TheRPGSite

This thread, as opposed to this other thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2715) on my forum, is going to be specifically for discussion of my NEW law. I don't want it to turn into a discussion of the virtues or failings of the Monarda Law. If you want to do that, either go to the other thread, or make a new thread here. But in this thread, I want people to tell me their opinions of my law, the "Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law".

Here it is:

RPGPundit's Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law

If your players make requests, unless it is absolutely certain that it is allowed, always say no. You can make it a reserved "no", one that allows for the possibility that if the players' circumstances or approach changes they may be able to do what they're intending or get what they want. Or you can make it a loud boisterous "NO, fuckwit!", involving some kind of a pipe beating to immediately follow. But always say no unless its blatantly obvious that you must permit what they're desiring, either because the player has been crafty enough in his use of resources, or because the player has earned it through sheer balls.

I propose that players and gaming groups will actually be FAR less dysfunctional using the Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law, than they will with the Monarda Law. I've been running games for a very long time, and with a great deal of success. My OD&D players have repeatedly said that this was their favourite setting, that the game was the one game they would keep playing no matter the circumstances; my Traveller players say that this campaign is unlike any they have ever done before, my Port Blacksand players too have stated that they would choose that campaign over any other. So I feel pretty safe in saying my method works. And it has worked for decades now.

And my method is simple. Make the fuckers bleed.

Make them suffer.
Make them face impossible, life threatening odds. Make it clear that you're the one in charge of what they get or don't get, and generally don't give them anything.

Hell, by the time my last Amber campaign had reached its zenith, most of my players were at the point where their characters would have considered death a sweet embracing release.

And the players kept coming back, desperate for more, every week. As they do in all my campaigns.

Why? Because those are what great campaigns are made of. A campaign where your players get to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like will be a short lived and very troubled campaign.

And this strikes at the very heart of what's wrong with Swine-narrativism, of why it is so unbelievably inane. It proposes that each player is a protagonist. But every player can't be a protagonist. Yes, I know, you all want to play dark troubled ultrapowerful superbeings who are the only hope for a universe they may not want to save, but see, you can't ALL be the "only" hope.

Protagonism doesn't actually work in RPGs. At least not individual protagonism, at least not all at once. And narrativism tries to do exactly that. Which is why it's bullshit.

Trust me, make your PCs suffer. Make them suffer horribly. Then make them suffer some more. Make it seem like their every wish is being denied, then their every hope. But occasionally, when by the strength of their own will they pull a victory out of the jaws of defeat, give it to them. Sometimes with dark consequences, but give it.

For fuck's sake, don't let them all survive, either. Kill some of them, seemingly at random. The ones that do survive, and conquer, and go on to make things right again, and ultimately triumph, will be all the more satisfied. Because in that type of campaign their victories, their gains, mean something. Every time they run square into grim death and pluck out a fighting chance at life, it will mean something, because they'll fucking well know the DM brooked them no favours.

And that, Mz. Borgstrom and associated Narrativist Swine, is how you create protagonism.

---

So, opinions?

RPGPundit

The law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

How about this for a new law:

EITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

Quote from: WarthurHow about this for a new law:

EITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

Now that's enlightened legislation!  I agree.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

.

you must have missed the "reserved NO" part.

or as I like to call it: the "no.....unless" rule.

say no to the intial request if it isn't clear if it should happen, but give an "unless" condition so that it can happen under certain conditions.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

Um, I would classify it as "absolutely certain", and therefore allowed, that someone could swim a certain distance underwater while holding their breath.  That's just common sense.

Anyways, those aren't really the kinds of player's requests we're talking about here. It isn't so much "could my pc survive one round underwater?" as much as it is "shouldn't my knowledge (policeman) skill allow me to spend five minutes underwater without going up for air??" or "couldn't it be that I'm secretly the half-atlantean child of an undersea king, and can thus breathe underwater?".

RPGPundit

An Aside RE: Rebecca Borgstrom...

I think it's her game, and whatever she wants to be one the rules to her game -- awesome.  If people like it, and enjoy playing it -- also cool.  Even if only GrimGent enjoys her game -- that's okay too.  It's a good thing that she made something that's being enjoyed by others.

Does it sound like a game I'd enjoy?  No.  Do I think Nobilis is a model I'd want to emulate for either artistic or business reasons?  No.

Is she a Moron for making the game she wanted, getting it published, and having a fan base?  Not at all.  I haven't seen *anything* to suggest she's a Moron.

Do I think some of the people picking up the concept of "Always say yes" from her game -- regardless of how it works in Nobilis, how it was written, what her intention was -- and then apply that to *all* RPGs are morons?  Well... I might say they're not on the right track.

If they became increasingly vocal in their evangelizing of this Law (possibly misunderstood) and spammed up discussion of game design trying to apply it to every other RPG -- then would they be a Moron?  No necessarily... but they would be acting like one. :D

I guess I don't have any grudge against Ms. Borgstrom, so the title is a bit more mean spirited than I think is warranted.  Just my 2 cents. ;)

Quote from: James McMurrayA better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

...Which is essentially how the Monarda Law works out in any case: the players should always have the freedom to try anything, but unless what they attempt lies within the actual abilities of their characters, it's just not going to happen. If you absolutely insist, you can jump off the rooftop, flapping your arms wildly; but unless you already have the power of flight, that's only going to end up with a long fall and your remains splattered all over the pavement.

"No, unless you have a death wish."

Quote from: StuartIs she a Moron for making the game she wanted, getting it published, and having a fan base?  Not at all.  I haven't seen *anything* to suggest she's a Moron.

