are suggesting that we make this a place that would be MORE appealing to the sort of people who "prefer the company" of people on RPG.net, or Storygames, and therefore less appealing to those who are actually happy with theRPGsite as it currently is.

Hold'er newt.  Don't go tagging me with some crap about wanting an "emotionally safe environment," even if you append an "or whatever" to it.  I presume you're referring to  my post over in Off Topic (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116008&postcount=38)  where I admitted that what I want here is theRPGsite minus the bits that irritate me -- namely the so-called "Swine" to-do.  I also acknowledged that the so-called "Swine" to-do is, and has been from the start, one of the predicates of your mission for conducting this site, and copped to the fact that if I have a problem with that, it's just that -- my problem.  I'm totally okay with taking responsibility for my own disappointment, and I'm not okay with enforcing a code of conduct that makes the site "emotionally safe".

The point that I was making isn't that I want this site to be more inviting to the RPG.net or Story-Games or Forge communities at all, but rather that these different communities have sprung up separate from one another precisely because people who all want to talk about very much the same things don't all want to rub shoulders with each other.  I come to this site specifically because I have more of an interest in "traditional" RPGs, and I don't like discussing them either under the heavy-handed rules of discourse that prevail at one site or using the needless vocabulary of jargon that prevails at another.  But at the same time, I don't like the preoccupation that I see at this site with what I consider to be a non-issue.  Again, my problem.

Anyway, my real point was that, in the absence of the whole war-for-the-hearts-and-minds-of-RPGers issue, this site could, and should, be a more attractive place for people to discuss traditional RPGs without the constraint of intrusive moderation or vocabulary-intensive jargon.  People who are comfortable with that sort of environment will discuss that sort of thing here instead of lurking elsewhere.

!i!

See that's what I don't buy. The people who won't come here because they hate me will NEVER come here, even if I suddenly become all fluffiness and light and start to shit bunnies out of my ass. They will always claim that I'm a Dictator, a Bigot, that I stole their rice pudding and killed Shirley Temple; just because they have an ideological motive for hating me and wanting to harm me and any project I undertake (not to mention that they probably ideologically disagree with the mission statement of this site).

So even if I wasn't posting anything at all, those people wouldn't settle for anything less than me leaving this site and it falling into the hands of a group of Theory hacks, radical feminists and fashionable nanny-staters ready to impose massive moderation to make this site "safe" for people to shit on D&D in. Just like what they did to RPG.net.

The thing that makes this place "unattractive" to some isn't so much my actions as it is THEIR LIES about the place's real nature.

The strategy here wouldn't be for this place to change, but for people like you who have, even without agreeing with much of what I say, realized the value of a place where you can freely speak about RPGs without having your side or the other being censored or threatened with banning letting others know (who have been convinced by those lifelong-haters of mine that this is a terrible nightmarish place, my own little Latveria that I rule over with an iron fist), that in reality this place is really awesome and not at all dominated by me the way they try to paint it as.

RPGPundit

PS: And yes, the "Swine to-do" as you call it has been part of the mission here from Day 1. But its not the whole of the mission. I want this place to be a place where people can do all the stuff they cannot do on those other sites; including to condemn the Swine and criticize the other sites; but I don't want this place to turn into a website where that's all that occurs.  That's why I agree with Kyle's approach here: the best solution here is to create more threads about Roleplaying to offset the threads about ideology. Its a simple as that.

It would not do any harm to keep the Swine War stuff in RPGPundit's Own Forum, or Game Design, as appropriate for each thread.

For example, this thread's topic having changed to "RPGPundit suxxorz!" or "moderation of therpgsite" (depending on how you look at it), it now belongs in Off Topic or Help.

Keeping threads in or moving them to the appropriate subforums will help therpgsite in many ways. Just as some people don't come to therpgsite to hear political rants, and so choose to avoid Off Topic, others don't come here to hear about the Swine Wars, and so should be able to choose to avoid that - if it's in the right subforum, they can do so.

And doing so will not in any way prevent people from discussing the Swine Wars if they want to.

Let's begin by moving this thread to the right place.

I do not condone the "topic reservation", if it´s uni-directional.
Swine-talk then must also be only be allowed in Pundit´s forum.

Quote from: RPGPunditSee that's what I don't buy. The people who won't come here because they hate me will NEVER come here...

