Quote from: RPGPunditIf you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

RPGPundit

"Mommy, mommy, he started it! No, mommy, he started it! It's his fault! It's not fair, he started it!"

It doesn't matter who started it. It matters who ends it, either by converting their opponents to their beliefs, by reaching a reasonable compromise both sides can agree with, or by giving in to the other side's beliefs.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Mommy, mommy, he started it! No, mommy, he started it! It's his fault! It's not fair, he started it!"

It doesn't matter who started it. It matters who ends it, either by converting their opponents to their beliefs, by reaching a reasonable compromise both sides can agree with, or by giving in to the other side's beliefs.

Tony is repeatedly claiming that he "wants" to end the war.
Yet he doesn't seem to want to go to the extent that is required for a compromise: the FIRST step of any compromise would be to acknowledge the errors commited by the Forgies.  The one thing that you can reliably see from virtually EVERY Forgite-storygamer is an absolute refusal to believe that they are to blame for the conflict or that they have in fact ever done or said anything wrong. They always want to claim that it is just all a big misunderstanding, that they've been "misinterpreted" or that its all just the product of people being "afraid" of their radical new ideas.

So he doesn't want to compromise, he obviously doesn't want to surrender either, I can only assume that when he says he "wants" to end the War the only thing he really means is that he wants our side to lay down and die.

Fuck him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDo you agree with this idea, and if so, why do you think it's the case?

I don't know.  I have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to experienced hands.  I also have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to folks who have never gamed before.  I look at the success of simple games like (to pick one of my favorites) Jungle Speed at spreading like wildfire, and I think "Ooh, I want in on that!"

But frankly, the only way those ideas are ever going to be more than hypotheticals is if somebody manages to actually create the game that does it in a recognizable way.  Boy, it'd be nice if that were me.  Here's hoping.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat import do you think this has for designers of RPGs if it's true?

If it's concluded that it's true then I think it'll drive a lot of people away from rules-light.  There's a lot of interest in helping new and prospective gamers to get into the hobby and get enthusiastic, and I'm pretty sure that priority will trump other benefits of light rules in the minds of many designers.

Now that, of course, is hearsay ... I don't speak for anyone but myself.  I can speak with authority for myself though:  If I become convinced that rules-heavy inherently draws beginning players better then I'm gonna start designing rules-heavy games.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you want peace, why can't you admit that your fucking side started it??

Because that's not what I believe.  I don't think that any one source started the conflict.  I think, as I've said, that it arises from many causes.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said one of those causes?  Yes, yes it is.  I've said that ... what ... many times so far in this thread.  It's not really that big a deal to me to say ... sorry if you feel that it's not satisfying to hear unless you wring it out of me somehow.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said the only cause of the conflict?  Uh ... no.  I just don't see any sensible way of explaining it that way.  They offend some folks, and (for example) Pundit offends some folks, and just plain misunderstanding offends some folks, and like that.  There are many causes.

Now when we get into questions of "Who started it?" ... well, I frankly just lose interest.  That's no longer talking about reality ... it's talking about which pattern you prefer to impose upon reality, what parts to ignore and what parts to highlight, where to begin the story and what to relegate to the unimportant prelude.  It's spin.

I don't believe that, at the end of some "War," Ron will emerge clearly the villain in all ways, and Pundit will emerge lily-white with all his supposed faults shown to be virtues.  Nor, of course, do I think that it will work out the other way 'round.  I figure that no matter how much anyone talks about it, they'll both continue to appear as the flawed and often offensive human beings we've become familiar with ... and no amount of arguing one way or another is going to change that.  Trying to spin this conflict as anything other than a whole-hearted street brawl is intellectual wankery of a sort that holds no entertainment value for me.

There's a big mess, and everyone had a part in making it.  I'm mostly interested in where we go from here.

Quote from: TonyLBBecause that's not what I believe.  I don't think that any one source started the conflict.  I think, as I've said, that it arises from many causes.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said one of those causes?  Yes, yes it is.  I've said that ... what ... many times so far in this thread.  It's not really that big a deal to me to say ... sorry if you feel that it's not satisfying to hear unless you wring it out of me somehow.

Is the offensive stuff that some Forge folks have said the only cause of the conflict?  Uh ... no.  I just don't see any sensible way of explaining it that way.  They offend some folks, and (for example) Pundit offends some folks, and just plain misunderstanding offends some folks, and like that.  There are many causes.

Tony,

What other specific causes can you point us to?
Do you beleive the Pundit would have any fire if there wasnt already an issue to address?

