This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"  (Read 14604 times)

Koltar

  • Openly GURPS Loving
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8328
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2008, 08:17:53 PM »
Is this Ron guy really that important?


Just wondering...

- Ed C.
The return of 'You can't take the Sky From me!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUn-eN8mkDw&feature=rec-fresh+div

This is what a really cool FANTASY RPG should be like :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WnjVUBDbs

Still here, still alive, at least Seven years now...

joewolz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • http://2gms1mic.com
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2008, 08:30:55 PM »
Quote from: Koltar;275501
Is this Ron guy really that important?


Just wondering...

- Ed C.


Nope.
-JFC Wolz
Co-host of 2 Gms, 1 Mic

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2008, 08:56:59 PM »
No, he isn't.

As long as we're here, though, I'll answer one of the points raised (not sure if it was at this site or over at rpg.net), about how RE ought to revise his essays or pull them off the web, given how badly written they are. Even if he agreed with that assessment (and of course he doesn't, in fact he commonly claims that any new insight or critique related to something he's written is already present in the original), I don't think he'd be wrong to leave his essays up as they are. They aren't to be compared to textbooks; they're more akin, in intent, to journalism or scholarship. Generally not very good scholarship, IMO, but the point is that they're part of a public dialogue or discourse, and revising or deleting them would amount to falsifying the history of the discourse. I think the problem is much more that people treat RE's essays as if they were textbooks. He's partly responsible for this; among other things, since RE has basically stopped publishing his thoughts in the form of essays, there's a strong impression conveyed that they're the final word. But taking them down or revising them in situ would be like going back and altering forum posts years after the fact.

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2008, 09:14:58 PM »
He presents them as textbooks. "The lexicon is definitive for discussions on the Forge," IIRC. Textbooks get revised, old editions binned.

But a revision doesn't have to remove the older editions.

So on the front page you could have "GNS current" and then at the end of that you could have links to the old ones.

Or you could just bin the lot.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2008, 10:21:46 PM »
Ah, yes,
Quote
Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're supposed to think or believe.

However, it does stand as the single coherent body of theory about role-playing at the Forge, and its lexicon is definitive for purposes of discussion there. I am satisfied with it, but I'm not unreasonable either, so it is not immutable. Please deal with it in one of the following ways: identify an inconsistency, ask for clarification and examples, or otherwise address its content critically. I am perfectly willing to amend any content, if I'm given a substantive reason to do so, and to give credit for the insight.
It's like, fractally self-contradictory. Unlike our friend Manny, there's only so far I'm going to carry water for RE. You could say it's a 2001 document and has been superseded, but it could still get some annotations to clarify RE's current stance if it has, indeed, changed.

Nobilis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2008, 11:33:36 PM »
It still boggles my mind that people get this serious over a game- that is suppose to be a source of leisure and enjoyment.

I don't see the problem of letting the old bear sleep, with all his delusions. Why keep poking the bear? Unless your getting some enjoyment out of it, then yeah I can see that.

Sacrificial Lamb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1977
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2008, 12:17:59 AM »
Quote from: Koltar;275501
Is this Ron guy really that important?


Just wondering...

- Ed C.

He's not important, but I did get riled up when I saw Ron's attempt to get a decent poster banned. It doesn't look like E is in any danger of a reprimand from a mod, so no worries then. :)

KenHR

  • 8th Screamin\' Diz-Buster
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #52 on: December 24, 2008, 10:43:01 AM »
Quote
Is this Ron guy really that important?


Just wondering...

- Ed C.


Ron's not important, but then, in the grand scheme of things, GURPS isn't important, T5 isn't important, OD&D isn't important...hell, our hobby isn't all that important by just about any measure.  People like to discuss shit related to their hobbies, however, and that's what this board is for.  Ignore a thread if you're sick of the specific topic it's raised.
For fuck's sake, these are games, people.

And no one gives a fuck about your ignore list.


Gompan
band - other music

laffingboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #53 on: December 25, 2008, 01:41:32 PM »
Ron may be a twat, but he's right about Legendary Lives. It's a great game.
The only thing I ever believed in the Bible was John 11:35.

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2008, 08:30:22 PM »
Quote from: laffingboy;275760
Ron may be a twat, but he's right about Legendary Lives. It's a great game.


Considering that his analysis singled it out in a list of games he describes as "painful" and expected play of it to be full of "groan-moments" it's interesting to see that he's bullish on it now.

My takeaway is that his review framework is so poor at assessing games that he's not even able to identify a game he, himself might like.

Cheers,
-E.
 

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #55 on: December 25, 2008, 10:47:27 PM »
It might be interesting to look more closely at what qualified it as a "heartbreaker". Looking over the PDF, my impression is the game is very much a "child of the 80's" (1st edition was 1990), but mechanics-wise, it doesn't strike me as a naive set of D&D patches, any more than The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel. If this impression is correct, it suggests that the idea of a "heartbreaker" at the time of the essay really was an expansive one, governing overall rules structure, genre elements, and "soft" GMing advice. In short, practically any fantasy game with races, "task resolution", GM/player split of world/character authority, and a somewhat "challenge-based adventure" structure is a "heartbreaker".