I'll confess that I agree with you here.  Some people have made that very clear, and it's senseless trying to appease them.

QuoteThe strategy here wouldn't be for this place to change, but for people like you who have, even without agreeing with much of what I say, realized the value of a place where you can freely speak about RPGs without having your side or the other being censored or threatened with banning letting others know...

[...snip...]

And yes, the "Swine to-do" as you call it has been part of the mission here from Day 1.

I had this simple epiphany last night almost immediately after I turned my computer off.  The purpose of theRPGsite is to provide an open, non-moderated, non-ideologically-dominated forum for discussing RPGs, admittedly with a slant toward traditional RPGs.  The schtick is the "Swine War".  Making participation in the schtick optional by keeping it in appropriately peripheral forums seems like a positive move to me.

And yes, Kyle, this thread is a candidate for either Off Topic or Help at this point.

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniI do not condone the "topic reservation", if it´s uni-directional.
Swine-talk then must also be only be allowed in Pundit´s forum.

fucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

Quote from: James J Skachfucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

So instead of Pundit calling "Swine" and someone else shouting "Down with the dictatorship of the GM!", and them duking it out about the War, Pundit gets sent to his sub-forum, and the other guy gets sent to a different sub-forum?

I think that separation could have really interesting effects ... dunno whether they'd be good or bad, but they'd be interesting.

Quote from: TonyLBSo instead of Pundit calling "Swine" and someone else shouting "Down with the dictatorship of the GM!", and them duking it out about the War, Pundit gets sent to his sub-forum, and the other guy gets sent to a different sub-forum?

I think that separation could have really interesting effects ... dunno whether they'd be good or bad, but they'd be interesting.

Interesting, but that's not what I had in mind...

Only that people who want get into actual "swine-talk" (which is anything that uses "jargon"/concepts/etc from GNS or otherwise passes judgement on certain gaming styles) have to do so in Theory - including Pundit, Sett, or you.

And that people should recognize that Pundy's Playhouse is a bunch of old blog posts.  If you want to refute a "swine-war" blog post from 2006, feel free to do so in Pundy's Playhouse.

Because, to me, there's a difference in arguing about the specific theory issues - even GNS-based ones, and the "swine-wars."

And if Pundy comes into RPG Open and starts "swine-war," we should call him on it and request it be moved to his Playground. Might actually improve the sub-forum-where-pundits-old-blog-posts-go-to-die.

Eh.  I'd be perfectly happy to see both theory and paranoid swine rants dumped into a collective cesspool forum.

They're both equally useful and equally valid, which is to say, they're neither, and would really result in zero deleterious effect in being shunted off to somewhere else.

I also would like to support the suggestion that was made that the current Theory and Design forum should simply be renamed to Design.

I mean, it's not like we really get any but the most half-hearted attempts at theory discussion anyway, so Tony's 'concern' is largely fantasy, with no real connection to what actualyl happens here.

Heh ... it's sort of funny for me to be bringing up this point, but ...

I think part of the argument for the Swine label is that it is meant to combat what they imagine to be insidious, creeping evangelism that hides its dedication to theory by discarding the objectively recognizable jargon, but continuing to cling to the pretentiousness and superiority that theory engenders.  The idea is that by calling such people out into the open, and shining the light of a damning label on their (supposed) agenda, you make it obvious that what they're doing is not just innocent discussion but has a sinister motive.

Man, I can't believe I'm writing this :rolleyes:  This is what I get for working to understand other people's point of view.

Anyway, if you buy that notion (which I 110% do not) then wouldn't the proposed rules be a little lopsided?  They restrict open, explicit evangelism but not secretive, implicit evangelism.

Now if you want to say "But the whole idea that discussing non-trad games must be part of a proselytizing plot ... that idea is STUPID!" then, y'know, right on!  It IS STUPID.  I'm right with you there.  But I'm pretty sure that there's some disagreement on that point, and that it will make people who disagree see this proposal in a different light.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaMaking participation in the schtick optional by keeping it in appropriately peripheral forums seems like a positive move to me.