Quote from: TonyLBNow when we get into questions of "Who started it?" ... well, I frankly just lose interest.  That's no longer talking about reality ... it's talking about which pattern you prefer to impose upon reality, what parts to ignore and what parts to highlight, where to begin the story and what to relegate to the unimportant prelude.  It's spin.

So you think there's any way to objectively establish the source of this conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachWhat other specific causes can you point us to?

Here, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

Really, pick one of the ways that human beings piss each other off, deliberately or accidentally, and it's probably had a hand in this train-wreck somewhere along the line.  To be honest, I'm not keeping a comprehensive list.  It just seems like such a "glass-is-half-empty" sort of thing to do

Quote from: James J SkachDo you beleive the Pundit would have any fire if there wasnt already an issue to address?

Nope.  Nor do I believe Ron would have any fire if there wasn't already an issue for him to address.

Quote from: James J SkachSo you think there's any way to objectively establish the source of this conflict?

No.  In fact, I'll go beyond just saying "No" to that.  Not only can't we establish the source, I don't think there is a single objective source, because I don't think that this conflict suddenly emerged one day, like a newly mutated disease without any antecedents, in a single point on the globe from which it started to spread.

I understand that, by discarding all the ways that different factors converge to influence events, and by choosing an arbitrary point to say "This is when it begins, everything before here is declared Not Relevant," you can choose a subset of history that has a narrative flow like that ... but that's not history, it's a narrative lens that you use in order to see history distorted.

It's like asking "What is the source of American democracy?"  What you answer isn't The Answer, it's a story you choose to tell:

"Well, on July 4th, 1776..."
"Well, King George had many hereditary ailments, which drove him toward dementia ..."
"Well, Martin Luther ..."
"Well, during the Rennaissance ..."
"Well, Arabic scholars preserved certain texts ..."
"Well ... see ... long ago some people made a city and they called it Athens, and in this city ..."

I'm a big believer in the power of stories, but I'm also fond of remembering that reality is universally more complicated and nuanced than the labels that we use in order to understand it.


Now let me make one thing clear:  I'm not trying to excuse anyone here.  I'm not saying "Oh, the Forge folks aren't to blame, they're just in the grasp of history."  What I'm saying is that if you want to lay blame there's plenty to go around for everyone.  Trying to shift the responsibility for any one person's actions off on another by saying "Well, he started it!" is fundamentally an act of story-telling.  It's not logic, it's an appeal to our desire to be entertained by a simple yarn with a beginning, middle and end.  At the end of the day, no matter what stories you tell about it, you did what you did, and you're responsible for it.

And, frankly, from a practical point of view ... I'm with Pseudo on this.  I consider time spent arguing about who started what wasted time.  It's an unending argument, pretty much by definition.  The frustration it produces in the people who fight that fight is almost palpable.  I don't intend to shoulder the burden of caring about that.  I've seen what that kind of grudge does to the people who carry it.  I'd rather spend my time and energy figuring out what I'm going to do next.

No, its clear. Ron Edwards had 2 years give or take to spew his vitriol before I even showed up. Its not like he and I were both around and we started feud like hatfields and mccoys.  

I'm here because he is: If he hadn't started it, I wouldn't have to be here to finish it.

As to the "why" of why Ron Edwards started the entire movement of Theory and Storygamers shitting all over Regular Roleplayers: I don't give a fuck.  The important thing is knowing that they shot first, they attacked ME first, and now I'm going to put my fucking boot in their face at every opportunity, until I grind them into the dirt and crush their fucking jaws so they can't keep on spitting their poison.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBHere, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

Really, pick one of the ways that human beings piss each other off, deliberately or accidentally, and it's probably had a hand in this train-wreck somewhere along the line.  To be honest, I'm not keeping a comprehensive list.  It just seems like such a "glass-is-half-empty" sort of thing to do

Tony,

Here's what I have so far in your list of things that caused this conflict (please note, I'm not talking about wht keeps the conflict going, but what began the conflict).

• Forge/GNS says nasty things.
• Forge/GNS says positive things that are misunderstood/misinterpreted.
• Forge/GNS says things that are lost in translation so; herresay (see number 2).

Is that a fair assessment to date?
What would you say non-Forge/non-Story-Game folks did to begin (not continue, but begin) the conflict?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachIs that a fair assessment to date?