Aside from her writing a terrible game AND writing it terribly poorly, I chose the title of my law mainly due to the stupidity of both the content AND title of her "monarda law".

RPGPundit

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."

Quote from: GrimGent...Which is essentially how the Monarda Law works out in any case: the players should always have the freedom to try anything, but unless what they attempt lies within the actual abilities of their characters, it's just not going to happen. If you absolutely insist, you can jump off the rooftop, flapping your arms wildly; but unless you already have the power of flight, that's only going to end up with a long fall and your remains splattered all over the pavement.

"No, unless you have a death wish."

Grimgent; your sexual fantasies about Borgstrom aside, I explicitly stated that this is not the thread to talk about the so-called "monarda law". Please don't derail this thread. If you want to talk about MY law, do it here. If you want to talk about the monarda law, go do it somewhere else.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JongWK"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."

You're claiming there's no practical difference between the two laws. But there is, a very big difference. The difference is in the results.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt isn't so much "could my pc survive one round underwater?" as much as it is "shouldn't my knowledge (policeman) skill allow me to spend five minutes underwater without going up for air??" or "couldn't it be that I'm secretly the half-atlantean child of an undersea king, and can thus breathe underwater?".

That wouldn't work in Nobilis either, you know.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, opinions?

It's really not the way I like to play games.  I don't doubt that you've gotten good results, but I tell you straight up that you would not get those good results if I were playing with you.

So, as a personal style?  Sure, go for it.  As a universal law?  No.  It's idiocy.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease don't derail this thread. If you want to talk about MY law, do it here. If you want to talk about the monarda law, go do it somewhere else.

Oh, fine: have fun with it. I'll just point out that despite your bizarre convictions to the contrary, the players "getting to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like" has nothing to do with Monarda, and your entire law is therefore based on a misconception without any textual support at all.

Quote from: RPGPunditUm, I would classify it as "absolutely certain", and therefore allowed, that someone could swim a certain distance underwater while holding their breath.  That's just common sense.

What distance? At what point do you go from "yes, that absolutely works" to "no, you can't even try"? Unless your law can answer that question it's worth less than the paper it isn't printed on.

A law for "no, you're not an Atlantean" is likewise worthless, primarily because it's unnecessary, and also because sometimes finding out you're half-atlantean (eith all the troubles that brings) might be worth more entertainment value than a drowning. It's only real value outside of the strictest settings (where it already exists) is as a parody for a rule you apparently don't understand, and hence it's just another silly little prop for you to rest your ego on.

I think there's far better targets for scorn in Nobilis than the Monarda law. Like calling the GM the Hollyhock God. I'll need to go back and check some of my old rulebooks, but I'm fairly sure "Say yes or roll the dice!" has been knocking around long before any of us even heard of the Forge or Nobilis.

I usually play with the "chance die" which I was using long before WoD came up with it's own chance die.
 
I give players a chance to change or add to their environment. The threshold is determined by probability and entertainment value. Something that is probable but not entertaining usually gets a threshold of 2 or 3. Something probable and entertaining gets a four or five. Something not likely but entertaining probably has a chance of 1 (all odds are out of ten).
 
Something ridiculous and not entertaining, does not get a role.
 
This works very well given I don't usually lay out scenes in their entirety. Just enough information to evoke the setting they're in. Like..
 
Me: You're in a plush hallway, the color of crushed roses, the hallway is lined with paintings and gas lamps.
 
*combat breaks out*
 
Player: Is there one of those hallway tables with knickknacks?
 
Me: High or Low?
 
Player: Ummm...low.
 
*Mase rolls a 3*
 
Me: sure, to your right underneath a painting is a hallway table with a teal vase, it looks expensive.
 
Player: Ok I tip it over and use it as cover...
 
This gives them a little bit of say over how the story folds out, so even I don't know what's going to happen.

Poor writer? Yes.

One of the worst game designers ever published? Definitely.

Stupid? Remains to be seen.

I run things like that entirely by personal whim.  Probably not a good idea, but I'm too lazy to come up with something consistent.

EDIT:  Never read a Borgstrom game or supplement.  She wasn't tapped to write anything for Exalted 2, whatever that means.  Her short fiction is no worse than that of any mid-90s internet fanfic celeb, whatever that means.

Allow me to attempt interpretation:

Monarda Law:
"Your players will rock.  They do rock.  Exult in what they throw out there, be enthusiastic for them, and they will push to new heights of play for you."

Moron Law:
"Players need to be pushed to new heights.  Drive them.  Not by being happy and shiny about their first ideas, but by looking them square in the eye and challenging them to do better."

Hmm?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHmm?

Sounds good to me.

Playing with anyone but close friends (99.9% of the gamers out there) I'd go with the Moron law every single time.

I need laws for gaming now? What did I do wrong? I swear, the rules said they were over 30!

Monarda Law:  Great for Storytelling Games. Bad for Roleplaying Games. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2744)

I like my new law:

The Miranda Law
Whenever a player asks a question about the game, or wishes their character to take an action, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the game. You have the right to check the rule book, and to have the rule book present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a rule book, one will be provided for you by another more enthusiastic player at the table.

Quote from: GrimGentOh, fine: have fun with it. I'll just point out that despite your bizarre convictions to the contrary, the players "getting to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like" has nothing to do with Monarda, and your entire law is therefore based on a misconception without any textual support at all.

I nfairness to Pundit (there's some words I never thought I'd say), his misinterpretation may not be supported by the text, but it's a misinterpretation shared by gazillions of retard followers all over RPGnet who really do think that "Always say yes" means "I can do/be/say whatever the fuck I want and the GM has to bend over and take it".

In fact, I would go so far as to say the entire Exalted fanclub on RPGnet is based around this sort of pointless wankery.

