Quote from: GameDaddy;322982Really? One game out of a whole lineup?

I actually really like Mutants & Masterminds, and Eternal Rome, those are both great games! I heard Black Company was really good too, and of course the whole Freeport line... though I already had an awesome Pirates & Buccaneers game already with Twin Crowns, so never ended up picking up that particular line.

My stake in the Blue Rose thing is generally non-existent.  Never read the book, the genre wasn't interesting to me, and neither are D20 variants (I'm generally of the opnion that D&D is great for D&D and not much else).  I'm just passing on the source of it all.  Pundit has also on several occasions accused them of stealing ideas from his blogposts without crediting him (for example, shortly after posting a thread about making a WFRP2 clone, a post appeared on the GR prez' Twitter feed pondering whether they should do a WFRP2 clone).

Quote from: Joethelawyer;322943I know. That's the main reason I'm asking the question.  Judging by the amount of times the words swine and forge are thrown around in threads here, it's evident that people without a clue what it means are a bit left out when it comes up.

To be frank, I've been reading the various explanations of what Swine are and what crimes against gaming the Forge has committed since Pundit took over the place, and I still can't quite grasp what it's all about. All I do know is that none of it sounds very fun to me.

This is a useful thread.

To keep it very short, the Swine are those pseudo-intellectuals or pseudo-artistes that think RPGs should be anything but a "game" (ie. a Story, Drama, Intellectual Pursuit, Modern Art, Beat Poetry, etc.). They are pretentious assholes who feel an intense dislike for regular people, and regular gamers as well, and anything they might like.  They generally despise humanity, love any fashionable ideology that comes along (regardless of whether they actually understand it or not), and particularly tend to hate D&D (as well as other regular games).
They like to imagine that the games they play are somehow superior to regular RPGs, though they are almost to a man-jack of them worthless. They also want to try to change individual games as much as the hobby as a whole, to try to fit their visions of how RPGs "should be like"; this generally involves an agenda of turning good games to crap and trying to make the hobby as limited as possible to a tiny group led by self-styled intelligentsia.  Their agenda, if brought to fruition, would usually involve reducing the hobby to a tiny sliver of what it is even today; though not all of them realize this, and fewer still will admit it.
Their methods usually involve working in cliques, taking over forums, and trying to dominate the terms of conversation (they love to create jargon that presupposes fundamentals of conversation in their favor, and then use that as an intellectual bludgeon). They are highly in favor of heavy moderation on forums as a way to manipulate the administration into silencing anyone who tries to speak up against them, their games, or their theories.

There are at least two major groups of Swine; the White Wolf "Story-based" Swine of the 1990s and the Forge "Storygames" Swine of this decade; they despise each other almost as much as both groups despise regular gamers.  
There are also a few Swine out there who do not easily classify into one movement or the other.

I think most of the other questions, re. the Forge, Nikchick & Blue Rose, etc. have been answered rather well in one post or another thus far, so I don't know if I need to add anything there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;322994This is a useful thread.

There are at least two major groups of Swine; the White Wolf "Story-based" Swine of the 1990s and the Forge "Storygames" Swine of this decade; they despise each other almost as much as both groups despise regular gamers.  
There are also a few Swine out there who do not easily classify into one movement or the other.

I think most of the other questions, re. the Forge, Nikchick & Blue Rose, etc. have been answered rather well in one post or another thus far, so I don't know if I need to add anything there.

RPGPundit

Thx for responding. Two questions regarding what you wrote--can you summarize briefly each of the two philosophies you described above?  Storygames and Story-based? And what's the issue with them?

Also, tis is helpful for me as a relatively new guy here, so it might be helpful for others who come to the board in the future.  Perhaps relevant parts of this should go into some sort of sticky thread, since swine and the Forge come up so often here, and new people might be as clueless as me as to what it is all about.

Thx

Quote from: RPGPundit;322994This is a useful thread.