Sadly ... no, not really.  You've framed your assessment of what I've communicated to you so far (for which, thank you!) in two ways that are importantly different from what I meant to convey:  First, you're not talking about the things that keep the conflict going and increase it, but are talking about what began it.  I think I've been fairly explicit that I'm not talking about what began it (and, in fact, don't think it "began" in the kind of way you're talking about) but am talking about what keeps it going and increases it.

And second, I haven't been talking about just stuff that the Forge/SG folks do.  Ah, what the heck, maybe this'll be clearer after my answer to your next question.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat would you say non-Forge/non-Story-Game folks did to begin (not continue, but begin) the conflict?

I think that non-Forge/non-SG folks did the following things to contribute to the growth and perpetuation of the ongoing conflict:

• Said nasty things.
• Said positive things that are misunderstood/misinterpreted.
• Said things that are lost in translation

... and, in addition, I'll lay the following contribution to the credit of everyone involved ...

• Given a borderline statement that can be either read charitably ("Oh, that's a reasonable sentiment poorly worded") or uncharitably ("That scumbag!"), people in every part of our internet community have often chosen to read uncharitably, to their own detriment.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know.  I have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to experienced hands.  I also have this hazy notion that there's a way to present rules-light that will appeal to folks who have never gamed before.  I look at the success of simple games like (to pick one of my favorites) Jungle Speed at spreading like wildfire, and I think "Ooh, I want in on that!"

Do you think that popularity of Jungle Speed amongst the forgies is a tacit admission that forgie games aren't actually that much fun? I mean, I go to GenCon and I have a packed schedule, and I literally don't want to waste my time with stuff like that. In any case, my gaming group is large and local, so I can afford to save that for some boring time later.

Quote from: tonyIf it's concluded that it's true then I think it'll drive a lot of people away from rules-light.  There's a lot of interest in helping new and prospective gamers to get into the hobby and get enthusiastic, and I'm pretty sure that priority will trump other benefits of light rules in the minds of many designers.

Now that, of course, is hearsay ... I don't speak for anyone but myself.  I can speak with authority for myself though:  If I become convinced that rules-heavy inherently draws beginning players better then I'm gonna start designing rules-heavy games.

So do you agree that the goal of players actually independently picking up a given game is more important than following a predetermined set of groupthink-determined aesthetics advocated by any particular design community? The proof is in the pudding, isn't it? If people really like something, than that's the real design goal, isn't it? Can anything else really count as a success?

Hypothetical. (I asked this to Luke, and he refused to answer). If a non-gaming person is cajoled, fooled, or otherwise convinced to "try out" any given game, and they try out ONCE and NEVER AGAIN. Does that person become a new gamer? Does that game count as having "reached the non-gamers?"

When the forgies discuss us, which they often do, and they obviously encourage you to hang around on keep tabs on us.. are they really inviting us to make account at their locations? Do you think we would be treated better or worse than you?

Given that we can't even make accounts in most of these places, how do you think we should treat you?

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo you think that popularity of Jungle Speed amongst the forgies is a tacit admission that forgie games aren't actually that much fun?

No.  I think it's an explicit admission that Jungle Speed is very fun and very addictive ... and a demonstration that people can enjoy more than one type of fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo do you agree that the goal of players actually independently picking up a given game is more important than following a predetermined set of groupthink-determined aesthetics advocated by any particular design community?

Uh ... objectively more important?  I don't even know how such a question would be judged.  It's more important to me to encourage people to game than it is to advocate a specific type of aesthetics.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf people really like something, than that's the real design goal, isn't it?

Broad appeal is a very worthy design goal, and one that I personally value highly.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCan anything else really count as a success?

Yes, other goals are also valid, and a game can be successful in other ways without being broadly picked up.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHypothetical. (I asked this to Luke, and he refused to answer). If a non-gaming person is cajoled, fooled, or otherwise convinced to "try out" any given game, and they try out ONCE and NEVER AGAIN. Does that person become a new gamer? Does that game count as having "reached the non-gamers?"

Wow ... identity politics is wierd.  Do they become "a gamer"?  I don't know.  They're not gaming right now, and apparently won't game ever again.  I suppose I'd say that no, they haven't made "gamer" a part of their identity.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhen the forgies discuss us, which they often do, and they obviously encourage you to hang around on keep tabs on us.. are they really inviting us to make account at their locations?

Bolded to show the assumption.  Can you ask a similar question that doesn't depend upon the assumption?

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo you think we would be treated better or worse than you?

