Sure Tony...change it.

Drop the pretention. If you want to talk about how you made your scene better by describing the raindrops first (yeah, I read it) - that's great! But does anyone really care about the source (other than, perhaps, that you thought of it while watching a movie or reading a book)? when you take it past the "here's what worked for me," it just starts to sound like stupid name-dropping. If someone asks, tell them. Otherwise, focus on the solution.

Review the entire GNS from top to bottom and remove anything that even hints at derisive language like Incoherent. Cali's argument about using the words the way we want falls a bit short. So rework the "jargon" into words that are closer to their real meanings so we don't have to perform this translation bullshit. So when someone talks about Incoherence, it means something closer to what everyone thinks it means. That also serves to remove the little "it doesn't mean what you think it means" response that drives people off (and crazy).

Finally, apologize for any hurt feelings (you can even use the weasly "I'm sorry if you were offended" bullshit at the very least) after you inform Mr. Edwards that he can either cut the shit or find another group of people with whom he can spout his nonsense; and mean it. And continue to try and be as inclusive of other people's gaming style in both word and deed.

And when I say "you," I'm speaking of the plural you - as in all of you who claim that you don't really agree with the derogatory aspects, you just think that parts of the theory are helpful.

It's either that, or just admit that you're really talking about the theory of a very specific, narrow portion of role-playing games and it means nothing to anyone not looking to play "narrativist"-only games.





Or I could be wrong...

QuoteOh, absolutely. But what I'm interested in is whether there's anything I (and by extension my humble, positive, theory-lovin' friends) can do, from the inside, that makes any difference in whether we're seen that way.

OK. Good luck.

My Tip: Talk to the German Forgers. Frank T. is respected all over the German Internet, be it on the Adventure Gaming, Collective Fiction Creation or Thematic Gamer blogosphere.
Talk to Jasper how to smartly distance yourself from Ron. (He works for Vortex, the German distributor for UA)
Go ask Skyrock: He blogs about which Forger techniques can be used for Adventure Gaming.

I fear though the singlemostfoulevil that has happened in the US that didn´t in Germany: RPG.Net.
I really think the worst specimen of Forgers where to be found there. THe bad name, the poisoned well, the poisoned debate: RPG.Net.

In Germany, the debate was not poisoned as badly, poisoned still but not as widespread. So it was easier, for people to distance themselves from the
Forge.

So, if you really, really wanna combat the bad rep Forgers have: Coordinate with your allies at Storygames and change RPG.Net.
Especially: Critique and attack and distance yourself from your own kind when they behave and talk bullshittily. In public, on RPG.Net.

- Somebody uses GNS as a rhetorical weopon?
Swinewatch from Storygames strikes him down!
- Somebody is dismissive of Adventure Games?
Storygames Swinewatch strikes him down!
- Somebody praises DitV in a Paladin thread?
Storygames Swinewatch strikes him down!
- Somebody has a ridicolous Ashcan concept that intorduces new ranks in the Cult?
Storygames Swinewatch strikes him down!

Just like that. For every time someone from the Forgers threadcrapped, you´ll need to make a statement against it.

Binnenkritik, is what you need. A cleansing, if you will.

Go visit the Shoa thread.
Do something Tony.

Strike them down, call them on their bullshit.

James:  Thank you for the suggestions!  I very much appreciate your willingness to talk this through.

Quote from: James J SkachDrop the pretention. If you want to talk about how you made your scene better by describing the raindrops first (yeah, I read it) - that's great! But does anyone really care about the source (other than, perhaps, that you thought of it while watching a movie or reading a book)? when you take it past the "here's what worked for me," it just starts to sound like stupid name-dropping. If someone asks, tell them. Otherwise, focus on the solution.

Well ... with all due respect, I'm more interested in giving people the process by which I came to do the raindrops description than I am in telling them "You should describe more raindrops!  They're like ninjas and pirates!  More raindrops will totally make any game awesome!"

And once I'm saying "Well, what I'm thinking here is that if you juxtapose seemingly unrelated elements, like the raindrops and the mooks, then you draw people to create connections, and the act of making those connections has an emotional impact on them," then somebody's going to say "Aren't you basically just paraphrasing Eisenstein there?" followed by (c'mon ... you know it's true!) "You pathetic theory SWINE!  You present these ideas as your own, but it's really just your attempt to rehash the ideas of your betters!  It's intellectually dishonest!"

Besides, if I mention Eisenstein as well as giving the plain-text version of my thinking then somebody might find some inspiration in something they know about Eisenstein's theories, and then tell me, and I'd get more tools to consider.  Y'see why, on balance, I'm inclined to cite my inspiration?