To keep it very short, the Swine are those pseudo-intellectuals or pseudo-artistes that think RPGs should be anything but a "game" (ie. a Story, Drama, Intellectual Pursuit, Modern Art, Beat Poetry, etc.). They are pretentious assholes who feel an intense dislike for regular people, and regular gamers as well, and anything they might like.  They generally despise humanity, love any fashionable ideology that comes along (regardless of whether they actually understand it or not), and particularly tend to hate D&D (as well as other regular games).
They like to imagine that the games they play are somehow superior to regular RPGs, though they are almost to a man-jack of them worthless. They also want to try to change individual games as much as the hobby as a whole, to try to fit their visions of how RPGs "should be like"; this generally involves an agenda of turning good games to crap and trying to make the hobby as limited as possible to a tiny group led by self-styled intelligentsia.  Their agenda, if brought to fruition, would usually involve reducing the hobby to a tiny sliver of what it is even today; though not all of them realize this, and fewer still will admit it.
Their methods usually involve working in cliques, taking over forums, and trying to dominate the terms of conversation (they love to create jargon that presupposes fundamentals of conversation in their favor, and then use that as an intellectual bludgeon). They are highly in favor of heavy moderation on forums as a way to manipulate the administration into silencing anyone who tries to speak up against them, their games, or their theories.


RPGPundit

Just as an asideAll that sounds like a good description of the Elite the world over these days, and their tactics.  You can see it demonstrated daily on any newscast.  Substitute  "regular people" for gamers and it totally fits.

Vote for the Know Nothing party!

Look, seriously, this whole Swine thing is a running gag that has run out of steam.  We all know the philosophy is bankrupt.  Every time they poke their heads out of their dank, sweaty little caves, they get smacked down by sensible people.  The only people that listen are credulous droolers that eventually run afoul of Prof Bat Penis or quickly notice that everyone else on the board is taking the piss out of this Forge place for being pretentious douchebags with nothing original or useful to contribute.  The few recruits here and there they manage to pick up were lost to us to begin with.

I predict in six months, any influence they have at RPG Geek will be zero, or more likely negative, as the folks over there point and laugh at their empty posts bereft of meaning and substance.  Hell, no one at tBP even mentions them or their games anymore, and they like Exalted over there.  I never saw so much as a discernable ripple from them over at ENWorld, so despite everything else, ENWorld at least has that going for it.

It's like being harangued monthly to stay vigilant about the Bolsheviks, or to continue not stabbing yourself in the face.

Let's be honest. Everyone one thinks the sort of games they like to play are better than all the other games - that's kind of why they play them. And on this forum alone is full of examples of people who have little tolerance for different styles of play. So that's nothing new or specific to the Forge.

What really stands out is the charge of pretentiousness and I don't really see why that bothers people so much.

I have a dirty secret. Although listen to a wide range of music, there is a special place in my heart for "prog", as in the early 70's sounds  of Yes, Genesis, ELP and Jethro Tull and the likes. And though times move on, people change and I've learned to appreciate all sorts of other things, I still really like that music. Just can't help it.

Now for as log as I remember people have been poking fun at Prog for being overblown and pretentious. But here's the thing, since when was rock'n'roll meant to humble and restraint anyway?

My point being, who cares if something is pretentious or not, whether the author was a saint or the anti-christ or whether it is the new hot thing or written 30 years ago. Only one thing matters: does it work for you?

Personally I haven't really found a Forge game I am happy with. They tend to be either too angst-ridden or too gimmicky. That said the analysis on game design, not so much GNS but discussions on techniques like Conflict Resolution are as good as anything ever written on gaming and I think they have improved my GMing.

Pundit may wind up hating this analogy ...but here goes :

Ever read the Ayn Rand book The Fountainhead ?

The Forge/ Swine / Ron Edwards types are basically like the character of Ellsworth Toohey and his groupies - they criticize the artistic effort of others and mock and twist it and regular folks who like regular games.

Pundit might be the "Howard Roark" of the situation in this comparison if carried too far - more like an ally of a Roark-like game designer.

- Ed C.


.....The above was not meant to start an argument or denbate about ayn Rand or her books. Its just using a reference point that might be familiar to some on here...

Swine are the people the Pundit doesn't like, so they must be evil and are bent on destroying the hobby by means unknown, because no one can do that. Fortunately, the Pundit's here to save us from them through means unknown, because his influence is exactly the same as the people he calls Swine: zero. Despite that, the Pundit can feel good about being the savior of gaming, so in the end is OK.

Everyone can be a Swine if they happen to like a game the Pundit hates. Everyone.

Quote from: Imperator;323034Everyone can be a Swine if they happen to like a game the Pundit hates. Everyone.

