Either way, ain't no place you can discuss his essays with him.

If he's not interested in his bullshit anymore, I don't see why anyone else should be.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;275188Either way, ain't no place you can discuss his essays with him.

In all fairness, most of Ron's essays have been around for several years and there has been more than ample discussion on their relative merits (both on the Forge and elsewhere).  If he is sick and tired of explaining himself, I can't say I blame him.

QuoteIf he's not interested in his bullshit anymore, I don't see why anyone else should be.

Judging by the responses to this thread and the one on RPGnet, I'd say there are plenty of interested folks.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;275251In all fairness, most of Ron's essays have been around for several years and there has been more than ample discussion on their relative merits (both on the Forge and elsewhere).  If he is sick and tired of explaining himself, I can't say I blame him.

If it takes that much explanation, that would signify to me it is time for a re-write.

The man published papers on bat penises, how difficult could it be to make GNS understandable?

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;275251In all fairness, most of Ron's essays have been around for several years and there has been more than ample discussion on their relative merits (both on the Forge and elsewhere).  If he is sick and tired of explaining himself, I can't say I blame him.

The thing is that he never explained himself.

Ask questions in the forum, get told "read the old threads." No links given, just search for yourself - and don't bump up old threads, either.

Ask questions about the essays, get told, "this has been discussed before." See above.

Persist with questions, Ron carefully explains that you are stupid, continues being vague and inventing new meanings for old words - and making sure not to be consistent with his previous use of the same words - and then he locks the thread.

If he's on a blog or in a forum where he can't lock things down, he comments once that nobody understands him, and you should go to his forum to discuss it. See above.

And in the end, as Stormbringer said, that there's so much discussion over exactly what he meant about this or that, that suggests he needs to rewrite them to be more clear. I mean, he views them as textbooks for his theory - that's what genuine academics do, they rewrite textbooks based on feedback about what was clear and what wasn't.

Or if he doesn't want to explain them, he could just quietly take them all down.

The only reason to leave them up and leave the text vague and confused is so that, like Nostradamus, you generate discussion of them (clear writing requires less discussion and is less controversial), and so that whatever happens someone can read it as true.

QuoteJudging by the responses to this thread and the one on RPGnet, I'd say there are plenty of interested folks.

I didn't say nobody was interested, I said I didn't see why anyone should be interested if the writer himself wasn't.

Kyle, everything you've described sounds like the classic behavior of a typical academic.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;275280Kyle, everything you've described sounds like the classic behavior of a typical academic.

Not every academic - some you can actually talk to and maybe invite to parties.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;275293Not every academic - some you can actually talk to and maybe invite to parties...

...and then beat them with a pillowcase filled with rice.

!i!

Quote from: luke;275092Hey Lamb,

You know you misread that paragraph of his essay, right? He's not talking about his games or Forge games or my games. He's talking about the Legendary Lives and Darkurthe and Forge of Chaos and all of the kids who are going to continue to design games like that. He's saying that these games may be derivative at first glance, but they're worth playing and discussing. He's saying that they should not be dismissed because they are ostensibly D&D clones.

-L

Edward's writing is so incredibly obtuse, I can't be completely sure that what you're saying is correct. That isn't the true issue for me anyway, since Edward's theories aren't my normal field of interest. What really irritated me was "Uncle Ron's" attempt to get a polite poster banned for the "cardinal sin" of having a variant outlook on what a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" really is. If not for that, I would have shut up, and kept my nose out of it.

I see the "Fantasy Heartbreaker" essay as this backhanded slap against "traditional games", and that the final section of the essay is this pitiable cry that the games Edwards likes are ignored. If you disagree with me, read this section of the essay:

Quote from: Uncle Ron's conflictOn the one hand, I'm in agony when faced with another elfy-dwarfy deal, and on the other, I'm saying, "Publish your dream, go, go, go."

Uncle Ron doesn't like elves and dwarves.

Quote from: Uncle Ron's condescensionThis essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way.

You can see Edward's irritation with these games because to him, they're not innovative enough. Creatively, they're too close to the game that spawned it all: Dungeons & Dragons.

There's more in the essay to support this, but sifting through that essay is like searching for a pearl in a giant pile of shit. Too boring, too excruciating, and too messy. I don't need the headache.

In truth, the thread was no more than a passing curiosity for me, until I feared that E might suffer a formal reprimand for politely giving his point of view. Otherwise, I never would have said a word.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;275280Kyle, everything you've described sounds like the classic behavior of a typical academic.

Well, maybe so. But only in the same sense we mean "typical" gamer. That is, the worst kind.

The typical ones aren't too bad. The bad ones are very bad.

Also, academics face peer review for their publications. Uncle Ronny has studiously avoided that for his essays

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIn truth, the thread was no more than a passing curiosity for me, until I feared that E might suffer a formal reprimand for politely giving his point of view.

When on rpg.net you quote something someone said that makes them look foolish, self-contradictory, confused or hypocritical, sometimes that's taken as a personal attack Of course rpg.net is far from unique in this.

This nonsense is still going on ? I enjoy many Forge games but to me the first and final shot of this socalled war was GMS's fuckyou at the Forge - "Enjoy you little cult. Try the koolaid". Kyle's Socratic dialogue was a nice requiem. I was kinda off hoping we had moved past this....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian Absentia;275294...and then beat them with a pillowcase filled with rice.

!i!

Nah, a bag of oranges is preferable for a good beatdown - but that may be too Olde School.

Oranges?  Heck, that's kindegarden stuff.  If you want real old school, then you need to fill a pillow case with soda cans a la Bad Boys.

Oranges and rice don't leave external bruises.

!i!

Maybe there should be some external bruising...

Hmm, this changes the aesthetics of an academic beat-down. Almost an Andy Warhol approach to it.    

Now that's Xmas present... -E. is really brilliant. As usually...