So, not really down with the whole 'swine' thing, but there's a point I always want to bring up when the debates break out, and I thought I'd go ahead and start my own thread to do it.

As far as I can tell, the 'swine' are (a) 'art gamers' who (b) prefer to play in some non-standard gaming style and (c) proselytize, or at least are so noisy about what they're doing as to constitute an annoyance. 'Art gamers' doesn't mean anything more than 'swine' does really, but there's a certain combination of attributes which gets you into that club: intellectualism, pseudo- or actual, about one's hobby activity; negative judgments about other people's playstyles; interest in connecting certain kinds of literary and art works and processes to one's gameplay; and so on. I note, in passing, that practically everyone on this board, myself included, manifests the attributes on the list so far. Maybe being smug in a certain kind of way is also required; that might get some of us off the hook.

Now, to the point. Pundit correctly identifies the White Wolf 'swine' and the Forge 'swine' as two different groups, enough members of whom meet the criteria above, who have had a strong influence on gaming and gaming culture, or at least on vocal subsets of it.

But wipe the snot off your noses and listen up. This kind of gamer didn't magically appear in 1991 with Vampire. They've been around more or less since the very beginning.

They were around in the seventies. The original 'swine' game was Runequest. They went to it, never in droves - the Arduin Grimoires outsold Runequest for years - but they went. College kids with glasses, reading Jung and smoking dope and grooving on Stafford's weird mythology; 'intellectual' wargamers who liked strike ranks and percentile combat for its 'realism'; and, of course, the hangers-on, who wanted to belong because it was obvious that all the intelligent people played Runequest. Those other games were for the hack-and-slash crowd.

Oh, they were unbearable, sneering and proselytzing at cons and hobby shops, arguing for the virtues of their system in Alarums & Excursions and to anyone else who would listen. And they fucked up fantasy gaming: before Runequest, it was pretty easy to port your character from system to system. After Runequest, things were never the same. Early gaming in California had this wonderful MMRPG synergy that let you go from game to game and group to group with ease. The snob-elite that grew up around Runequest effectively destroyed that, partly by pulling some of the best gamemasters into their own private little gaming worlds.

And along with Runequest the first 'swine' publishing house, the Chaosium came into being, publishing an endless stream of art-house nonsense: Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, and countless other games for the intellectual wanker crowd.

Now, as far as I can tell, most of the people on this board are descendents of the 'Chaosium swine'. And don't hold up your fucking D&D3 cred to rebut me on that: D&D3 is a direct descendant of Runequest, by lead designer Jonathan Tweet's own admission. The fact is, non-'swine' gaming was almost solely held up by TSR and the old D&D label through the eighties and early nineties, and the reason gaming is in trouble now is that the 'Chaosium swine' - including you motherfuckers, including Pundit -have taken over the hobby almost completely. D&D3 was the last step in the twenty-five year quest of the 'Chaosium swine' to take over the hobby. They succeeded. Wizards and Jon Tweet (Ars Magica Jon Tweet; Everway Jon Tweet - how much more 'swinish' can you possibly be?) finally destroyed D&D by taking it over and rewriting it.

Now, all of the above should be read with a substantial dose of irony. I am not, for instance, making any actual claims to the effect that given games or designers are good or bad; my points about RQ, old D&D, D&D3, and Jon Tweet are giving expression to a certain perspective which exists and is cogent but which I do not necessarily endorse.

My main points are just that

(a) 'Swinedom' has been with us forever - it's not a new thing. The old 'roll-playing' vs 'role-playing' wars are themselves a product of the first generation of 'swine', the 'Chaosium swine', who have in fact exerted more influence on the hobby than either White Wolf or designers affiliated with the Forge have or probably ever will.

(b) Based most of the games we talk about and most of our actual play reports, the membership of this board falls firmly into the 'Chaosium swine' category of roleplayer. I note that rpg.net was far more friendly to this generation of 'swine' at its inception than it is now.

Make of them what you will. Swine.

Quote from: CalithenaSo, not really down with the whole 'swine' thing, but -

No.

Doesn't this nonsense belong in the Pundit's forum? (I mean that's why Sett made his "swine" post there, right?)

Regards,
David R

"And along with Runequest the first 'swine' publishing house, the Chaosium came into being, publishing an endless stream of art-house nonsense: Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, and countless other games for the intellectual wanker crowd.

Now, as far as I can tell, most of the people on this board are descendents of the 'Chaosium swine'. And don't hold up your fucking D&D3 cred to rebut me on that: D&D3 is a direct descendant of Runequest, by lead designer Jonathan Tweet's own admission. The fact is, non-'swine' gaming was almost solely held up by TSR and the old D&D label through the eighties and early nineties, and the reason gaming is in trouble now is that the 'Chaosium swine' - including you motherfuckers, including Pundit -have taken over the hobby almost completely. D&D3 was the last step in the twenty-five year quest of the 'Chaosium swine' to take over the hobby. They succeeded. Wizards and Jon Tweet (Ars Magica Jon Tweet; Everway Jon Tweet - how much more 'swinish' can you possibly be?) finally destroyed D&D by taking it over and rewriting it."


I've never heard such bollocks.  I thought Sett and Pundit were bad enough, constantly berating those of us who veered from classes and levels.  But to pick out one company, and two of the most highly rated games in rpg history as...fuck it I don't even know why I'm trying to counter your arguments.

You're a twat.