Ah, but then Settembrini's point comes into play. Should I not be allowed to contradict people who come onto other forums on the board and start promoting the Swine agenda?
I mean, the alternative would be extremely heavy-handed moderation (by the standards of this site) where any thread that brought up any position that I considered Swinish would immediately be moved over to the RPGPundit's Forum so I could rebuke it there.  But that seems pretty absurd, would no doubt hit most of the site's members the wrong way, and amounts to a lot of needless work just to appease a few people who are too lazy to ignore my rants when they disturb them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J Skachfucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

NO! Because the Theory Forum was specifically and explicitly created to be a forum where people could engage in Theory discussion FREE OF the typical Theory Swine nonsense.  To the point that when I first took over this site, I'd considered making it the one place with heavier moderation where discussing GNS/Forge-stuff/etc would have been strictly prohibited (eventually, I decided against that, but still made a very vocal statement to the effect that its a place to talk Theory-alternatives to the typical Forge tripe).

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachAnd that people should recognize that Pundy's Playhouse is a bunch of old blog posts.  If you want to refute a "swine-war" blog post from 2006, feel free to do so in Pundy's Playhouse.

An archive for my Blog posts is ONE of the major purposes of that forum, to be sure, but its not the ONLY one.

The RPGPundit's forum is for discussion of anything to do with me, my blog, and any pundit-related topics (pipesmoking, freemasonry, my campaigns, uruguay, etc etc etc, and yes, certainly you can talk about the Swine War there).

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBHeh ... it's sort of funny for me to be bringing up this point, but ...

I think part of the argument for the Swine label is that it is meant to combat what they imagine to be insidious, creeping evangelism that hides its dedication to theory by discarding the objectively recognizable jargon, but continuing to cling to the pretentiousness and superiority that theory engenders.  The idea is that by calling such people out into the open, and shining the light of a damning label on their (supposed) agenda, you make it obvious that what they're doing is not just innocent discussion but has a sinister motive.

Man, I can't believe I'm writing this :rolleyes:  This is what I get for working to understand other people's point of view.

Anyway, if you buy that notion (which I 110% do not) then wouldn't the proposed rules be a little lopsided?  They restrict open, explicit evangelism but not secretive, implicit evangelism.

Yes. For someone who obviously has reasons not to agree with it, you certainly understood my point perfectly this time, and my main objection to the idea that speaking up against the Swine be somehow restricted to specific forums (which is basically because of what I highlited from your quote above).

RPGPundit

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI think the big deal is that instead of drawing new posters the place ends up being the home for bitter, jaded folk who enjoy the hate circus of the big StoryGames and RPG.net threads more than the RPG threads.

And? I mean, this place is what it is.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditAh, but then Settembrini's point comes into play. Should I not be allowed to contradict people who come onto other forums on the board and start promoting the Swine agenda?
I mean, the alternative would be extremely heavy-handed moderation (by the standards of this site) where any thread that brought up any position that I considered Swinish would immediately be moved over to the RPGPundit's Forum so I could rebuke it there.  

No. No-one has to be silenced. Just put things in their proper place.

Eventually any Swinish stuff is going to drift into one of two directions - theory talk, or an internet stoush. Theory goes in the Game Design subforum, and a stoush goes into Off Topic. The mods won't have to move a lot of threads, just a few at the start until people get the message. Once threads are moved out of Roleplaying they'll lose a lot of their audience, and fizzle away into being forgotten.

The Swine agenda, as RPGPundit describes it, absolutely requires the use of rpg theory of one kind or another. So if it's a passing Swinish comment, you can ignore it or smash it down in a regular sort of way, but if the thread becomes entirely about that rpg theory stuff, then it's time for the thread to be moved to Game Design. We discuss theory and how to apply it in Game Design. We discuss rpgs, the industry, and rpg sessions in the Roleplaying subforum.

If, on the other hand, you're not debating theory, but just turning the thread into "you guys are such cunts" vs "RPGPundit is a prick" then in fact the thread no longer has anything to do with rpgs, nor anything to do with rpg theory. It's just an internet stoush, and as such belongs in Off Topic - though if you really want to have that in RPGPundit's Own, well that's not our problem.

So for example this thread, "Proof of Story-Game Swinedom" never belonged in the Roleplaying forum at all; it belonged in Off Topic, since it was just a shit-stirring thread. So RPGPundit started the thread in the wrong subforum.

