Quote from: TonyLBOkay, 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.

Well thats pretty EVASIVE!!

FINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

I'm chugging along ....reading this thread - and no damn answers fropm this Tony person.

You running for political officee or something ? You got the sidestep down pretty well.

 - Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarFINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

Wellll ... I was gonna ... but really, setting up my own questions and then answering them?  Didn't seem right. :sweatdrop:

James asked some questions that were ... y'know ... like mine, but different enough that I'm really glad he did it.  "What's the source of the conflict?" is ... that's a nice question.  I expect different people would each have different answers to that.

Quote from: KoltarWell thats pretty EVASIVE!!

FINE, you went and rephrased them as questions - then answer them!!

I'm chugging along ....reading this thread - and no damn answers fropm this Tony person.

You running for political officee or something ? You got the sidestep down pretty well.

 - Ed C.

Hey Ed...I like you and all, you're a nice guy..but...

Tony has answered every one of my questions in a straightforward way.  My assumption is he's being honest.  So back off, GURPS-boy...

OK...the GURPS-boy was harsh.  I apologize.  It's new for me to defend Tony... :haw:

Ok: this may, or may not, be a gaming related thread.  I don't know for sure. WHat I DO know is that it isn't really 'Off Topic' enough to be here in the ghetto... especially without comment.


Or did my computer do something really weird and I'm the only one?

Quote from: SpikeOr did my computer do something really weird and I'm the only one?

It's a moderator call, that's all.  Discussion is here.

Quote from: TonyLBIt'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.

Tony,

Well, this gets to be a bit of a conundrum.  I mean, I get what you're saying and you and I have gone through this conversation - so I'm cool with it.  But the quote comes from the seminal document of GNS theory, regardless of the author, it still comes out basing the entire theory on the negative statement.

So, in reality, I'd saw this is not about Ron at all. It's about a theory that starts with a negative statement, builds upon that with exclusionary tactics, and culiminates with the claim that people were brain damaged - regardless of who said which part.

Just so you know - it's one of the reasons I like the Q&A threads.  I know where Luke stands with respect to certain ideas.  If I ask enough people (and it's only supposed to be a handful, right), I can better delineate who believes what ideas and how prevalent the idea is among the theory folks. All driven by your concerns...

EDIT: And yeah, there's no question in this one

Tony,

What was the first RPG you played (and when)? What RPG have you played the most?

In a related follow up, you seem to mostly focus on rules-light games these days (that's mostly what I've seen you talk about over the years, and your own RPG is a rules-light game IIRC). Has that always been the case, or did you move from more rules-heavy games like D&D etc. to the lighter stuff?

Quote from: James J SkachEDIT: And yeah, there's no question in this one

That's okay, I'll give you one based on what I read as some of your assumptions:

- Do you, Tony, believe that GNS is the most important and/or influential piece of theory to come out of the Forge?

Answer:  Oh, hell no.  In my opinion, many, many things with no relationship to GNS whatsoever have far, far more of an impact on actual design than GNS does.  For instance, I see many games that are inspired directly by various insights people have put forth about ways to set Stakes for resolution.  I don't see any games that I look at and say "Oh, this comes from such-and-so discussion about GNS."

I think GNS is way more of a big deal to people who are on the outside of the Forge looking in (whether pro- or con-) than it is to folks in the community itself.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat was the first RPG you played (and when)?

Hrmmmm ... thassa long time ago.  Did I sit in on that Champions game at camp before I picked up the PHB for D&D?  Or was it the other way around?  Gah!  I should be able to remember this.

Anyway, D&D and Champions were my first big games, and my friends and I all pretty much played both, as the mood struck us.  I'm enough of a comic-book nut that I did more GMing for Champions ... and so when I headed out to college (where GMs were, for some reason, more scarce) I ended up playing a lot more Champs.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat RPG have you played the most?

Champions.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn a related follow up, you seem to mostly focus on rules-light games these days (that's mostly what I've seen you talk about over the years, and your own RPG is a rules-light game IIRC). Has that always been the case, or did you move from more rules-heavy games like D&D etc. to the lighter stuff?

Heh.  Champions.  I've got rules-heavy in my past.

And, frankly, I've played Burning Empires recently, which I don't consider all that rules-light a book.  I liked the rules complexity.  My fellow players did not.  So I'm in rules-light mode these days somewhat over my own protests

Quote from: TonyLBOh, hell no.  In my opinion, many, many things with no relationship to GNS whatsoever have far, far more of an impact on actual design than GNS does.  For instance, I see many games that are inspired directly by various insights people have put forth about ways to set Stakes for resolution.  I don't see any games that I look at and say "Oh, this comes from such-and-so discussion about GNS."

I think GNS is way more of a big deal to people who are on the outside of the Forge looking in (whether pro- or con-) than it is to folks in the community itself.

Tony,

Given the answer above, do you think that GNS provides any benefit to discussing RPG's?
If so, in what ways?
If not, why not?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachGiven the answer above, do you think that GNS provides any benefit to discussing RPG's?

I've heard from enough people who say that they've gotten benefit out of it that I'm inclined to think that it can be helpful for some people.  I really don't know from personal experience ... it was never one of the bits that clicked with me.  I'm pretty sure that I understand it, I just don't find that it makes my discussions any easier.

Quote from: James J SkachIf so, in what ways?

You'd honestly have to ask somebody who has personally benefitted from it.  I'm just the wrong guy to ask, sorry.

Quote from: TonyLBNo.  Hard, negative, denigating things have been said.  They are good cause to be offended.

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.

This is all such UTTER bullshit.  Do you know how you actually end hostility?

By admitting the place where YOUR SIDE was wrong.

What you're saying here is the equivalent of saying: "yeah, you know there were many reasons why those indians were mad at us cowboys; the fact that we said "this is great land" doesn't mean that we necessarily meant to say "we're taking it from you", and in any case there was a lot of mistakes either way. We know that the indians have shown a lot of hatred to us, and we now admit that they made some serious mistakes by raiding our wagon-parties."

Well fuck you.

You want peace? you really want peace? ADMIT THAT YOUR SIDE STARTED IT.

You want to "move beyond" all the criticisms thrown at your side because of Ron Edwards? DISAVOW yourselves of Ron Edwards.

As it is, right now, your side just keeps saying that either there "is no conflict" or that your side just wants it to end, but everything you keep doing is clearly a sign that you know there's a fight, and you're fighting it. LIKE THIS VERY THREAD; which was a product of your discussions on the Storygame sites about how to push your agenda on fora like this one.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou want peace?

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit[Y]ou really want peace?

Yes.

Next question?

If you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

RPGPundit

Tony, another set of follow up questions.

I think it was Kyle who argued that rules-light games tend to appeal to more advanced gamers, while rules heavy games (especially D&D, Traveller and Champion) tend to appeal to newer gamers. Most of us learn to RP with D&D and such, after all, and only after that move onto things like Wushu (Similarly, Burning Empires seems to be one of the most popular Forge games despite being by far the most rules-intensive).

Do you agree with this idea, and if so, why do you think it's the case? What import do you think this has for designers of RPGs if it's true?