Follow-Up:

You wrote Capes a few years back. Any plans for another RPG any time soon? If so, what would you do differently this time around?

Quote from: James J SkachWhile your description of what can happen is accurate, do you think there have also been statements that do not just provide positive comments on on style of gaming, but, instead, call into question the validity of other styles?

Oh yeah!  People say stupid, negative, denigrating things.

I see how these sorts of discussions can happen without requiring anyone to say pointlessly negative things.  That's not to say that I don't think people do say pointlessly negative things.

Quote from: James J SkachIf so, could you provide an example of what you believe goes beyond mere positive statements and crosses into explicit denigration of gaming styles - from both sides of the "war"?

Well ... "Brain damage" and "Swine" are the two famous ones 'round here.  Both are straight up attacks on folks ... and, sadly enough, I actually like the positive stuff that both people say that seems to motivate them to these really awful negative passes.

I like folks who are enthusiastic about focussing on straight up unassuming fun ... I just don't like it when they say that's the only thing worth focussing on.

I like folks who are enthusiastic about focussing on story telling and the aesthetics and craft of fiction ... I just don't like it when they say that's the only thing worth focussing on.

Quote from: James J SkachI would have loved you to stop at "an upcoming slot." This is one of those instances you describe (accurately) above wherein someone who has used D&D or C&C for a more immersive or story-focused style could interpet what you're saying as "D&D and C&C are realyl only good for old fashioned fun playing hack and slash."  Just to let you know...

Any chance I could get you to phrase that as a question?  I get what you're saying, and I think it's interesting, but I'm a bit leery of turning this into a back-and-forth of statements.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou wrote Capes a few years back. Any plans for another RPG any time soon?

Uh ... define "soon."  :sweatdrop:  I'm pretty constantly sweating on my shoujo game, but I don't expect to see it in publishable shape for at least a year.  Part of the reason why is below ....

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf so, what would you do differently this time around?

I've got three lessons from my experience so far that I'm deriving major guidance from.

First, I'm focussing much more on making the game easily accessible:  I have, so far, discarded several really nice, really elegant systems on this project because they simply weren't intuitive enough for people to pick up immediately and start to play with just a few minutes of explanation.  Gah.  That hurt ... it hurt me right in the gut, but I think it's really important.

Capes is a really nice, really elegant system that works absolute magic once people understand it.  It is, however, such a holistic mass of interacting parts that it is virtually impossible to describe it in any straight-forward manner.  You can't pick one thing that you can explain as a "foundation" for the next thing, because rules depend upon each other in a closed circle.  What thrills the mathematician in me turns out to be a damn poor idea in terms of actually providing a game that people can grab and go with.  So there are plenty of people who want to want Capes, but take a look at the rule book, cock their head to the side and go "Mrrrmow?" and then put it back on the shelf.  And they're right to do it.

I can't bring myself to regret how I built Capes.  I still love it, even knowing its flaws.  That said, I'm deliberately putting a lot of effort into doing something else this time 'round.

Second, (and this is a touch more controversial), the hugely positive responses to my example of play (and later my online example of play) have convinced me that the Technical Reference style of game-manual is one that gives many people difficulty.  While there are some folks who like, and even need to have the rules laid out like the pieces of a machine, for them to examine and fit together in their mind, there are other folks who like (and perhaps even need) to be told a story about what playing the game is going to be like ... what their place in it will be, and what they will do in that place.  So, in addition to making accessible rules, I'll also be trying to present them in a way that is much more like a story about some fictional players than it is an instruction manual for a game.  The example I've been giving is that it's like using Harry Potter to teach people the rules of Quidditch.  Maybe that'll work, and maybe it won't, but again I'm fairly convinced that there's conceptual territory out there that hasn't been well explored ... at least not by me.

Third, I just didn't do anywhere near enough blind playtesting of Capes.  I need to get the near-finished rules text into the hands of people who have never seen it before, and get reports from them of how they interpreted it, where they had trouble, how they played the game and how it worked out for them.  And I need to do this with not one or two groups, but dozens.  That's gonna be a pain in the butt to arrange, and will likely require both time and money in (what seems to me) fairly large quantities.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay ... I heard this interesting story from a friend last night.  Apparently someone sent a letter to be published that was purely saying positive things about men.  "Men are strong," "Men are rational," "Men can control their emotions."

