Over on rpgnet, the term "Fantasy Heartbreaker" is discussed, and in my eyes, it's often (though not always) used as a term of condescension and contempt. On the thread, Edwards shows up, and subtly tries to get a poster banned for both his critique of the essay, and his interpretation of what "Fantasy Heartbreaker" actually means. But don't take my word for it. Check it out.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=429859&page=6
I read the "Fantasy Heartbreaker" essay, and it came across as rather condescending to me. I've read it before, and normally wouldn't care, but Ronnie's response to the lone voice of dissent on that thread irked me a bit. Oh, well. :(
A link to the essay:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
Sorry, dude. As much as i like Ronny bashing threads, i'm struggling to find a reason why this belongs in the RPG forum. Especially as it's a reaction to a thread on another board.
Moved.
Quote from: One Horse Town;274853Sorry, dude. As much as i like Ronny bashing threads, i'm struggling to find a reason why this belongs in the RPG forum. Especially as it's a reaction to a thread on another board.
Moved.
Fair enough. :)
Uncle Ronny's posting outside his backyard now? I thought he only had accounts on the forums so that if anyone called him "just a professor of bat penises" he could report them to the mods for a personal attack.
If he's going to post outside his little circle of mutual masturbators, he really ought to come on over here where he can enjoy a full and frank discussion of his ideas.
Anyway, those idiots all got the idea wrong. A "fantasy heartbreaker" is any fantasy game which is more interesting and fun than anything Ron Edwards has written. Which is to say, all of them.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274857Uncle Ronny's posting outside his backyard now? I thought he only had accounts on the forums so that if anyone called him "just a professor of bat penises" he could report them to the mods for a personal attack.
I've only ever seen 2 posts of his over there. Each one was basicaly trying to get a sanction against a poster who didn't agree with him and his dribble.
Must really suck for him not being able to stifle debate and dissenting views.
Indie games are great and innovative of course, but traditional games are respected and playable. Which one's best?
(http://www.mercia.biz/files/HarryHill_fight.jpg)
He must be pretty weak-minded. I mean, a lot of people when you argue with them it just makes them think of more reasons to think as they do. The more you bash their ideas the more tightly they hold them.
Or sometimes they see a flaw or two and change their mind. Which hey, that's not a bad thing, no-one died from it.
But I guess when you've built a house of cards you fear every breath of wind.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274865But I guess when you've built a house of cards you fear every breath of wind.
Dunno why it's even discussed. It's about as important as Marathon bars having their name changed to Snickers bars.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274865But I guess when you've built a house of cards you fear every breath of wind.
Kyle, you're a poet.:)
Excellent post on RPGnet, Sacrificial Lamb.
Quote from: JongWK;274872Excellent post on RPGnet, Sacrificial Lamb.
My post?! Oh, thanks, Jong. :)
I guess he got me a bit riled up, especially after "E" (the dissenting poster) was labeled (and castigated) as some form of "anti-Forgite" or something for saying that the "heartbreak" was really that of the
reviewer of a "Heartbreaker", and
not that of the game designer.
I posted this on another, similarly titled thread a few months earlier on RPGnet:
QuoteHere's a new term:
The Thespian's Ballbreaker
Def: Any rpg designed and published with the express purpose of demonstrating the author's ideological superiority in less than 150 pages. Poor (or no) sales should never be construed to imply any weakness in the Ballbreaker itself - rather, it is a reflection on the lack of intelligence in the gaming community at large. Popular genres such as fantasy, science fiction or horror may appear in a Ballbreaker only if all standard genre conventions are either presented as A) ironic commentaries on the stupidity of the genre or B) cunningly reversed to conform to the author's own post-modern political, sexual, or occult agenda.
Example: Sorceror
I think it's time to whip that one out again. Would it qualify as a personal attack?? Let's see.
Ah, and just to add spice to this thread, I note that, right beneath Ron's post, Old Geezer is pushing his way to the front of the queue to suck moderator dick.
!i!
Quote from: Kellri;274877I posted this on another, similarly titled thread a few months earlier on RPGnet:
I think it's time to whip that one out again. Would it qualify as a personal attack?? Let's see.
:D :D :D
Quote from: Ian Absentia;274894Ah, and just to add spice to this thread, I note that, right beneath Ron's post, Old Geezer is pushing his way to the front of the queue to suck moderator dick.