Quote from: James J SkachReview the entire GNS from top to bottom and remove anything that even hints at derisive language like Incoherent. Cali's argument about using the words the way we want falls a bit short. So rework the "jargon" into words that are closer to their real meanings so we don't have to perform this translation bullshit. So when someone talks about Incoherence, it means something closer to what everyone thinks it means. That also serves to remove the little "it doesn't mean what you think it means" response that drives people off (and crazy).

Did that.  Levi did it too.  You won't see either of us talking about (for instance) "Incoherence."  And, I gotta say, I think that's having an effect on the communities that we're part of (both because people get influenced by us and because they see the importance of plain-english phrasing in the reactions to us).

Doesn't seem to have turned the tide on its own, but I do think it helps, and I hope it will continue to help in future.

Quote from: James J SkachFinally, apologize for any hurt feelings (you can even use the weasly "I'm sorry if you were offended" bullshit at the very least) after you inform Mr. Edwards that he can either cut the shit or find another group of people with whom he can spout his nonsense; and mean it. And continue to try and be as inclusive of other people's gaming style in both word and deed.

Now, see, I think that here's a place where the good advice of "be humble and positive" conflicts with what you'd like to see happen.  Because, frankly, the whole "Condemn Ron!" call is pretty hard for people who are inclined to be positive to pull off.

I disagree with Ron.  I've done so in public, I've done so in private.  But I'm not going to try to ostracize him, because that's not who I am.  I get that it would help change people's perceptions, and I appreciate it as advice, but it's not somewhere that I personally can or would go.

Quote from: SettembriniGo visit the Shoa thread.
Do something Tony.

Strike them down, call them on their bullshit.

Can you give me a link to what you, particularly, think of as bullshit?  'cuz mostly I see some folks trying to address a damn hard topic as respectfully as they can, but if there's some examples of GNS being used as a rhetorical bludgeon, or the like, then I'd certainly be happy to give my opinion on that.

Quote from: SettembriniGo visit the Shoa thread.
Do something Tony.

Strike them down, call them on their bullshit.

I honestly expect Tony to go over there and defend his friends (his primary reason for existence here- public relations), all the while gushing about how cool it is when the roleplaying is really dark and intense. And then play it off by saying, "well, it's not for everyone.. or even for me, but man.. the harsh beauty of it all.."

Or wait, he already kinda did all that.

I've read plenty of their actual play reports and exhortations about how cool it is when characters fail or have "doomed plotlines": or wonderful it is when you get a really emotional death scene and all. I'm willing to accept that they consider such things as awesome "games" or whatever.

But the fact of the matter is that what they are talking about aren't games any more than a movie or a comic book is a "game". If they don't want to be seen as assholes, they might want to consider not being seen at all-- they could voluntarily disassociate from our hobby.

Here's my suggestion to all forgies: I mean this seriously: Stop coming to our conventions. Stop coming to our sites. Admit to yourself that the gaming ended for you a long time ago, and now you're in it for political and artistic statements and to be part of a club. You don't need us as audience or customers. You don't need to be in our communities stinking up the place with theories and smug pronouncements. And we certainly don't need you.

Consider that maybe the actual gaming part isn't for you anymore. It's not the worst thing in the world.

Quote from: SettembriniSwinewatch from Storygames strikes him down!

Man, I ... again, I have trouble reconciling this with James's fine advice of being positive.

Honestly, I think there is much more difference between someone who is spouting bile in the name of the Forge and someone who is bursting with enthusiasm for Forge theories then there is between people who are spouting bile against D20 and people who are spouting bile against DitV.  If you're being negative then I think you're lowering the debate, no matter who you're going after.

I don't think that you overcome negativity just by telling people to switch targets.  I get that you would be happier to see some smack-downs delivered from the folks on StoryGames toward the folks you perceive as Swine.  And I don't want to be dismissive of how much it hurts that you feel that folks reserve their negativity for you when there are so much more deserving targets.  But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be happy to see SG turn into a place that concentrated on rebuking people for how they're wrong, rather than applauding how they're right.

Tony, are you spineless?

Have you ever heard of decisions that have consequences?

If you refuse to act against bullshit, then bullshit will prevail. You chose that way because it´s aesthetically pleasing to your own self-image to be only positive?
Then you made a choice. YOU MADE A FUCKING CHOICE!

choices and consequences. There is no way to have the best of both worlds.

Live with the consequences and stop the whining.