Personally, to me, it's about basic risk vs. reward.  

If the reward is far greater than the risk needed to acquire it, the players will get bored after a time when they realize they don't really have to work for anything, the GM will just give them everything.

Whereas if the risk is far greater than the reward, the players will wuss out or get frustrated.  But I do think that Pundit sort of hits on something here, in that when it takes lots of work to get that carrot, some players will just keep going and refuse to giveup until they get it.

MMOs make all their money from players like that.  ;)

Quote from: J ArcaneWhereas if the risk is far greater than the reward, the players will wuss out or get frustrated.  But I do think that Pundit sort of hits on something here, in that when it takes lots of work to get that carrot, some players will just keep going and refuse to giveup until they get it.

MMOs make all their money from players like that.  ;)

Shoot, what's a classic D&D game but an endless series of raids? :)

The part that Pundit has right is that parties only become heroic when facing heroic obstacles. You have to be willing to push them or they'll never really realize that the goal requires struggling for, sacrificing for, whatever the goal is. The first part of the law comes off as classic Pundit contrariness. Some may have taken Monarda Law and try to pass it off as absurd player self-entitlement in other games, but in other cases, like the more than adequate 'say yes or roll 'em' from Burining Wheel it was realized as the seed of useful piece of GM advice.

Can't help myself: LFG Keep on the Borderlands (KotB)! 1 MU, 1Clc, 1Dwf needed!

Look at this way: You have Amber, and you have Nobilis. Both have in common that they are diceless, and deal with beings with godlike powers.

The "advice" that Wujcik gives is the polar opposite of the Law Borgstrom insists upon.  Thus, in Amber you have godlike-power beings who are constantly struggling, suffering, encountering challenges, and going through the wringer to end up heroes.

In Nobilis you have godlike-beings who are spoilt brats given anything they want, placing demands on the GM (sorry, the "hollyhock god"), and generally not facing any difficulties other than the ones the players consent to, and only "growing" in the most artificial way.

One is a recipe to create protagonists, the other a simulation of protagonism.
Its like the difference between going through hell and back to win the prize, and the "everyone is special, everyone wins a prize!" school of education (ie. treating the players like fragile little children who would crack under pressure).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts like the difference between going through hell and back to win the prize, and the "everyone is special, everyone wins a prize!" school of education (ie. treating the players like fragile little children who would crack under pressure).

:D

The grade school castings:

Rebecca Borgstrom is the soppy third grade teacher that claps at every little accomplishment and puts up with all kinds of stupid shit because she wants to focus on the positive.

RPGPundit is the parent who runs the baseball team and curses and swears at the kiddies, because he wants them to know what really winning feels like.

And most parents are trying to find the right balance somewhere in between.

The law is so riddled with exceptions as to be just as useless as a general application of "Say Yes or Roll the Dice [except when you should say no, which you'll never have to do because we assume a priori that the group's "social contract" will prevent abuse]".

Quote from: RPGPunditIn Nobilis you have godlike-beings who are spoilt brats given anything they want, placing demands on the GM (sorry, the "hollyhock god"), and generally not facing any difficulties other than the ones the players consent to, and only "growing" in the most artificial way.

Are you reading a different "Law?" The quote given says nothing about giving the players everything they desire and no difficulties, in fact, it says you should attach difficulties whenever you think of them.

C'mon man! At least try! You're better than this.

And you still haven't answered the question.

Quote from: James McMurrayC'mon man! At least try! You're better than this.

Do I enjoy irony?

Why yes.  Yes, I do.

It's been my pleasure to bring a smile to your day. ;)

What fucking question are you on about?

RPGPundit

Well the word Moron definitely has a place in this law. Somehow I think the hostile tone of it will translate really well amongst fucktard GMs. This law has no place in the traditional GM/player role as I understand (define) it. It fosters unnecessary hostility among players and GMs and makes it seem that the players have to win and that the GM is their adversary.

This is exactly the reason why some players have so much problems with their GMs. I'm firmly in the trad school of GMing myself. My style has mutated over the years. I'm pretty sure every person I have GMed for has had fun. And yes, I do think that a GM (IMO) has a lot of power/influence but this so called law is a poor elaboration of it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: J ArcaneI nfairness to Pundit (there's some words I never thought I'd say), his misinterpretation may not be supported by the text, but it's a misinterpretation shared by gazillions of retard followers all over RPGnet who really do think that "Always say yes" means "I can do/be/say whatever the fuck I want and the GM has to bend over and take it".

House rules. Sure. But those cannot be blamed on Borgstrom or Nobilis, and I frankly resent the exaggerations of some overzealous reformer being treated as part of the game as written even when the actual rules in the book contradict them. Mostly I resent that because it's getting awfully tiresome to explain the same things over and over again whenever someone insists that Nob is an "experimental Forge indie game which allows the players to dictate the narrative directly", or some such thing. Far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun, but that does make me grouchy.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, opinions?

My opinion?  I think you're either inordinately hung up on a gross misunderstanding of a game that you've apparently never read nor played, or you're grossly mis-stating features of a game that you've apparently never read nor played as an excuse to simultaneously complain about someone else's writing style and to glorify your own GM style.  Either way, the seeming fact that you've apparently never read nor played Nobilis suggests that you're not qualified to complain about how the game plays.  You could very easily start a thread to complain about her writing style (assuming you've read some of her work elsewhere) or to glorify your own GM style, in either case leaving any unqualified commentary about Nobilis out of the issue.

That's my opinion.

Oh, did you want me to comment on your opinion of R. Sean Borgstrom's writing style or your GM style?  I'm sorry, you should have actually said so.