I generally like OG, but he has a terrible thing about kissing mod ass at every opportunity. It always annoyed the shit out of me at TBP because he'd deflect all site criticism with that whole "the mods work hard and are unappreciated" crap at every opportunity. You know what, fuck them; fuck them right in the ass.
As for Ron Edwards, his whole heartbreaker thing is retarded, much like the man himself. Like most things Forge, they make sure and define the parameters so narrow as to exclude anything that would invalidate his claim (like taking out older games and nostalgia clones, which essentially just leaves a handfull of games that, like Sorcerer, almost no one has ever heard of).
Kellri, that's brilliant.
Thespian Ballbreaker. I love it!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;274894Ah, and just to add spice to this thread, I note that, right beneath Ron's post, Old Geezer is pushing his way to the front of the queue to suck moderator dick.
He does that. It's because he's an old communist. Grovelling to self-important authority figures comes with the ideology.
Poor Uncle Ronny gets upse (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9755566&postcount=58)t with the thread.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI've seen what happens to threads after this point before. Anyone who's interested in talking about the actual essays, or the games in them, contact me or come talk about playing them at the Forge.
Translation: "Even the mild criticism I receive at rpg.net is too much for me." I guess he prefers a place where he can have his last word and then shut down the discussion...
Oh well, even if he is a spineless coward he at least has some buddies to defend him by reporting the thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9755902&postcount=80) as a personal attack. Well done, mannydipresso!
And -E. says sensible and thoughtful things (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9756295&postcount=96), which really are out of place on rpg.net.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274955Kellri, that's brilliant. Thespian Ballbreaker. I love it!
I'm sad. All my games are thespy...even my fantasy heartbreakers.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Kellri;274877I posted this on another, similarly titled thread a few months earlier on RPGnet:
I think it's time to whip that one out again. Would it qualify as a personal attack?? Let's see.
Hee hee hee hee... Thespy Ballbreaker. Hee hee hee. You should write a Manifesto!
Edited to add: the surest way to get accused of attacking Edwards is to quote him.
Cheers,
-E.
That's true with all wilfully blind ideologue types, -E. They hate it when you judge or argue with them based on what they've actually said.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274974That's true with all wilfully blind ideologue types, -E. They hate it when you judge or argue with them based on what they've actually said.
Yeah, I hear you. I mean, I know that but... I keep thinking that if *my* big thing was that I'd come up with this incredibly insightful way of thinking about RPG's but I couldn't bring myself to face what I'd written in a public message board I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning.
I just ... don't *get* these guys.
Cheers,
-E.
Some people have a strong belief system that can withstand or is even strengthened by critique. Other people have a weak one that can't bear scrutiny.
It's not the ideas or the belief systems themselves, not anything part of them, it's just the brains and courage of the person holding them.
Compare discussing the resurrection of Jesus with (say) a Jesuit theologian and discussing it with some farmer bloke who never finished high school, sitting on his porch out in the countryside somewhere. One welcomes intelligent discussion and is genuinely interested in other points of view, the other one just punches you.
I suppose that implies that education's a part of it. Which it is in some respects, but really I think that open-minded and reasonable people seek education, rather than the education making them open-minded and reasonable. If you're the sort of person who is sure they know everything already then you won't tend to seek new information... You might still have a PhD, but you'll be one of those super-specialised guys, your education will be deep rather than broad.
Another thing, I noticed that on the rpg.net discussion Uncle Ronny said that people could discuss it on his forums. The thing is though, he already shut down the rpg theory forum. So this leaves nowhere he'll discuss his essays with you.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274955Oh well, even if he is a spineless coward he at least has some buddies to defend him by reporting the thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9755902&postcount=80) as a personal attack. Well done, mannydipresso!
Manny (formerly Eric J-D or something like that) has written a few good things and I've even had a nice PM chat with him a couple times. But for quite a while all I see out of him is, well, Vladimir-Posnerism (to coin a term).
QuoteAnd -E. says sensible and thoughtful things (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9756295&postcount=96), which really are out of place on rpg.net.