This prompted a vitriolic response from enraged feminists.  "How dare you say that women are weak, irrational and emotional?  HOW DARE YOU?"

When someone says something positive about X, especially if there is an implied contrast with Y, then it's very, very easy for folks to believe that they are saying that Y does not have that positive trait.

I say "Man, I played a whole bunch of indie games this weekend!  It was so fun I just about wet myself!", and I've just made a statement that is very easy to interpret as saying "non-independent games are not fun."  Wasn't my intent, but that's how the human animal reads that.

And how do you jibe that with the fact that the Foundation-Stone of the entire "Indie-Forge" movement begins, with its very first statement, by declaring that "most gamers are deeply unsatisfied and miserable" (paraphrased from Ron Edwards' very first GNS essay)?

The Forge movement did NOT begin with "how cool are these new ideas we have"; it emphatically began with "mainstream gaming makes people miserable, and if they say they aren't they're either lying to you or themselves".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd how do you jibe that with the fact that the Foundation-Stone of the entire "Indie-Forge" movement begins, with its very first statement, by declaring that "most gamers are deeply unsatisfied and miserable" (paraphrased from Ron Edwards' very first GNS essay)?

Well, like I said in post #17, I see both how conflict can arise from people saying offensive, obnoxious things and how conflict can arise just from people trying to be positive and enthusiastic.  It's not really an either-or proposition.

This might be a good time to point out, however, that stating your assumptions as the context for a question makes it very difficult for me to answer if I don't share those assumptions.  If you say, for instance, "Given the fact that you, Tony, are a liar and a thief, why should anyone listen to you?" I can only answer by (a) going glib and humorous ("Because I'm so shiny!") or (b) trying to counter your assumptions ("Dude, I'm neither a liar nor a thief,") which gets us into a back-and-forth that can easily become more about defending and attacking than asking and answering.

I'm going to assume that anyone asking a question here is genuinely interested in hearing the answer, and so I'm going to avoid both of those patterns.  If I see this kind of strong assumption in future questions I'm not going to answer at all ... I'm just going to say "I don't share the assumptions that your question is based upon.  Please ask it again, in a way that does not depend upon those assumptions."

Tony,

That's a fine approach - no problem with it. Only one question.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, my question includes an assumption with which you don't agree.  Is it OK to, in question form, explore that difference of assumption?

I ask because, I think in understanding those motivating assumptions, and the differences between them, could be valuable to the discussion.

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachLet's say, for the sake of argument, my question includes an assumption with which you don't agree.  Is it OK to, in question form, explore that difference of assumption?

Oh God ... please do!

A question like (for instance) "How do you convince people to play your high-brow, specialized, unappealing games at conventions?" is really hard for me to respond to productively.  The assumption is lurking, but there's no Q&A venue to respond to it, and it structures what I can respond to in the question that is on the table.

Two questions, like "Do you agree that Forge games are high-brow, specialized and unappealing?" and "How do you convince people to play games at conventions?" are incredibly easy to respond to.

So yeah, absolutely, let's get our different assumptions out on the table.  I'd love to!

Quote from: TonyLBWell, like I said in post #17, I see both how conflict can arise from people saying offensive, obnoxious things and how conflict can arise just from people trying to be positive and enthusiastic.  It's not really an either-or proposition.

But let's talk about what actually DID happen. What actually DID happen was that Ron Edwards started off the entire "Forge-Theory" movement with an essay where he claimed that most roleplayers are MISERABLE, and the cause of this misery were Regular RPGs.  That's not what "can" happen, or what "could have arisen", that's what actually happened, over here, in the real world.

So your trying to claim now that in some other hypothetical world Ron's first words might have been "playing narrativist games rock" and he didn't ever say anything that directly attacked Regular RPGs at all is pretty fucking irrelevant, isn't it?


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo your trying to claim now that in some other hypothetical world Ron's first words might have been "playing narrativist games rock" and he didn't ever say anything that directly attacked Regular RPGs at all is pretty fucking irrelevant, isn't it?