!i!

Quote from: GrimGent"experimental Forge indie game which allows the players to dictate the narrative directly"

No, that's Polaris.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaMy opinion?  I think you're either inordinately hung up on a gross misunderstanding of a game that you've apparently never read nor played, or you're grossly mis-stating features of a game that you've apparently never read nor played as an excuse to simultaneously complain about someone else's writing style and to glorify your own GM style.  Either way, the seeming fact that you've apparently never read nor played Nobilis suggests that you're not qualified to complain about how the game plays.  You could very easily start a thread to complain about her writing style (assuming you've read some of her work elsewhere) or to glorify your own GM style, in either case leaving any unqualified commentary about Nobilis out of the issue.

That's my opinion.

Oh, did you want me to comment on your opinion of R. Sean Borgstrom's writing style or your GM style?  I'm sorry, you should have actually said so.

!i!

You're an idiot, and I have read Nobilis, or at least as much of it as I could manage before being overwhelmed by the Borgstromosity of it.

Let's face it, just admit it guys, you were duped. You were duped by what was fashionable. Because you were told that this game was "in" and that she was "brilliant", and so you lied to yourselves to convince yourselves that it was so, so that you could be one of the "in" crowd.

In fact, the game is a horrendously badly written piece of garbage with rules that are so unplayable you have to constantly redefine them from their literal meaning in order to even justify them, much less play them.

I know you feel like idiots now, but continuing with the self-delusion is going to only make it worse in the long run. Anyways, you'll look especially stupid when Borgstrom stops being part of what's "fashionable", something that is already rapidly coming to pass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNo, that's Polaris.

Well, certainly. But some folks seem to operate under the assumption that it's also a fitting description of Nob, for reasons I cannot really fathom.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn fact, the game is a horrendously badly written piece of garbage with rules that are so unplayable you have to constantly redefine them from their literal meaning in order to even justify them, much less play them.

Remember when you asked...

QuoteWhat fucking question are you on about?

Three times so far I've inquired after an example of a situation which you couldn't imagine resolved through the rules as written. Instead of coming up with that, you have kept repeating the same line about general unplayability, without even attempting to prove it in any way. That... doesn't exactly support your position. Surely if the game cannot be played at all, any situation would be enough?

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're an idiot, and I have read Nobilis, or at least as much of it as I could manage before being overwhelmed by the Borgstromosity of it.

He said misunderstanding.  You are confusing reading with understanding, you might have read parts but you clearly aren't understanding. So he was giving you the [EDIT:very charitable] benefit of the doubt that if you read you would have understood. All that of course was covered, extensively, the first time this was brought up somewhere around when this board was started. Of course you also proved incapable, perhaps through sheer desire alone, of grasping the concept then. So I guess this where the board's endless loop is? Where you'll demonstrate the same pigheaded empty mouth blarring mouth, leaden unhearing ears. How ironic that you toss out the insults "idiot" and "moron" in glorious display the pot calling the kettle a pot. :rolleyes: :pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditI know you feel like idiots now, but continuing with the self-delusion is going to only make it worse in the long run.

Y'know, Pundit, sometimes people have opinions which differ from yours for reasons other than self-delusion.

The simple fact is that a lot of people on these boards are (at least to my eyes) way smarter than you.  You've gathered a smart, savvy group of posters.  You really ought to listen to them.  They could teach you things.

Quote from: blakkieHe said misunderstanding.  

To be fair, Noblis is one of the most miserable fucking reads I've ever had, beyond... or at least on par with that one 'short story' from the seventies that gets contest readings... what was it again? The Eye of Argon or somesuch???


At least the Eye is vaguely entertaining in it's incoherency.

Quote from: SpikeTo be fair, Noblis is one of the most miserable fucking reads I've ever had, beyond... or at least on par with that one 'short story' from the seventies that gets contest readings... what was it again? The Eye of Argon or somesuch???

True, Noblis isn't particularly accessible. So just that alone would make it somewhat understandable.....if only the same basic premise wasn't also elsewhere, specifically DitV and where DitV is directly quoted in BW, and those having also been covered in the previous incarnation of this thead. :(

P.S. I am curious though where RPGPundit did his Nobilis reading? I was under the impression that there wasn't really the equivalent of RPG shops down there that he could have loitered in and read Nobilis on the cheap. Jong, is there anything you'd like to say at this point? Or do they have the equivalent of pleading the 5th down there in Uraguay? ;)

QuoteWhat fucking question are you on about?

QuoteIn fact, the game is a horrendously badly written piece of garbage with rules that are so unplayable you have to constantly redefine them from their literal meaning in order to even justify them, much less play them.

Does that jog your memory? No, I didn't think it would, given that the question was asked (several times) but it wasn't in your voice so you didn't hear it.

The question, raised every time you carry on about the game you didn't even read being unplayable, is "what exactly have you found unplayable?" GrimGent asked it several times and you ignored it several times. I also reiterated it, since it seems to me that if you want to bitch and moan about something, you should bitch and moan about it in concrete terms.

QuoteI know you feel like idiots now, but continuing with the self-delusion is going to only make it worse in the long run.

I'm starting to wonder if Borgstrom is your kryptonite, because that was pretty weak.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're an idiot, and I have read Nobilis, or at least as much of it as I could manage before being overwhelmed by the Borgstromosity of it.

Your ignorance and hypocrisy shame us both.  Either you are purposefully dense or honestly dense -- I can't tell nor can be bothered to tell, and it's no credit to you either way.