Yeah, on the one hand Mr. -E
seems to miss the main textual thrust of the heartbreaker essays--I mean "uninformed derivatives of D&D with just one or two nuggets of gold", sure I've seen those. What was that one, Knights and Berserkers and Legerdemain?....pretty much defined the idea, if not by the system (which I really don't know at all) then the utter failure of the author to really explain why anyone should bother with it at all. Which he did to me (i.e., utterly fail to explain the reason for his game) in person at Origins lo these many years ago, BTW.
But it all falls down in the face of Palladium, and Bard's Atlantis, and Talislanta, and very likely Earthdawn. And that's just on the raw mechanical level; once you get to the bit that -E highlighted, the part about "social contract time bombs", the net becomes wider...and less accurate. This is one of the deep messages of the essays. The other message, or implication, really, whether RE realizes it or not, is that heartbreakers are heartbreakers largely because of failures of marketing, not design. And this leads right into his other agenda, which is the creation and maintenance of a market-as-community. I don't think this can be denied, it's only a matter of whether you put a positive spin on it or negative.
Vladimir Posner? I had to google that guy. You should have just said "fifth columnist" instead :)
"Market-as-community" is just another way of saying, "only my mum and my friends would buy this." Successful artistic movements don't begin by half a dozen creators getting together and promising to buy and shill each-other's stuff.
-E. made a good jab when he noted that a "heartbreaker" is described as such when it achieves sales which are low... but still more than most Forger stuff which is... called a great success. The standards are of course inconsistent.
Note sig, I have resurrected #therpgsite.
Posner wasn't a fifth columnist. Apologies to the non-USians, and really anyone too young to remember the last decade of the Cold war. He wasn't covert at all. He seemed reasonable except that he never really engaged in discussion, it was all uncompromising refutation and apologia. (Ari Fleischer is a more recent practitioner of the art.)
Anyway, yeah, that's one way of seeing "market-as-community". I mean, heck if "hitting chat rooms and usenets with a team of partners" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/12/) isn't the blueprint for it, what is?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275011Anyway, yeah, that's one way of seeing "market-as-community". I mean, heck if "hitting chat rooms and usenets with a team of partners" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/12/) isn't the blueprint for it, what is?
Huh. I know that's often the MO employed, but i didn't realise it was a bone fide part of the program.
Wow, it's crazy how the fanboyz come out of the woodworks immediately on some of the topics over at rpg.net. -E wrote a well-written post, and was almost immediately accused of trying to start a flame war. -E never catered to their attacks and responded well in every instance.
Sacrificial Lamb's post was well-written as well. It called Ron Edwards out for his cowardly and craven attempt to get -E banned or a warning for nothing. Edward's and his fanboys' claims of character assassination and personal attacks were completely unfounded.
Hey 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
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274955Oh well, even if he is a spineless coward he at least has some buddies to defend him by reporting the thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=9755902&postcount=80) as a personal attack. Well done, mannydipresso!
Why hasn't anyone reported that to the ModSquad as abuse of the Report Function?
Quote from: jeff37923;275098Why hasn't anyone reported that to the ModSquad as abuse of the Report Function?
Because the Report Function is just a method for the sycophants on rpgnet to display loyalty to the mods? I mean, they could send in pictures of themselves submissively urinating, or presenting their backsides for dominance humping by the alpha-mods, but that takes up too much bandwidth.
So, they hit the feeder bar, and the mods pet them on their heads, and everyone is happy. :)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274988Another thing, I noticed that on the rpg.net discussion Uncle Ronny said that people could discuss it on his forums. The thing is though, he already shut down the rpg theory forum. So this leaves nowhere he'll discuss his essays with you.
That's not what Ron said. He said you could discuss it as it pertains to actual play in the actual play forums.
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 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085210/).
Oranges and rice don't leave external bruises. :p
!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. :D
Now that's Xmas present... -E. is really brilliant. As usually...
Is this Ron guy really that important?
Just wondering...
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;275501Is this Ron guy really that important?
Just wondering...
- Ed C.
Nope.
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.
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.
Ah, yes,
QuoteEverything 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.
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.
Quote from: Koltar;275501Is 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. :)
QuoteIs 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.
Ron may be a twat, but he's right about Legendary Lives. It's a great game.
Quote from: laffingboy;275760Ron 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.
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".
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275816It 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.
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.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;275304Edward'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
Quote from: luke;275999Way 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 rpgnetI'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: lukeHe 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.