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #56 on: December 26, 2008, 10:29:20 PM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275816
It might be interesting to look more closely at what qualified it as a "heartbreaker". Looking over the PDF, my impression is the game is very much a "child of the 80's" (1st edition was 1990), but mechanics-wise, it doesn't strike me as a naive set of D&D patches, any more than The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel. If this impression is correct, it suggests that the idea of a "heartbreaker" at the time of the essay really was an expansive one, governing overall rules structure, genre elements, and "soft" GMing advice. In short, practically any fantasy game with races, "task resolution", GM/player split of world/character authority, and a somewhat "challenge-based adventure" structure is a "heartbreaker".


That certainly fits what the essay says -- he pretty much attacks these games because they have a traditional GM, they fit an adventuring-party-goes-treasure-hunting model, and they have races and/or classes, etc.

Basically all the trophes that MMO's have made a fortune copying.

Instead of thinking, "wow! a model that works!" he calls them painful because they have a traditional GM and their authors somehow missed his manifesto.

Disappointing, really.

Cheers,
-E.
 

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #57 on: December 26, 2008, 11:39:41 PM »
See, I disagreed when you said that RQ would be a heartbreaker if it were published today, but now I think you were right after all.* What is going on here is a divergence of scope and interest, based on the author's biases. To be fair, they're legitimate biases in themselves; it's just that one has a strong impression that everyone is expected to share them--and certainly that has been the case in innumerable Internet discussions with RE's fans and friends.

It's like with wargames--to a fan of the genre, the difference between an Avalon Hill classic (Tactics II, say) and, oh, The Russian Campaign is like night and day. To a fan of Euro games, they're both just hex & chit, IGU-UGO variations on  a theme. If you've played one, you've played them all.

*I seem to recall that Mike Mearls said, about the release of MRQ, that Mongoose was foolishly competing with D&D on its own terrain or something like that--in other words, it was a "heartbreaker", though he didn't use the term. I can't find the quote, though, so I may be misremembering.

luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • l
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.burningwheel.com
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2008, 11:35:06 AM »
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;275304
Edward's writing is so incredibly obtuse, I can't be completely sure that what you're saying is correct.

Way to level up your Reading Comprehension skill, Lamb. I understand that you are irrationally irritated. I'm trying to help you. You're misreading the essay and mischaracterizing the author.

He clearly loves these games. Just because one finds mediocre and derivative content frustrating doesn't mean one can't love that content for its good qualities and its lumps.

And, for what it's worth, your intent was noble, but I don't think the ever enigmatic E needs your protection.

-L
I certainly wouldn't call Luke a vanity publisher, he's obviously worked very hard to promote BW, as have a handful of other guys from the Forge. -- The RPG Pundit

Give me a complete asshole writing/designing solid games any day over a nice incompetent. -- The Consonant Dude

Sacrificial Lamb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1977
Uncle Ron Strikes Again: "the Fantasy Heartbreaker"
« Reply #59 on: December 27, 2008, 05:37:07 PM »
Quote from: luke;275999
Way to level up your Reading Comprehension skill, Lamb. I understand that you are irrationally irritated. I'm trying to help you. You're misreading the essay and mischaracterizing the author.

If I am, then I'm not the first. Clarity is not his strong suit. That essay was barely coherent. I only read it more than once to protect E, and to stay on topic. If I read it again, I'll likely die of boredom.

And I was irritated before, but I feel pretty mellow now, thanks. Overall, I'm a pretty rational guy. In fact, just a few days ago, I amended my statement a little bit when I realized that I slightly misread what Edwards wrote. Here it is:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb (Me), on rpgnet
I'm going to amend what I said a little bit. I read the essay again. It almost seems like Edwards is actually saying that those games (Darkurthe, Dawnfire, etc.) are "indie", and he does actually suggest trying them. So that point is in his favor.

However, when I said, "damning, with faint praise", that's still pretty accurate. His words about these games are still condescending. For practical intents and purposes, he's still lamenting the "ignorance" of the game designers, and calling these games derivative crap with a piece of something wonderful in it. And honestly, I think he's only this charitable towards those games because they're "indie".

None of this changes the fact that Edwards behavior in this thread was wrong. But that's a separate issue.


So take note, that even though I slightly misread it, Edwards is still being a condescending prick in his essay. But like I said, whether by accident or intent, the man's writing is obnoxiously obtuse. That hasn't changed.

Quote from: luke
He clearly loves these games. Just because one finds mediocre and derivative content frustrating doesn't mean one can't love that content for its good qualities and its lumps.

And, for what it's worth, your intent was noble, but I don't think the ever enigmatic E needs your protection.

-L


His "love" for these games, is like the condescending "love" one might feel for a retarded chimp that poops on the floor. And as far as E not needing protection, that's debatable. I decided not to take any chances when Edwards attempted to have him banned.