The difficulty is in RPGPundit's approach to the Swine. Rather than undermining their ideas, he tends to call them cunts. This disrupts and derails a thread. Whatever was the original topic is forgotten. They may or may not exist, and they may or may not be cunts; that's irrelevant here. What is relevant is that a shit-stirring-looking-for-a-fight thread does not belong in the Roleplaying subforum.

Of course there are always going to be shit-stirring or looking-for-a-fight posts in any thread, and maybe even ten or twenty posts in a row where it happens. That's fair enough. But if the entire fucking thing was aiming at that from the start, you can only go down from there.

Now, if potential members of therpgsite come along and see shit-stirring and fights in RPGPundit's Own and Off Topic, well they expect that and won't complain. If they see rpg theory in Game Design, again they expect that. But if they find shit-stirring, fights and rpg theory in Roleplaying, then you are going to attract no-one except people who like stirring shit, fighting and talking rpg theory. You will attract what you call Swine - as well as guys like Dominus Nox.

I don't think that's a good way for therpgsite to go if we're aiming to have interesting, useful and funny conversations.

No-one has to be silenced. Just put things in their proper place.

QuoteShould I not be allowed to contradict people who come onto other forums on the board and start promoting the Swine agenda?

That's okay by me. What I don't like are the attacks that you launch (like this thread, actually). This thread had nothing to do with defense of a position taken on this forum by a Forge advocate, rather, it attacked something mentioned on another forum entirely. There's no way that you can pass this (and threads like it) off as genuine, topical, rebuttal of "people who come onto other forums on the board and start promoting the Swine agenda". Because it's not. It's attacking other people at other forums simply for the sake of doing so.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNo. No-one has to be silenced. Just put things in their proper place.

If I may also suggest?  Most forum software has a "Split" command for moderators, that lets you split one thread into two at any point (or even, for some software, divvy up which individual posts go to the new one and which ones stay in the old).  I think it would be a really good idea for the mods to get familiar with this function if this "Put things in their proper place" idea becomes policy.

If there have been six pages of good, insightful RPG discussion and then someone comes along and starts a pointless argument on page 7 I'd rather not see the whole thread trundled off to Off-Topic.  It would be much nicer to just see page 7 surgically cut loose of the preceding material and tossed aside.  A bit more work for the mods, but a much better experience for posters.

I'm not even a very big fan of moving threads (at least not until I'm utterly convinced they don't belong where the OP put them). I couldn't really see myself splitting up threads.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm not even a very big fan of moving threads (at least not until I'm utterly convinced they don't belong where the OP put them). I couldn't really see myself splitting up threads.

RPGPundit

This may be an adjustment you would want to make for the better of the site.  It's a nice way to allow the free speach to flow whilst minimizing disruption...

Or not...

Could I make two suggestions please?

One, let's stop gazing at our navels, only fluff is to be found there.

Two, if anyone on this thread isn't posting at least as much in a gaming forum here, they should stop posting in this thread and post some stuff in the gaming fora.

Metabitching is cool and all, but if you're making more metaposts than gaming posts then that's not great and I'd suggest making more gaming posts.

Thirdly, because I can't count, I loved Tony's suggestion of sending people into different threads, although it would be better if they were random threads.  "Down with the swine, they are destroying gaming!"  "Um dude, not sure how you got here but this thread is about classic Traveller houserules, what are the Swine?  Is that something out of TNE?"

Quote from: Balbinus[...] if anyone on this thread isn't posting at least as much in a gaming forum here, they should stop posting in this thread and post some stuff in the gaming fora.

It had been dead for a week before you dug it up.

As for posting in the gaming forums, I already started that crusade. See sig.

Quote from: BalbinusCould I make two suggestions please?

You're a couple of weeks late, methinks ;)

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt had been dead for a week before you dug it up.

As for posting in the gaming forums, I already started that crusade. See sig.

Allow me to say, bugger.

Bugger, bugger, bugger.

Um, so, well, bugger.  How terribly embarassing.

I don't care what people play. As long as they enjoy it, who cares?

Quote from: ZalmoxisI don't care what people play. As long as they enjoy it, who cares?

Exactly.

There are no "Swine", there is no "War".   Are there assholes in this hobby?

Sure, there are assholes in every hobby.

No one is trying to subvert the hobby.  It is simply people playing the games they enjoy.  Whether it is D&D 3.5 or DITV they are playing role playing games and are in the same hobby as everyone else.