Hm. I always thought it was called critical and analytical thinking. You know, the ability to have and express a nuanced view of something.
Quote from: luke;276038Hm. I always thought it was called critical and analytical thinking. You know, the ability to have and express a nuanced view of something.
Sadly, Ronny Boy never really expresses much of anything except his faux-intellectual affect.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;276019If 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:
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.
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.
I thought your post was spot-on. The idea that Ron somehow loves these games after calling them 'painful' and expecting play of them not to be fun or interesting but a work of charity full of 'groan moments' and maybe-just-maybe educational is laughable.
Does anyone who feels the essay is less than completely negative think they'd feel good about seeing their own work reviewed that way?
Doubtful.
And, of course, everyone else knew *exactly* what "heartbreaker" meant -- it's a slam, another way to insult a game. Everyone after Edwards used exactly correctly.
As for speaking in my defense, it wouldn't have made any difference if the mods had decided to ban me, but I appreciated it anyway -- all too often people are silent because they're worried there might be repercussions for speaking up.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275955See, 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.
Interesting. To be fair (although I never try to argue when someone agrees with me) my point about RQ was somewhat nuanced (I think RQ is a good game to use at the whole *idea* of a heartbreaker and raises questions about any given set of detection criteria).
Clearly everyone brings their own biases and perspective to the assessment game -- but the concept goes beyond the "you've played one, you've played them all" dismissal you posit -- it calls the games all sorts of names and basically declares them unnecessary.
It's the difference between having a point of view and not realizing there are other points of view out there.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;276060I thought your post was spot-on. The idea that Ron somehow loves these games after calling them 'painful' and expecting play of them not to be fun or interesting but a work of charity full of 'groan moments' and maybe-just-maybe educational is laughable.
Does anyone who feels the essay is less than completely negative think they'd feel good about seeing their own work reviewed that way?
Doubtful.
And, of course, everyone else knew *exactly* what "heartbreaker" meant -- it's a slam, another way to insult a game. Everyone after Edwards used exactly correctly.
As for speaking in my defense, it wouldn't have made any difference if the mods had decided to ban me, but I appreciated it anyway -- all too often people are silent because they're worried there might be repercussions for speaking up.
Cheers,
-E.
I fully expected to get my balls busted for defending you. It just bugged me that you were being pretty reasonable while the Ronites were playing a little game of "smack the heretic" whenever you'd (politely!) say something they wouldn't like. As soon as "Uncle Ron" piped in with his subtle appeal to get you banned, I'd had enough. So I spoke up.
And it's true, the essay is a slam. Edwards should just be more honest, and say that he thinks these games blow chunks. Frankly, I'm convinced he only cut them any slack at all is because they're "indie".
For sure, SL, but there's a deeper agenda beyond a pure & simple review. The games themselves aren't at fault (so the argument goes); the problem is that RPG design is in a rut which prevents designers from highlighting and focusing on the innovative elements they bring to the table.
From a purely aesthetic perspective, whatever the ridiculous hyperbole, this is just a matter of taste. RE didn't have much of an appetite for dozens of normal fantasy roleplaying games, or for that matter even see how different groups might be served by having a choice.
Then there's the marketing perspective: the claim that, whether or not anybody needs another fantasy RPG system, the market just isn't big enough to provide a critical mass of fans, once you subtract all the people who are happy with D&D and other games out there. The result is that the authors of the games are bound to be disappointed by lack of success, and the innovations found in the games are never going to get the exposure they deserve.
Now, I don't think this is pure bunk, but it is pretty parochial. There's a subtext of discouragement: don't design or publish a game that you enjoy and believe others will like. Instead you should refine and focus the game (i.e., following RE's theories)--or don't bother at all.
Perhaps a decade ago, this might have been good advice. Actually, it was probably good advice not to publish any RPG at all, unless you had a pretty big marketing budget. It doesn't matter if it was the most slavish D&D clone or an innovative system like Prince Valiant.
Today, given the ways that people have found to publish their games on small scale, without much capital up front (and to be sure, the Forge has helped develop and disseminate knowledge in this area), I don't think there's much reason for a person who wants to publish a game to shy away from doing so, or deviate from their vision based on a narrow demand for "innovation"--as long as they take care not to lose their shirt.