Pierce is right. You are waisting all our time. I am waisting my time. On you. And calithena is also right. It´s pathetic.
It is pathetic of me to argue with people that are laughing stock of regular people.
Did you know Ron Edwards is something you can say to lighten up the mood with the people who met him? Because they immeadeately will start giggling or eye rolling. It´s a fucking waste of time, and the only thing I get out of it is being right. But what fun is it to be right, if the opponent is spineless, whiney and way more oblivous to the subjects at hand?
What fun is it to be right, when it´s obvious for everyone that the claims you folks make are totally loco?
Yes, Calithena is right, I´m pathetic for even discussing this shit.

Quote from: TonyLBJames:  Thank you for the suggestions!  I very much appreciate your willingness to talk this through.

You know me Tony, always willing to avoid work by posting in gaming threads!

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... with all due respect, I'm more interested in giving people the process by which I came to do the raindrops description than I am in telling them "You should describe more raindrops!  They're like ninjas and pirates!  More raindrops will totally make any game awesome!"

Totally missing the point - a bit.  You're almost there in your next statement..

Quote from: TonyLBAnd once I'm saying "Well, what I'm thinking here is that if you juxtapose seemingly unrelated elements, like the raindrops and the mooks, then you draw people to create connections, and the act of making those connections has an emotional impact on them,"

Wait! Stop! you've almost got it! Some people might be a little put off by that (I mean "juxtapose"? ), but it's a good description of what you were trying to do and works through your process a bit...

Quote from: TonyLBthen somebody's going to say "Aren't you basically just paraphrasing Eisenstein there?" followed by (c'mon ... you know it's true!) "You pathetic theory SWINE!  You present these ideas as your own, but it's really just your attempt to rehash the ideas of your betters!  It's intellectually dishonest!"

Damn...so close. See, they're not.  At least 80% of them won't.  Will someone? Sure. Then you just laugh it off as "well I was trying not to be prentious, but, yeah, that's totally where I got the idea from."  It's almost more telling to me that you think someone is going to call you on an Eisenstein reference...are you serious, man?

Quote from: TonyLBBesides, if I mention Eisenstein as well as giving the plain-text version of my thinking then somebody might find some inspiration in something they know about Eisenstein's theories, and then tell me, and I'd get more tools to consider.  Y'see why, on balance, I'm inclined to cite my inspiration?

Like I said - when someone asks. Otherwise you look like the guy trying to impress everyone with his knowledge of Eisenstein.

Quote from: TonyLBDid that.  Levi did it too.  You won't see either of us talking about (for instance) "Incoherence."  And, I gotta say, I think that's having an effect on the communities that we're part of (both because people get influenced by us and because they see the importance of plain-english phrasing in the reactions to us).

Doesn't seem to have turned the tide on its own, but I do think it helps, and I hope it will continue to help in future.

Good.  but it has to be done at the core.  It can't be people breaking off and saying this small piece here or that small piece there doesn't fit.  The entire GNS theory has an inherent value system - particularly anti-traditional gaming.  You can't change that by pruning.  You have to dig it out and reseed.

Quote from: TonyLBNow, see, I think that here's a place where the good advice of "be humble and positive" conflicts with what you'd like to see happen.  Because, frankly, the whole "Condemn Ron!" call is pretty hard for people who are inclined to be positive to pull off.

I disagree with Ron.  I've done so in public, I've done so in private.  But I'm not going to try to ostracize him, because that's not who I am.  I get that it would help change people's perceptions, and I appreciate it as advice, but it's not somewhere that I personally can or would go.

I'm always leery of answers that are to applied universally. Sometimes you just have to judge people. If you have a buddy that's being destructive in whatever setting, wouldn't you call him on it?  And if it didn't change, would there come a point where you'd pull out some tough love and tell him to cut the shit or he can't hang with you anymore? If you can't judge - yes, that includes condemning behavior - then it's not worth discussing anymore. I'm not talking about ostracizing Ron, I'm talking about giving him a choice. If my friend kept up the bad behavior, it would kill me, but he made the choice between that behavior and me. I won't be mad, I'd be sad, in fact. But it's life, sometimes.

Remember that saturation point? You'll never get there until you're ready to really make that leap.  Sorry to say.

Quote from: SettembriniTony, are you spineless?

Dunno.  I don't think so, but it's a valid question.

Quote from: SettembriniIf you refuse to act against bullshit, then bullshit will prevail.