I would strongly prefer that this not be moved to Pundit's forum. If there's some site rule that suggests this can't be in the general RPG forum I'd prefer that the moderators delete it.

Quote from: CalithenaI would strongly prefer that this not be moved to Pundit's forum. If there's some site rule that suggests this can't be in the general RPG forum I'd prefer that the moderators delete it.

There's no site rule and I apologize if I'd given you that impression.

Regards,
David R

Stumpydave, if you think I actually endorse the point of view expressed in the paragraphs you quote, or that I think the majority of posters on this site are actually 'swine', you've badly misread the point of my post.

(Which may be my fault rather than yours, but there it is.)

Hmm...Not sure what i'm going to say to this, so i'll just ramble a bit.

I don't quite get your thoughts about chaosium being the original 'swine'. I have rarely seen fans of CoC and Pendragon, the games merits aside, engage in the type of behaviour which gets labelled under the swine moniker. Runequest is another matter though. You still see evidence today of people who just can't give up the fight that started so long ago that RQ is a proper RPG whilst d&d isn't. I can see a link here to the latter day 'incoherence' label, but i can't see the other games mentioned or chaosium being directly linked to it.

The whole thing is a bit silly really. Different strokes for different folks (which i gather was the point?). The only reason for the bashing that goes on, both then and now, is to gain attention for new games. Shit, if things were termed all polite and stuff, would new games and designers get any kind of attention at all? One of the most insidious and attractive (sadly) claims of designers and gamers who hold forth in game vs game bashing is that not only is your game different, it is also better than what 'the crowd' plays. Plays on a common desire of many people to be different, relevant and avant garde. People buy designer label clothes, rolex watches etc to stand out and feel good about themselves. The difference in games is that the cost of keeping up with the Joneses isn't high.

Though, I will say this: who are those games rated so highly by? Not by nine year olds with 22nd level paladins carrying stormbringer in one hand and mournblade in the other. Not by drunk frat boys making lewd dwarf jokes as their characters get chewed up by Grimtooth's traps. Not by high school stoners trying in full seriousness to roleplay scenes from heavy metal album covers. Not by sincere, semi-dopey Renfaire types who enjoy Tolkien lite pastiche, who buy more fantasy novels than I ever will.

Are you 'swine' for making, enjoying, playing games that don't cater to these groups of people? For talking about it on messageboards? For getting down on other messageboards where they make, enjoy, and play different games that also don't cater to these groups of people? For offering your perspective to people who might not want it?

You might be right, One Horse Town.

With CoC, I actually have seen 'swine' behavior associated with it, one-true-wayism about immersive horror, but that's a game that actually broke out a little and there are any number of people who seem to just play it and enjoy it too.

Pendragon I can't discuss rationally - I really, deeply hate that game, even though I can acknowledge on some level that it delivers on its design goals.

----------------

I guess I do have a third point though. A lot of the mechanics and ideas in currently 'mainstream' games derive from 'swine games'. The thinkers do have an influence on this hobby. I don't know if it's for the better or worse, but I don't think we can change it.

I've had similar thoughts about the OP, particularly the RuneQuest stuff but minus the tounge in cheek viritol, but was always hesitant to say something, simply because I wasn't there at the time.  

I do remember being totally excited when I learned that Jonathan Tweet was going to design D&D3.  I was a huge Over the Edge fan, even got the collectible card game, for both the setting (this was my Burroughs phase) and the mechanics (being a d6 Star Wars fan, I liked the simplicity).

If that makes me swine, well oink oink motherfuckers...

All in all this nicely shows, how a aesthetic movement can change a hobby.

Don´t let it happen again!
Be prepared!

For fuck's sake.

The point of swine is that they espouse a game not from enjoyment or love of it but because they feel that proclaiming their love of that game marks them out as in some way superior.

In Pundit's view as I understand it, someone who genuinely loves Sorceror or Vampire and really enjoys playing it and so talks about it a lot is not swine (though I think he'd probably think they had lousy taste in games).  Somebody who loudly talks about Sorcerer, Vampire, CoC or whatever because they in some way feel that proclaiming their attachment to that game indicates they are a better person is swine in his view.

Swine is about motivation, not what you play.

So, for many of us Runequest et al were better games, and frankly if they hadn't happened I wouldn't be in the hobby today.  That's not swinedom, it's gaming preference.    

It's not that hard, there are faqs on this shit in Pundit's forum, which is where this whole thread belongs.

Edwards' dubious attempts to grandfather in Glorantha as indie-by-Forge-definition certainly supports the theory that RQ was the prototype swine game.  As does this comment from his essay "A Hard Look At Dungeons & Dragons":    

Quote from: RonI also knew of several college groups during this time, up through the early 1980s, mainly playing RuneQuest. I burned with jealousy and desperately wanted to be in college and to play with folks like that.

Has the entirety of Edwards' body of work simply been an attempt to go back in time and hang out with the cool Runequest kids?  That's probably reading too much into this line, but the idea is no less ridiculous than the fact that much of my gaming career consists of attempts to recapture the magic of my original Keep on the Borderlands runs.

QuoteThat's probably reading too much into this line, but the idea is no less ridiculous than the fact that much of my gaming career consists of attempts to recapture the magic of my original Keep on the Borderlands runs.

Then your atavistic agenda (which I share conceptually, only it´s a different game/session for me) would be table related, whereas "joining the cool kids" is a social goal.

For consequences: go figure.