Whether or not they end up being disseminated as widely as a typical Forge game is going to be mainly a matter of publicity: there are maybe a few hundreds or thousands of people who actively seek out, buy, and play games because of the buzz generated through the Forge and its extended social network. "Traditional" RPGs don't get a lot of love through this channel.
But this is comparing apples and oranges. "Traditional" fantasy RPGs compete not only with D&D but also with 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. This is prima facie evidence that competing with D&D isn't a terrible idea in itself. At the same time (and regardless of whether those nth-tier companies are actually profitable) fans of "heartbreakers" don't have nearly the need for a Forge-type clearinghouse and network.
This thread needs a Power 19.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;276071Then there's the marketing perspective: the claim that, whether or not anybody needs another fantasy RPG system, the market just isn't big enough to provide a critical mass of fans, once you subtract all the people who are happy with D&D and other games out there. The result is that the authors of the games are bound to be disappointed by lack of success, and the innovations found in the games are never going to get the exposure they deserve.
Now, I don't think this is pure bunk, but it is pretty parochial. There's a subtext of discouragement: don't design or publish a game that you enjoy and believe others will like. Instead you should refine and focus the game (i.e., following RE's theories)--or don't bother at all.
It's also hypocritical -- when you consider all the hoops the indie scene has gone through to define market success down from being able to make your money back to just being out there, the idea that other people should accept some external, arbitrary definition of success as their standard is bizarre.
I suspect most folks doing RPG publishing have very modest ambitions -- other people playing their game and enjoying it. I doubt very many game authors would want playing the game to be charity work or study... which is what the essay calls for.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;276080I suspect most folks doing RPG publishing have very modest ambitions -- other people playing their game and enjoying it. I doubt very many game authors would want playing the game to be charity work or study... which is what the essay calls for.
Between KenHR and myself, we have gotten about 20 downloads of the Herbal Guide re-write, and once the illustrated version is out there, probably about that many more. And we are jazzed about the response.
It is definitely more important to get the stuff out there than worry about people who don't enjoy it. The coming year is already filling up with projects, and the same attitude applies. If you want to sift through all the stuff we have planned just to hopefully find a kernel of usable material for all your suffering, don't bother. Especially in this day and age, there is plenty of other stuff out there that won't be such a hassle.
Quote from: StormBringer;276104Between KenHR and myself, we have gotten about 20 downloads of the Herbal Guide re-write, and once the illustrated version is out there, probably about that many more. And we are jazzed about the response.
It is definitely more important to get the stuff out there than worry about people who don't enjoy it. The coming year is already filling up with projects, and the same attitude applies. If you want to sift through all the stuff we have planned just to hopefully find a kernel of usable material for all your suffering, don't bother. Especially in this day and age, there is plenty of other stuff out there that won't be such a hassle.
Now wait a second... that... that can't be: according to the essay, if indie people who find it 'painful' and full of 'groan moments' don't play it *no one will*!
I'm confused! ;)
-E.
Quote from: -E.;276150Now wait a second... that... that can't be: according to the essay, if indie people who find it 'painful' and full of 'groan moments' don't play it *no one will*!
I'm confused! ;)
-E.
I know! We are faced with the utter ruin of our personal failure on this every day. It makes it hard to get up in the morning. :)
The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.
It almost makes me wish I would have actually written my "Remains of the End" story game I kept threatening to write, just to be something of an Andy Warhol to the Forge.
Quote from: jgants;276268The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.
I think both sides have their validities. I'm certainly weary of roleplaying games being very, very similar to each other, but change for the sake of change is novelty, not progress. We need both lateral progress - making constant refinements to the original - and linear progress, where games introduce quantitative differences to the original. Unfortunately, linear progress requires a goal, and progress toward a goal may eliminate many useful points which are not along that line. So while, for instance, storygames aren't for me, I'm pleased that there are people out there pushing that boundary in that direction; they may find something I will personally find useful, and they will certainly make progress toward their own individual goals.
Ultimately, what we need is a million people pulling in a million directions, all headed toward their own goals, whether that's refinement of the existing system or experimentation with new systems. The vast majority of alterations will turn out to be useless for everyone; some will be useful for small groups of individuals; a very small portion will be widely useful, and may indeed be refolded into the original mass. This is how progress is made, and I don't deign to denigrate those who are making it...even if I think the "progress" they're making is in a direction I don't personally care for.