As best I can suss out your complaint, some big, bad fan-boy once suggested over the Internet that his favorite game could handle your favorite setting better than your favorite game and you suffered an aneurism that left you with only your "lizard brain" in tact.  Unable to exact revenge upon the person who actually made the damaging remark, you've fixated instead on the author of the game the big, bad fan-boy promoted over your favorite game:  R. Sean Borgstrom.  Ever since then, any time anyone so much as mentions "Nobilis", you drop to all fours, begin flicking your tongue, and spread your wattle in an aggression display.

Admit it, man.  Someone dickweed suggested that, under the shared umbrella of Guardians of Order, a new Amber game be published using the Nobilis mechanics.  In a show of reptilian territorialism, you popped a gasket and decided that, rather than discredit a lame idea, you needed to attempt to discredit a game that you neither enjoy nor understand.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  It was never a good idea, it didn't happen, and it won't infringe on your psyche anymore.  Now wipe your nose and get over it.

!i!

Don't forget "dribbling f-bombs like a retard with Tourette's syndrome," although it doesn't take something as dastardly as that evil Borgstrom woman to cause that.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're an idiot, and I have read Nobilis, or at least as much of it as I could manage before being overwhelmed by the Borgstromosity of it.

Let's face it, just admit it guys, you were duped. You were duped by what was fashionable. Because you were told that this game was "in" and that she was "brilliant", and so you lied to yourselves to convince yourselves that it was so, so that you could be one of the "in" crowd.

In fact, the game is a horrendously badly written piece of garbage with rules that are so unplayable you have to constantly redefine them from their literal meaning in order to even justify them, much less play them.

I know you feel like idiots now, but continuing with the self-delusion is going to only make it worse in the long run. Anyways, you'll look especially stupid when Borgstrom stops being part of what's "fashionable", something that is already rapidly coming to pass.

RPGPundit

Sometimes you remind me of my niece when she was a kid and would get totally worked up about some manner of inanity that has absolutely no consequence outside of her mind and she's run about, stomping her feet, hectoring anyone patient and kind enough to listen to the resulting, seemingly endless diatribe.

There are days that you're so cute that I wish you still lived somewhere in North America.  

She had a little bunny suit that she wore one Halloween.  That's why I wished you were still within reasonable travelling distance.  Because I would so buy you a bunny suit and listen to any and all of your little railings against the cruel injustices of the universe.  Just as long as you wore the floppy bunny suit like so:


(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q115/pebbles_and_marbles/BunnyPundy.jpg)

QuoteY'know, Pundit, sometimes people have opinions which differ from yours for reasons other than self-delusion.

Very seldomly. Most of the times it´s the aesthetics of the Punditry.

Quote from: GrimGentRemember when you asked...Three times so far I've inquired after an example of a situation which you couldn't imagine resolved through the rules as written. Instead of coming up with that, you have kept repeating the same line about general unplayability, without even attempting to prove it in any way. That... doesn't exactly support your position. Surely if the game cannot be played at all, any situation would be enough?

See my answer over in the other thread on this topic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieTrue, Noblis isn't particularly accessible. So just that alone would make it somewhat understandable.....if only the same basic premise wasn't also elsewhere, specifically DitV and where DitV is directly quoted in BW, and those having also been covered in the previous incarnation of this thead. :(

P.S. I am curious though where RPGPundit did his Nobilis reading? I was under the impression that there wasn't really the equivalent of RPG shops down there that he could have loitered in and read Nobilis on the cheap. Jong, is there anything you'd like to say at this point? Or do they have the equivalent of pleading the 5th down there in Uraguay? ;)

Nobilis came out before I moved to Uruguay.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYour ignorance and hypocrisy shame us both.  Either you are purposefully dense or honestly dense -- I can't tell nor can be bothered to tell, and it's no credit to you either way.

As best I can suss out your complaint, some big, bad fan-boy once suggested over the Internet that his favorite game could handle your favorite setting better than your favorite game.... [snip]

Actually, RPGPundit laid out his harrowing and sad Origin Story in another thread where he tried valiently to explain there's a "war" (!) going on in the hobby of RPGs.

He wrote...

Quote from: RPGPunditThe same way Story-based gaming purged away thousands of traditional gamers in the end of the nineties; by creating an environment where the only books being offered are not just non-traditional books but are downright derogatory toward mainstream RPG play. By making it so that mainstream gamers are told they are not wanted if they are not willing to follow the "in-crowd" and bow at the feet of story-based gaming, and sent that message over and over again through products that specifically make a mockery of all they enjoy, until those gamers leave the hobby.

Look into that quote and see the sad story of a little boy lost and betrayed when no one wanted to play his game. But was he defeated? No! He saw the mockery made of his taste as a battle clarion and picked up the guantlet!

****

As far as I can tell, after looking over many posts and threads, RPGPundit was the outsider for a while, back in the day where WW got hot. I'm mean, seriously, look at that quote above. He tries to frame it as some sort of bizarre epic conflict. But really what it amounts to is, "I didn't have any friends to play with."

Notice how so many of his attacks boil down to, "You think you're being cool! But you're NOT! You're NOT!"

He's a sad man, scarred at some point in social activities. And rather growing up and moving on -- like healthy adults  -- he's been nursing that wound. Stuck still in some sort of strange adolecent phase, his arguments boil down in the end to calling people "cunt" and "fucker." He might as well be smearing his posts with shit out of a diaper for all the thought and intelletcual weight they contain.

There is no content in the rhetoric besides this: "I was alone once, and I'll keep screaming so that it never happens again."

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThere is no content in the rhetoric besides this: "I was alone once, and I'll keep screaming so that it never happens again."

Christopher

If you say so. I need look no further than RPG.Net to confirm the reality of what he describes.

There have been an inordinate number of swine showing up lately to try to slag me/defend Nobilis.