Nobody is treated as well as me.  I'm a rock-star   But I suspect that you'd be treated exactly as well as any other new member of the community.  Why not try it, and see?

Quote from: Abyssal MawGiven that we can't even make accounts in most of these places, how do you think we should treat you?

Bolded to show the assumption ... but it doesn't strike me as relevant.  I think you should treat me like you'd treat any other forum poster.

Quote from: TonyLBHere, have another one ... hearsay.  Folks getting het up not about what someone else actually thinks, but about what they've heard that person thinks.  I've certainly seen that one do some damage.

The GNS essay wasn't hearsay.
Brain Damage wasn't hearsay.
You guys trying your damnedest to spin it that way will NEVER make it so. And for as long as you keep defending your dear leader I will keep using what he's ACTUALLY WRITTEN to grind you all into the dirt, over and over again.

Our issues with you people aren't based on "misunderstanding", they're based on actually READING what you have written and understanding it all too well: That is, on having read not what you say to us on our fora, but what you say to yourselves when you think no one else is going to be listening in.  

The Storygames thread is only the latest example of this.

QuoteNo.  In fact, I'll go beyond just saying "No" to that.  Not only can't we establish the source, I don't think there is a single objective source, because I don't think that this conflict suddenly emerged one day, like a newly mutated disease without any antecedents, in a single point on the globe from which it started to spread.

The GNS essay is the single objective source, fuckwit.  Ron Edwards. He started it. It started when all of YOU decided to support a deranged twisted bitter asswipe and make him your Dear Leader, and let his philosophy of elitism and utter disdain for Regular Roleplaying and declarations that Regular Roleplayers are all secretly miserable and brain damaged and need to be pitied and guided into playing the "right" kind of games that are "coherent" and tell "real story" become the foundation stone of your philosophical temple.

QuoteI understand that, by discarding all the ways that different factors converge to influence events, and by choosing an arbitrary point to say "This is when it begins, everything before here is declared Not Relevant," you can choose a subset of history that has a narrative flow like that ... but that's not history, it's a narrative lens that you use in order to see history distorted.

No, here its pretty clear. There's no more moral ambiguity in this than in saying that WWII started when Germany invaded Poland, you cunt.

And me? I'm Patton, and this place is my tank.

QuoteNow let me make one thing clear:  I'm not trying to excuse anyone here.

Yes, you clearly are.

QuoteI'm not saying "Oh, the Forge folks aren't to blame, they're just in the grasp of history."

Yes, you clearly are.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that if you want to lay blame there's plenty to go around for everyone.  

No, there isn't. You have attacked us. We are taking back what is ours.

QuoteTrying to shift the responsibility for any one person's actions off on another by saying "Well, he started it!" is fundamentally an act of story-telling.

No, its something called fact, the most powerful rhetorical tool on earth, bucky.

QuoteIt's not logic, it's an appeal to our desire to be entertained by a simple yarn with a beginning, middle and end.  

No, its an appeal to our desire for TRUTH; something I understand your side might find very difficult to comprehend, what with truth never having been very fashionable (Truth having a known anti-Swine bias and all).

QuoteAt the end of the day, no matter what stories you tell about it, you did what you did, and you're responsible for it.

Quite right, just as you are responsible for the consequences of your choosing to continue to hold up Ron Edwards as your patron saint, and I will be responsible of wiping clean my rhetorical knife of your entrails.

QuoteAnd, frankly, from a practical point of view ... I'm with Pseudo on this.  I consider time spent arguing about who started what wasted time.

Of course you do, because your side started it. And you know acknowleding this will be a massive blow to the validity of anything you have to say about the War.

QuoteIt's an unending argument, pretty much by definition.  The frustration it produces in the people who fight that fight is almost palpable.  I don't intend to shoulder the burden of caring about that.  I've seen what that kind of grudge does to the people who carry it.  I'd rather spend my time and energy figuring out what I'm going to do next.

I'm sure Slobodan Milosevic would have "just wanted to move on with his life" too. He doesn't have that luxury, and you don't either.

RPGPundit

Waittaminnit! I thought AM said it was a Forgey rhetorical trick to make political analogies.

Quote from: droogWaittaminnit! I thought AM said it was a Forgey rhetorical trick to make political analogies.

This is commentary: (well, I do still believe that, and I believe we should still avoid doing that).

Tony,

Do you believe that most traditional gaming runs successfully, counter to the theories expressed in GNS and/or The Big Model?

If not, which specific aspects of those theories successfuly described most sucessful traditional gaming?

Thanks,
Jim