Wow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

So here's a fucking question for you: how do you justify talking about the conflict between Forge-games and Regular Roleplaying as being based on simple misunderstanding (and of course, always OUR misunderstanding of YOU), when the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is clear that Ron Edwards fired the first shot in the form of saying that "the VAST MAJORITY of gamers are miserable because of the kinds of games they play"?

How the fuck do you interpret that as being anything other than an attack on regular roleplaying?

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... despite the presence of a question mark, I find it quite hard to parse what the question is here.  Seems more sort of like a passionate statement, followed by a "So how do ya like THEM apples?"

Anyway, I like them apples fine.  I agree:  Hypothetical histories of what might have happened would be completely irrelevant.  What happened happened.

Which is Tony's nice way of saying, I think, "I don't agree that it's what Ron said."

So here, let's look:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

OK, so, there it is.  Now there's lots of room for couching - my observation, I encounter - lot's of ways to get out of being accused of saying this is the objective truth.

In the spirit of trying to delve into the assumptions to understand current positions better:

Tony,

Do you consider the first sentence of GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, provided above, as an example of a postive statement being misread (that we all agree can happen), or a negative statement?

Thanks
Jim

Quote from: RPGPunditSo here's a fucking question for you: how do you justify talking about the conflict between Forge-games and Regular Roleplaying as being based on simple misunderstanding (and of course, always OUR misunderstanding of YOU), when the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is clear that Ron Edwards fired the first shot in the form of saying that "the VAST MAJORITY of gamers are miserable because of the kinds of games they play"?

Okay, you clearly need, like ... an example of play of how to write a question that isn't loaded to the gills with assumptions.  Here's the assumptions you built into that question:

• Tony believes that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding.
• Tony believes that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided.

So if you wanted to ask the questions as questions, it would go like this:

• (1) Do you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?
• (2a) If so, do you believe that said misunderstanding is entirely one-sided?
• (2b) If not, why are you making such a point of talking about how simple misunderstanding can lead to conflict?  Isn't that irrelevant in light of the past roots of the present conflict?

Now see, those are questions I could actually answer.  In fact, if anyone is actually interested in hearing the answers, I'd be happy to answer them.

But the mess of assumptions up above?  Unanswerable as asked ... it's just a rant with a question mark at the end.

Tony,

Do you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?
If so, misunderstanding of what, and by whom?
If not, then what is the source of the conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachDo you consider the first sentence of GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, provided above, as an example of a postive statement being misread (that we all agree can happen), or a negative statement?

It's a negative statement, plain and simple.  I don't even particularly care if it's an accurate statement ... even if the people he met were miserable sods, every last one, he's the one choosing to concentrate on the misery rather than look for what they're doing right.

FWIW, the assumption I disagree with is not "Ron says negative stuff," it's "Everything that's come out of the Forge as a board and as a community is dependent upon Ron and his theories."  Ron's simply not that all-embracingly important.

Quote from: James J SkachDo you believe that the conflict between the Forge community and other roleplayers is based on nothing more than simple misunderstanding?

No.  Hard, negative, denigating things have been said.  They are good cause to be offended.

Quote from: James J SkachIf not, then what is the source of the conflict?

I don't think it has a single source.  I think that it is perpetuated by a broad range of elements, from the living history of the internet ("Ron said this!  I can google it!") to ongoing spirals of offensiveness, to ... lots of things.

For my part, I don't want to denigrate people who play different games ... I like different games, and even the ones I don't personally like I respect.  And yet I find that people get offended by me anyway.  So I've been personally interested in examining how that happens.

The more I understand of how these conflicts can come into being without intent, the easier I find it to excuse and understand people who are in a conflict with me.  It becomes easier to see (or at least to hope) that they are nice, enthusiastic, positive people but that we're in a bad little cycle of the type that's been played out so many times before.  The more I understand that, the mellower I can be.

Because of that, I think it's well worth pointing out that the perpetuation of hostility has several causes ... and that "The other guys are assholes!" may well be one of them on occasion, but it's not the only cause all the time.