Since getting drunk has no positive or negative moral value I can only agree with your statement. Gaming playstyles have fuck all to do with morality and I'd go as far as to say that the problem with playstyle discussions arises from people who try to attach moral value to a playstyle.

QuoteSince getting drunk has no positive or negative moral value I can only agree with your statement. Gaming playstyles have fuck all to do with morality and I'd go as far as to say that the problem with playstyle discussions arises from people who try to attach moral value to a playstyle...

Well, that IS the problem. You guys don't realize this has already happened?

Here's a 2005 quote from the swine leadership: ""just as your rules make your play fulfill or fail to fulfill your creative agenda, your social contract makes your play fulfill or fail to fulfill your social agenda."

Quote from: SettembriniAll gaming discourse is currently tainted by pussyfooting around that. Especially a certain ilk of well known Jargonistas hide their moral judgements behind allegedly neutral terminology.

That´s bullshit.

All gameplay discussion has it´s roots in moral values.

I think I basically agree with the thrust of what you're saying -- I would say it differently

1) Overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) most discussion of gaming playstyles is about "superiorit" (intellectual, emotional, etc. -- although less often, I think moral in the common sense of the term).

2) Mostly this is blunt: "I roleplay -- they roll-play. Hee Hee. Clever -- see, I'm implying they use the dice to roll, instead of using their brains. Like we do."

This, I *think* is the kind of crap that White Wolf targeted in the 90's that so pissed off the Pundit (I could be wrong here). It's still going on today.

3) Of the portion of the discussion that's *not*blunt, a lot of it *is* in bad-faith. The Forge is the worst of this: over the years, they claimed that all play-styles were respected, etc. That, of course, has never been true -- and that's where the "in-bad-faith" part comes in (again, I'm not saying any specific Forge poster operated in bad faith... but that there has been a pattern of disenginutiy)

I prefer the role/roll stuff to the less-clear "Sim-is-like-playing-house -- no that's not condescending!-you're-projecting!" non-dialog. At least with people who consider themselves "too good for games with combat" (generic White Wolfer attitude) you immediately know where they stand.

I don't think it has to be that way.

There *is* a useful and not-especially-judgemental discussion to be held about playstyles.

But it would need to be held by people who aren't especially interested in holding it:

My hypothesis: people who are very interested in "playstyle" are often unhappy. Either they're "narrativists" and aren't team-players, or they're fundamentally not-interested in the kinds of games the majority of roleplayers like (the angst-vampire guys encountering the hoards of D&D players).

They're interested in the playstyle dialog because it frames their issues with the majority of the hobby -- and usually casts them as the evolved species ("I'm into deep story-telling. I *address premise* -- you... you... you explorer what it's like to be an elf, or something... see... not that there's *anything* wrong with that, you basement-dwelling, unsophisticated, hasn't-read-Eco-plebeian!")

More satisfied gamers (the majority, I think -- probably the vast majority) are okay with a variety of playstyles and so it's not a major issue.

Where tolerance exists, there's no need to develop a specific language for it.

So long as the dialog is driven by an unhappy minority, it's going to address fringe issues in a way that's offputting to the majority.

But again -- that's an artifiact of who's engaged and their reasons... not something built into the dialog.

Cheers,
-E.

Quoteonly it isn't the only one, and you don't see the others. So you assume you are Morally Right and look down on all the other challenges.

That may well be. If a game has a challenge in it, i´m inclined to like it mor for that. If I can´t see the challenge, although it´s there, then I have to learn about it.

Clarification:

When talking about moral values in gaming, it´s not intended to apply them pars pro toto.

That is, whatever your gaming preferences are, it´s impossible to deduce any personal character traits on you.

Most people get drunk once in a while, that doesn´t say anything about the   person. Only about his views on alcohol and drugs. But this view in itself is one portion of the moral cosmos.
A tiny portion.

Quote from: -E.1) Overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) most discussion of gaming playstyles is about "superiorit" (intellectual, emotional, etc. -- although less often, I think moral in the common sense of the term).

2) Mostly this is blunt: "I roleplay -- they roll-play. Hee Hee. Clever -- see, I'm implying they use the dice to roll, instead of using their brains. Like we do."

I've seen that.

Quote from: blakkieI've seen that.

Sett had never been a honest or honourable poster. Harsh but true. :shrug: this thread is supposed to be about honesty right.

Regards,
David R

So now I´m a liar?
That´s your non morale value judging?

Seems I´m right again.

Quote from: SettembriniSo now I´m a liar?
That´s your non morale value judging?

Seems I´m right again.

Not at all. By (not)honest, I mean you really have no real intention about discovering how others play. You operate with a certain set of assumptions and do not tolerate anything which challenges them.

By (not)honorable I mean, that you engage in petty insults and obtuseness for the sole purpose of not really engaging with the subject at hand.

Regards,
David R

That´s a misunderstanding.
I rush headfirst and with a a battlecry into discussions, so that everyone jumps into his foxhole. Then I count from which sides the bullets come.

I´ve learned so much through this tactic.

Life is too short for non-confronational posting-trickles.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s a misunderstanding.
I rush headfirst and with a a battlecry into discussions, so that everyone jumps into his foxhole. Then I count from which sides the bullets come.

I´ve learned so much through this tactic.

Life is too short for non-confronational posting-trickles.

Okay Sett. I was just looking through your RPG Genetics thread, and it would seem my characterization of you in my post on this thread is uncalled for, considering how things turned out there. I withdraw my comments. You explained your posting style. Fair enough.

Regards,
David R

I don't get why any of this is controversial. What Settembrini is saying seems fairly true to me.  What some of you guys are taking offense at ("Seems you are a roll player..")  I took as irony.

Wait, was I right?

I'm probably being ultra thick,  but wtf are you lot on about?

QuoteWait, was I right?

Of course.

You know what's really morally repugnant?  

Asserting that your way of playing a fucking game makes you morally superior to other people.

Take that shit to the Forge, assmonkey.

And maybe you wouldn't have such issues with Internet discussion if you'd divorce yourself of the notion that just screaming loud enough will magically make everyone agree with you?