I must really be onto something...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThere have been an inordinate number of swine showing up lately to try to slag me/defend Nobilis.

I must really be onto something...

Nah, folks just have this impression that, having caught you in an obvious and gross exagerration, they can score some points off you with it.

Personally, I figured it'd just be easier to go for a few cheap laughs, this time out.

Quote from: RPGPunditI must really be onto something...

Yes, of course Pundit.  The fact that many people think you are wrong on this is unquestionable proof that you are, in fact, right.  There is no other possible explanation. :D

QuoteThere is no content in the rhetoric besides this: "I was alone once, and I'll keep screaming so that it never happens again."

That´s what you try to make the truth go away?
If he was as irrelevant and puny as you say, any adult person wouldn´t even speak aout him.

The reverse is true.

Let me tell you a little story about myself:
I´m a dedicated Adventure gamer, be they Boardgames, Wargames, Computer games or Roleplaying. I have and have had a weekly or two bi-weekly games since I started at age 11 (except fo military service time). I nearly always had fun and was and are a very successful GM, in regards to player feedback and players wanting more. I´ve never ever had problems getting players or having fun with RPGs.
I was rummaging the internets only for some ideas, and I never contributed anything in forae, up until 2005. But I left my CotI, JTAS and TML and went into RPG.Net to find out what possibilities there are for Fantasy Gaming, as I typecasted myself as SF-GM and wanted to change that. That´s when I started reading recent threads on RPG.Net, as well as entering debate in the German forae landscape about a game of Cthulhu I was a player in.
More and more I came across total shitheads and idiots, who were wanking to some stupid games they don´t actually play in any meaningful way. Add to that a universe of lazy procrastinating GMs, who were posting more than prepping, and a conspicious consumption culture. I was totally disgusted by RPG Internet Culture: Groupthink, conspicious consumption, passive aggression against my gamestyle, bitter non-gamers.

I was taking a deep breath, reflecting on what in hell happened to the gaming scene, how could people outside the Phaeacia of Traveller-fandom be so utter bulldrekkers?. Thusly, I sought out industry history articles.  
In late 2005 I stumbled through an EnWorld link unto the lair of the Pundit. And what a revelation! North American Gamers aren´t puritanoid nongamers! No, there are regular, cool people, with a sense of proportion. But they are are marginalized, and after entering the internet discourse, I was laughed, mocked and marginalized too. That´s when a regular person just walks away. But the example of the Pundit gave me hope. Maybe regular joe happy gamer (guys and gals like me and my friends & family)  could enjoy the internet too. But first we had to take it back. First, the totally fucked-up internet discourse has to be destroyed like the gordian knot.
For everybody entering from the outside, like me last year, the reality of the swine is obvious.
And the need for fighting them is obvious too.

So after all this, I totally assume, and am quite sure that our RPGPundit is a succesful and intensive RPG enthusiast. Because I am one, and why should I think different about someone who posts more about his own games, than there are actual play threads at the forge?

Honestly, I think the Pundit is wrong about several things. But the things that matter, the reign of the swine in internet discourse, that´s were is is so right it is hurting sometimes. And that´s why he is a great man, in this  very small sense in that  he stands up against  stupidity. You must understand: The fight against the swine is not a fight against "the man". It´s the fight against self-deluded intellectuanistas, who poison the debate with sophistry and false wisdom. It´s a fight against the second tier who brainwashes the third tier of brain power. People like me, with real games  and some real education and brains usually take a short look at the  gaming-internet and discard it. Not so the Pundit! And this is meritous, as he also is a real academic, an intellectual if you will.

See where this has a parallel to Ron Edwards? He also is a real scientist, with real education and real brains. But his methods are different, although he was and is as much disgusted at the stupidity and cliqueness of internet debate. The way Ron chose was the way of trying to change the games. He thinks the games are broken, because the people who talk about them are broken (brain damage). So the games must change.
Pundit says the people must change, and the games should be like they used to be before those swine showed up. Not all, just the internet shitheads. And honestly, Pundit´s  assumption is the one  I have too.  
Because it´s more humane to fight a few idiots, than to  declare a whole hobby to be broken.

(I know very well that Ron always says: If you have fun, keep doing it. But it is very clear, that Ron sees frustration and bad gaming more often than successful regular joe games.)

Quote from: RPGPunditThere have been an inordinate number of swine showing up lately to try to slag me/defend Nobilis.

I must really be onto something...

RPGPundit

A few of people only, Pundit. Abstain from the Kurtz blend for the time being.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniBut they are are marginalized, and after entering the internet discourse, I was laughed, mocked and marginalized too.

In any large internet forum or site-with-comments, everyone feels marginalised a significant chunk of the time.

It has nothing to do with you.

Levi,
 
I can live with being personally marginalized. I shrug and walk off. But too many sane people have done so, the counter-weight is sorely needed. Swinery is alive and kicking, on the internet.
And I´m not going to shrug and walk off. Too many people have done so. In germany it´s extreme: very few bright people care for US-Sites, even if they speak and understand english good enough. Thusly, they exclude themselves/are excluded from reflection upon the hobby and from developments. I fear many US-Gamers do likewise, even those who would otherwise be interested in discourse. Just think about the Dragon´s Landing audience! So many voicemails from listeners, who would totally benefit from general internet gaming debate. The are already on the internet, mind you. They aren´t phantom gamers.
More dangerous though, is the poisoning of internet debate: the Swine have destroyed any feeling of cameraderie that used to surround gaming. Bitterness and passive-agressive behaviour rules supreme.
That´s why sane people should take up the flag against sophistry, false wisdom, lawncrappers and the like. That´s why the Pundits crusade is worthwhile and needed. That´s why the Vision of theRPGsite is a good one. But truth to be told, the established forae have such a large drawing power (reviews! jargon! eShops!), that theRPGsite will have a hard time being more than a small island of sanity in this ocean of pretentious stupidity. Ron Edwards "forged" himself an island of reasoned and regulated debate to his liking, but the swine overtook the theory section. It was closed down.
Regular Joes, Adventure Gamers (like I used to be) are still without a home.
Only the crusader Settembrini has found a place to rest, but regular joe gamers will most likely not find theRPGsite. Therefore the battle is on.
And it´s a matter of intellectual hygiene to not give in to the masses of false arguments, pretentious product picks as well as general hostility to regular gaming. It´s even more a matter of hygiene to smash the arguments of those false prophets whereever you see them.