Mmmm ... it's sorta like saying that if you refuse to take up arms against violence then violence will always prevail.  My take is that you can't do away with violence by more acts of violence.  You can keep yourself and those around you safe, and you can maybe do a lot of good, but you can't do away with violence in that way.

I'd like to think that, in the long term, peace and a quiet dedication to building and nurturing are forces that will win out over violence and hatred.  But the world is full of injustice, and this is an article of faith that I sometimes find hard.

I think that, in the long term, being (as James put it) humble and productive is a force that will win out over negativity and outrage.  But it's an article of faith that I sometimes find hard.

Quote from: James J SkachRemember that saturation point? You'll never get there until you're ready to really make that leap.  Sorry to say.

So as long as Ron exists, you'll never see any theorist without thinking first about what their position toward Ron is.  Gotcha.

Ah well, I guess there's really no point in worrying about it then.  Ya just can't please all of the people all of the time.

QuoteMmmm ... it's sorta like saying that if you refuse to take up arms against violence then violence will always prevail.

It´s exactly like saying this. Now, as your idiotic spineless ideology that neither knows consequences nor decisions are crystal clear, meet JArcane.

Quote from: TonyLBAh, gotcha.

I think I'd say, instead, that it can be read (quite reasonably) as supporting all parts of the Forge's theory ... in the same way that it can be read (again, quite reasonably) as meaning the same thing as the second statement.  It is, as you said, an unnuanced statement.  It leaves some things to the interpretation of the reader.

Does that sound like a fair (if not necessarily an important) distinction to you?

Yeah, it does, but I think it leaves out something important, because it's only talking about the meaning of the text itself.  Because I'm not just talking about the meaning of the text itself.  I'm talking about the meaning of your action -- why did you make that post, what are you trying to accomplish with it?  You are talking about the strict meaning of the text.    

The problem here is that there is a political statement built in to the core of the theory -- namely, "Ron-style games are best."  If you want to discuss elements of the theory without discussing that part of it, then you need to be clear that you are not discussing that part of the theory.  Part of the problem is that this element of the theory is emphatically denied by it's proponents but they're not really fooling anybody other than themselves.  Which of course has complicated the conversation immensely, as the theory's proponents genuinely don't see this dimension to the conversation --- but the opponents assume that the proponents do and that the proponents are simply being dishonest about their motives.  How many times have we seen this?  

Given the political motivations behind the theory, any statement for or against the theory is, perhaps inadvertantly, a political statement --- unless you take some degree of care in phrasing it.  Even if you do take some care, your statements are likely to be interpreted as political.  Witness the comments John Kim made on Chris Chinn's blog which were labelled 'anti-Forge' by John Harper and resulted in Chris banning John.  

I frankly don't think that a great deal of effort is required to avoid the political dimension for any given conversation (though the big picture is a whole 'nother story).  I just don't see many people willing to put it forth (and I have pretty much stopped trying, though sometimes I still do).  

Yeah, it sucks, but that's the way it is.

Quote from: TonyLBSo as long as Ron exists, you'll never see any theorist without thinking first about what their position toward Ron is.  Gotcha.

Ah well, I guess there's really no point in worrying about it then.  Ya just can't please all of the people all of the time.

Well, you can look at it that way.  You seem to want to make this more about Ron than I do.

I'm saying that I cerrtainly take into account how people view GNS theory and the statements of the person who created it.

I don't know Ron.  I've never met him (although, ironically, I might be one of the people on this forum geographically closest to him - might have even worked with him at the same University). This isn't about Ron.

It's about a group of people who have a certain viewpoint on gaming.  You seem to want to change that so that there can be a group of people who like to game a certain way, but don't have an ideological battle with the way other people game.  I think that's great!

I'm just trying to point out from where that ideological battle originates.  It's not with Ron, as a person, what he does when he's not gaming.  It's  with a theory that he created, his accompanying statements, and the uttering of the people who have flocked to them - and the view they have of other gamers.

And as I stated, you have to jettison the theory. If Ron is OK with you doing that publically, I hope you two have a long lasting friendship. I'm making a leap, fair for you to kinda point out, that if you do make a public declaration of eschewing the GNS theory as a whole - really calling it shit except for bits and pieces (like Lee pointed out), that Ron will not be so fun to be around.

I could be wrong.  I've been wrong before.  I will be again.

Quote from: Lee ShortI frankly don't think that a great deal of effort is required to avoid the political dimension for any given conversation

Sorta depends who's listening, doesn't it?  I mean, I've been told that I was being theory-Swine for some things that I would never have imagined had any such component to them.  I'm constantly amazed by how easily people can draw a connection if they're looking for one.