Quote from: HaffrungWeird how some people here are having trouble understanding the OP. It seems rather straightforward to me; and no, it's not that the narrative approach is a bad way to play RGPs.

What he's saying is 98 per cent of popular drama, and in particular genre movies, tv, and fiction, is absolute shit and worthy only of satire. And if you believe that to be the case - if you believe the human condition can only be genuinely examined by a master artist - then he doesn't see the point in playing games that cannot hope to come close to that level. If the source material is superficial and cliched, then the gaming styles immitating that material can't help but be superficial and cliched.

Challenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely. If you want to challenge the OP, then tell him either:

a) Why popular drama isn't superficial and cliched, or...

b) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

The most awesomerest game to play at conventions is Hong Kong Action Theater! The conceit of the gme is that you're making a HK action movie. Your character can't really die, because you're making a movie. If your character's character dies, that can be beneficial to him. The rules are designed to support all the tropes and cliches of the genre, and to differentially reinforce their clever or creative use. The genre is so well-established that 10 total strangers can sit at the table, with nothing in common but their love of HK films, and use that common ground to develop a terrific story, using problem-solving, strategic manipulation of resources, and
intelligent implementation of genre tropes. It's a very satisfying game.

Quote from: Haffrungb) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

I did that. I observed that it is either that the person finds it easier to play a RPG with a known character, or people wanting to make new episodes of their favorite show.

Quote from: HaffrungChallenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely. If you want to challenge the OP, then tell him either:

a) Why popular drama isn't superficial and cliched, or...

b) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

Actually this is not really the point, the point was made by Sett here (bolding mine):

QuoteSett wrote:
I´m wondering what you are saying here. Have you never played a regular game, or are you on an semantics crusade here?
EDIT: The important thing is the way an action comes to be and resolves. Let´s say we have a typical fantasy campaign, where a Siege is going on. A Siege might be a staple of Fat Fantasy or Knight novels. But in my game, the Siege is not resolved through collaborative decision making, but through game play, in the sense of simulation. So, he who wins wins so because he has won.

So Sett's bringing in his usual issues of differing playstyles. I could care less if Sett's thinks that specific media are cliched...actually I could care less if Sett, thinks certain playstyles are crappy, but this thread was started in bad faith and no amount of "interpreting" is gonna change that.

QuoteElliot wrote:

2. Yes, hypocrisy and disingenuity are the key elements that offend me about RPG discussion--though I think in most cases what reads as disingenuity is really arrogance.

So you don't find any of Sett's posts arrogant. You don't think he's making any assumptions of gamers and their playstyles.?

Quote3. Sorry, I'm going to call it as I see it. Sett's often been loud and rude, he may have been obscure and unfocused, but I don't see the hypocrisy.

You don't see the hyprocrisy when he rants against those who piss on the type of games he plays but does the same to games he does not like?

QuoteI suppose I could on the grounds that Pundit, AM, and Sett use naughty words, but frankly that isn't something I'm going to pursue extensively; we're adults, I'd prefer to see the language toned down in terms of form, but I'm frankly disgusted at the "innocence abused" mode of discourse (fairly prevalent in American politics), which uses an opponent's vehemence as an excuse to avoid engaging an argument.

Naughty words? Are you being disingenuos or arrogant here, Elliot? I don't object to "naughty words". I object to the assumptions Pundit makes of people who enjoy White Wolf games. I object to the assumptions he makes of folks who like to game in a particular way. I object to the way how they dismiss some games as not rpgs. I don't really mind the "naughty" words. You can both engage in their arguments and call them Swine even by your definiton it would seem.

Regards,
David R

Not really, David. The arrogance I'm referring to is assuming you understand more than you do, particularly assuming that you know more about someone else's experience than they do. I don't mind the arrogance of having an opinion, even one that's held forcefully.

People spout opinions all the time and I really don't care unless there's some consequence. You like my favorite game? And? You hate my favorite game? So...?

Elliot what about the assumptions made by Pundit & Co about folks who like certain games or playstyles?

Regards,
David R

"Assumptions"? What's wrong with those if they prove to be correct?

David, why do have a problem with value judgments backed up by argument?

Because value judgments backed up by argument = the very definition of an actual, meaningful, PRODUCTIVE discussion.

Everything else = collective recitation of private diaries in public, which are supposedly unassailable because, qua diary, they're the speaker's personal property. ("They're MY [idiotic] thoughts!" "That's just MY [pathetic] opinion!") Result: stagnation, orthodoxy, fear hiding beneath good vibes.

And besides, there's good music and bad music, yes?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Assumptions"? What's wrong with those if they prove to be correct?

David, why do have a problem with value judgments backed up by argument?

Because value judgments backed up by argument = the very definition of an actual, meaningful, PRODUCTIVE discussion.

Everything else = collective recitation of private diaries in public, which are supposedly unassailable because, qua diary, they're the speaker's personal property. ("They're MY [idiotic] thoughts!" "That's just MY [pathetic] opinion!") Result: stagnation, orthodoxy, fear hiding beneath good vibes.

And besides, there's good music and bad music, yes?

Pierce I have no problems with assumptions backed up with argument. I don't consider gamer hate ons and rants to be suffcient arguments. And please don't play this silly game. I'm all up for discussion.

Edit: Also read Elliot's posts on assumptions with regards to his definition of Swine.

Regards,
David R