The metaphor comparing the process to modern art - whether that's physical art or, say, music - is so very accurate that it's not really a metaphor at all. I may not like Prog Rock - I hate it, passionately - but I have no desire to see it eliminated; many useful musical ideas have come, over the years, from this thing I find detestable. So while I'll continue to hate it, I want people out there doing it, exploring the boundaries of music, bringing things back to the rest of us that might be helpful, and hopefully taking something from us in the process [we who are pushing the boundaries in another direction, that is].
Quote from: jgants;276268The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.
It almost makes me wish I would have actually written my "Remains of the End" story game I kept threatening to write, just to be something of an Andy Warhol to the Forge.
Well, there is a dearth of Uno based resolution mechanics out there. Want me to edit for you? ;)
Quote from: StormBringer;276275Well, there is a dearth of Uno based resolution mechanics out there. Want me to edit for you? ;)
Bah,
Remains of the End is set to use the innovative BRIDGE resolution system where players can set the stakes by bidding, nothing so random and gamey as Uno.
Quote from: jgants;276284Bah, Remains of the End is set to use the innovative BRIDGE resolution system where players can set the stakes by bidding, nothing so random and gamey as Uno.
Your mechanics intrigue me, where can I sign up for your newsletter?
Quote from: StormBringer;276285Your mechanics intrigue me, where can I sign up for your newsletter?
You can read all about it way back here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=154898&postcount=16). But I'm pretty sure you've seen it before - I think you suggested I switch to a superior Pinochle-based system.
Quote from: luke;276038Hm. I always thought it was called critical and analytical thinking. You know, the ability to have and express a nuanced view of something.
From Uncle Ronny? This must be why he refuses to discuss his essays off his site, shuts down discussions of them on his own site, and never revises them. It's all that critical thinking he does which makes them UTTERLY PERFECT even though they're full of contradictions.
Of course, it could all be that we are just too dumb to comprehend the vastness of his brilliance. If the reader does not understand their writer, it's the reader's fault? Well then
hoodglifop kanimble do weekiwiko nobnob. What's that? It made no sense? Never! That my words are incomprehensible is not my fault. You're just too stupid to understand the brilliance of my analysis.
Remember the keystone of my rpg theory is
hoodglifop kanimble do weekiwiko nobnob. When you understand that, you will achieve the zen-like perfection required to enjoy Pundit's game,
Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding. And if you didn't enjoy it, again there was something wrong with
you.
My theories and games never need revision. Obviously.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;276542Remember the keystone of my rpg theory is hoodglifop kanimble do weekiwiko nobnob. When you understand that, you will achieve the zen-like perfection required to enjoy Pundit's game, Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding. And if you didn't enjoy it, again there was something wrong with you.
Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding was the original
Gay Cowboys heartbreaker. The
pudding was far too derivative, but the
eating bit was a dazzling diamond in all the groan-inducing rough.
Quote from: StormBringer;276565Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding was the original Gay Cowboys heartbreaker. The pudding was far too derivative, but the eating bit was a dazzling diamond in all the groan-inducing rough.
In some dark corner of the Intarwebz, a Moderator weeps. His Name might be, if we were to name names, Cessna.
But I won't testify to that.
Quote from: Spike;276577In some dark corner of the Intarwebz, a Moderator weeps. His Name might be, if we were to name names, Cessna.
But I won't testify to that.
I am sure there are so many group or personal attacks in my capsule review of
Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, they wouldn't know where to start.
I was referring to his self banning over exactly these jokes.
Apparently, cowboys is an insulting stereotype for gays. Who knew?
Clearly, not the Gay Cowboys.
(I thought he was back in the saddle, so to speak. When did this happen?)
About the same time the RPGsite was founded, so... about two and a half? Three years ago?
Quote from: Spike;276597About the same time the RPGsite was founded, so... about two and a half? Three years ago?
Ah, too many staff changes since then clouds my memory.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;276019If 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.
When I started reading Forge articles, I thought it was my fault that I couldn't understand them. "Claudius, your English sucks!", I told myself. But when you see English native speakers experiencing the same problem, you realize it's not my English which sucks, it's the articles which sucks!
And yes, they're boring and lack substance. In short, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.