I dunno about that, Imperator.  If I were to mention in passing how I played My Life With Master or something and had a good time, I don't think that would, by itself, poke Pundy into calling me Swine.  If I went on to evangelize about how "all good rpgs should be like this game" or something, then I'd certainly get tarred and feathered as Swine.  

Remove the one-true-wayism and a Swine darling game gets downgraded from "insidious" to annoying.  Admit that it's probably not actually a roleplaying game, and it downgrades to "not Pundy's cup of tea".

I know you like to think it's all about Pundit's ego, but every time you say that you're just feeding the "voice in the wilderness" complex you seem to think he has.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;322975In one of the linked threads, Edwards disses postmodernism.

One bit of pseudointellectualism cannot coexist with another.

More seriously, their thoughts are actually opposites: postmodernism removes meaning where it exists, and Edwads finds meaning where there is none. Postmodernism takes a profound experience, and as John Morrow once put it, dismisses all details until nothing is left and then proclaims it all meant nothing all along; Edwards takes a trivial experience, fabricates details until he has constructed a rhetorical house of cards, and then proclaims it was profound all along.

Actually this is not inconsistent with the mindset of an academic.

The MO of a typical academic is to criticize and tear down other people's ideas, while proclaiming their own ideas (and that of like minded colleagues) as the one "true" way.

I'm pretty sure I play RPGs that Pundit doesn't care for. He's never referred to me as swine for playing them, either.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;322930I've been around this site since even before Pundit, and I have to say that the Swine/Forge thing is one of the defining elements here, almost as much as the RPG.net-in-Exile motif. Please, join me as I pull on my smoking jacket, lovingly light a cigar, fill a brandy snifter, and sit in my high-backed, overstuffed leather chair beside a roaring fireplace, and enjoy the tale about to unfold.

Pass the brandy, if you will, old man.

Quote from: VectorSigma;323037I dunno about that, Imperator.  If I were to mention in passing how I played My Life With Master or something and had a good time, I don't think that would, by itself, poke Pundy into calling me Swine.  If I went on to evangelize about how "all good rpgs should be like this game" or something, then I'd certainly get tarred and feathered as Swine.  

Remove the one-true-wayism and a Swine darling game gets downgraded from "insidious" to annoying.  Admit that it's probably not actually a roleplaying game, and it downgrades to "not Pundy's cup of tea".

I know you like to think it's all about Pundit's ego, but every time you say that you're just feeding the "voice in the wilderness" complex you seem to think he has.

Oh, you're absolutely right. I make a clear separation between the Pundit and the real guy behind him. I'm sure that the real guy is a nice pal, and I'm sure I would have fun playing with him. I just don't believe in the Pundit persona, and teasing cartoons is fun from time to time.

Actually, I agree with the Pundit more than not on many things. We have a lot of common tastes in games, for example. And I've also said many times that he does a good job running the site. My disagreement with him is mainly about his ridiculous wars, and is fun to taunt him about that, or about his ridiculous virtual dickwaving.

So, you're perfectly right

Quote from: VectorSigma;323037I dunno about that, Imperator.  .

Just quoting you because I like your name and avatar.

I've friends who enjoy the writing of Forge games, and have tried to emulate them, much to my chagrin at times because some of their term usage is obtuse. I still encourage them to write, but also to simplify the terminology. Mind you my friends who are the heaviest proponent of the Forge, have some fairly fun typical game experiences at least as I see it.

 One is playing D&D4E and having a blast, both that immediately come to mind enjoyed the several year H&S game I ran for them, and I'll be purely honest, I'm pretty damn close to a "traditional gamer." I like plain language that doesn't complicate things for its own sake. (Even if admittedly I'm somewhat guilty of this at times.)

I like games that play strictly traditional--that has clearly defined setup of GM+players.  I've offered my players a lot of say in the past into things we do, and how we play and been basically told it was my show to run as I wanted (at least in face to face games.) Yet I still have friends who like these different ideas--I've no problem myself with the ideas of Storygames/Forge what have, until they become abusive, and dismissive of gamers as a whole. I don't care for one true way-ism myself, but I do find that most Forge style games don't click for me I'm rather sad that some other designers who put out games I enjoyed, have taken up the Forgie banner because I feel it weakens their game designs (for my use.)