Quote from: SettembriniMore dangerous though, is the poisoning of internet debate: the Swine have destroyed any feeling of cameraderie that used to surround gaming. Bitterness and passive-agressive behaviour rules supreme.
That´s why sane people should take up the flag against sophistry, false wisdom, lawncrappers and the like. That´s why the Pundits crusade is worthwhile and needed.

I can find some agreement with that position. I certainly don't think, by any stretch of the imagination or will, that Pundit should be waving the rally flag for that crusade.

QuoteAnd it´s a matter of intellectual hygiene to not give in to the masses of false arguments, pretentious product picks as well as general hostility to regular gaming. It´s even more a matter of hygiene to smash the arguments of those false prophets whereever you see them.

Preferably without using their weapons. False arguments, knee-jerk product choices and intense vitriolic hostility to non-Viking-Hat GMing aren't any better for 'Adventure Gaming' than they are for anything else.

I agree that a place for reasonable discourse that isn't rpg.net or the Forge - each for their own reasons - is something 'Adventure Gaming' could use on the internet. However, I think Pundit is more of a roadblock to that goal, excepting that he's got control of this site, than he is any kind of help whatsoever. YMMV.

Re OP: I find the Moron Law quite adversarial in its writing. Though I agree with you that challenging players and making them earn their triumph the hard way is always a good thing, the text reeks to me of GM vs player attitude. As some other posters have said, as a personal style it can work, no doubt, but I wouldn't use it as a general law (note that the Monarda Law is not intended as a universal law).

Re Pundit mischaracterization of Nobilis (and every game /style / person he hates): I firmly believe that the Pundit has indeed read Nobilis. I also firmly believe that he makes a distorted interpretation of the text that suits his personal vendetta, this vendetta being born of a bad personal experience that in no way reflects the general experience of everyone.

I think that, in many times, the Pundit fails to back his vitriol with some actual play examples. Or examples of any kind. That usually happens when he talks about games he hate viscerally, so you're not going to get any rational answer from him. It's fun to read (at least for me), but not very useful.

Re Settembrini's defence of the Pundit: I find your experience quite interesting, though it differs greatly from mine. But I would dispute with you that the RPGPundit stands against the stupidity on Internet: you don't fight stupidity with stupidity (as we find when he gets all crazed). Though I will agree with the idea that some indie fans are a bunch of pretentious idiots, the same could be said of the fans of any style of gaming. And frankly, when the Pundit starts gloating about REAL roleplayers, how ADRPG makes you grow a huge dick, and similar things, it doesn't get any more pretentious and elitist.

QuoteHowever, I think Pundit is more of a roadblock to that goal, excepting that he's got control of this site, than he is any kind of help whatsoever. YMMV.

This might well be.
My main point was that the war is real.
Pundit is right with that one.
 
Maybe Pundit´s methods are not the solution. See, I have used other methods at other instances for the exact same reasoning. But, and that´s a big but, there are enough people who don´t even see the need for change or counter-balance. And that´s were the Pundit comes in.
 
Would Steven Colbert be a good president?
No, but that´s not his job.
 
Is Pundit a good crusader?
No. (Although he truly publicly humiliated Nickchick. A lurking indie game designer, who shall remain unnamed, is still shaking his head about the performance she presented in that Nutkinland thread about the origins of True20)
 
But he´s one hell of a Jesuit-Orator when it cames to inflammatory (in the best sense) speaches. It´s us who have to do the fighting, even when it means settling in the enemy land and adopting some of their culture to thrive.
 
If we take the easy path, the path of shrugging and walking, their poison will spread and fester. Look at Ken Hite! He lost all his coolness and adventureos MoJo due to all the internet craptasm.
 
The only sane gamers left alive on the internet seem to be jrients and Dr.Rotwang! and Zachary. The storms of pretentiousness moves around them, and they keep their hats on.
 
Sad times, indeed.

QuoteAnd frankly, when the Pundit starts gloating about REAL roleplayers, how ADRPG makes you grow a huge dick, and similar things, it doesn't get any more pretentious and elitist.

He who wrestles with the Swine is bound to get dirty.

Quote from: SettembriniHe who wrestles with the Swine is bound to get dirty.

Dude, you can do far better than this. And I don't share your pesimistic assessment of the situation of Internet debate.

I find Dr. Rotwang!'s rebirth into balls-out adventure style gaming to be the Mahdi's footprints in the sand, and I must follow him into the deep desert to learn his ways. It's fortunate you can see that tie from space, in that regard. :D He is leading my brain into the light out of the darkness, so to speak; I'm just filling up my pockets with shadows so my future light shows are a little more interesting, to over-stretch my metaphor.

And I don't see the death of the hobby following from "This debate is bullshit; where's my laser blaster and grav pack, I'm gonna shoot some GFS?"; isn't that, not to put too fine a point on it, the fucking hobby itself? Not talking about campaign settings, not arguing over whether dice or cards are a better randomizer, and most certainly not leaping around jabbering like a baboon in a moist heavy diaper; giving a big shrug to all this pointless jiggery-pokery and having some fun in an interesting setting with dice and snacks and friends. I mean, we got this done before there WAS an internet, didn't we?

But as for why I'd get involved in this whole thread, why I don't think Pundit is in any way good for the hobby? Because he sets himself up as a gaming authority, based on his 0 published works and his next-to-0 name recognition, and fucking lies to your face, assuming he's not just too stupid to comprehend words that he reads. The best case scenario is that he's our Dan Quayle; the worst case, the one exposed in this thread and any other time he talks about a game he doesn't like, he's our Cheney, our Reverend Robinson, our Santorum. He is, simply put, poisonous to any reasonable gaming movement that doesn't feel the need to crush all other styles under its collective boot. I don't know who we need, but it sure as shit ain't him.

Pity no-one sane gives a shit about all this.

Quote from: RPGPunditSee my answer over in the other thread on this topic.

Hum. You do realize that those are little different from the spurious example of "Can I find a hydrogen bomb in this medieval dungeon?" The group should already at that point know that Nobilis doesn't encourage the GM to hand out "+25 swords of dragonslaying" to the PCs whenever they wish. Instead, it advices against trying to stop them if they want find out whether there are such weapons, and if so, where. One possible response might be: "Swords of Dragonslaying, eh? Such blades have in fact been crafted by the blacksmiths of Jotunheim many worlds away, to be used against the wyrm Nithog, but it's rare to see those elsewhere. You could visit the giants when there's more time."

Quote from: SettembriniBut he´s one hell of a Jesuit-Orator when it cames to inflammatory (in the best sense) speaches. It´s us who have to do the fighting, even when it means settling in the enemy land and adopting some of their culture to thrive.

You know, I actually prefer the Pundit when he isn't making with the shouting and swearing. Not because I am a fragile flower who wilts when someone says "fuck", but because few rhetorical techniques are more tired than Trying Too Hard and Thinking You're Hunter S. Thompson, two ploys which unfortunately go together a little too frequently.

Also, he slips too often into the trap of declaring other types of gaming to be bad and wrong, which, er, is the major crime of Ron Edwards and the Swine. I'm not sure how sincere he is on that point, but the Pundit is frankly being an arsehole when he does it, just as Ron Edwards and the Swine are arseholes when they decry the Pundit's playing style.

Bottom line: if you're going to claim your playing style is the best, you'd better have an excellent argument to back that up. The Swine don't have that, Ron Edwards doesn't, and nor does the Pundit.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, of course Pundit.  The fact that many people think you are wrong on this is unquestionable proof that you are, in fact, right.  There is no other possible explanation. :D

The fact that certain specific people, like you, are squealing loudly about this, is unquestionable proof that I'm not only right but getting you all where it hurts.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact that certain specific people, like you, are squealing loudly about this, is unquestionable proof that I'm not only right but getting you all where it hurts.

RPGPundit

Following your faulty logic, that guy that made a parody portraiting you as a racist homophobe should have been right, shouldn't he? After all, you were squealing loudly about it, so that's an unquestionable proof of some kind.

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut as for why I'd get involved in this whole thread, why I don't think Pundit is in any way good for the hobby? Because he sets himself up as a gaming authority, based on his 0 published works and his next-to-0 name recognition, and fucking lies to your face, assuming he's not just too stupid to comprehend words that he reads. The best case scenario is that he's our Dan Quayle; the worst case, the one exposed in this thread and any other time he talks about a game he doesn't like, he's our Cheney, our Reverend Robinson, our Santorum. He is, simply put, poisonous to any reasonable gaming movement that doesn't feel the need to crush all other styles under its collective boot. I don't know who we need, but it sure as shit ain't him.

Pity no-one sane gives a shit about all this.

Boy, I don't think you know what war we're fighting here... we're not the ones doing the crushing, we're the ones trying to bite at the boot and shouting "don't tread on me".

That's why y'all need me. You're not going to get anywhere with the Swine by being nice, or by saying "Live and let live". We tried all that before, and they've shown that they need, as part of their raison d'etre, to subvert mainstream gaming.
So we need to wipe them out, or at the very least kick them to the curb of our hobby.

Their weapons are dirty rhetoric, jargon that empowers their side's position, and interpretations of constructed reality.
Therefore our weapons must be smarter more-capable rhetoric, the re-definition of jargon to subvert their positions, and interpretation-shattering Truths.

Now, I don't know what you think I'm up to here. I have claimed no "authority" as a gaming "personality", other than the authority of being a gamer. I'm just a man who would have been happy playing my games and shooting shit on the internet, until the Swine swarmed all over the internet turning it into an unfriendly place.
But shit, boy, I'm no candidate for fucking president; I'm just apparently the only guy who actually knows how to beat these fuckers at the battle they're fighting. That's why they hate me, and fear me, so much.

Its not pretty, but if you really believe there's a "reasonable gaming movement" that can include both the normal gamers and the Swine, you've got your head so far up your ass you can see your esophagus.
They're out to slice your stomach open and gnaw at your intestines, and you're trying to invite them for fucking tea.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentHum. You do realize that those are little different from the spurious example of "Can I find a hydrogen bomb in this medieval dungeon?" The group should already at that point know that Nobilis doesn't encourage the GM to hand out "+25 swords of dragonslaying" to the PCs whenever they wish. Instead, it advices against trying to stop them if they want find out whether there are such weapons, and if so, where. One possible response might be: "Swords of Dragonslaying, eh? Such blades have in fact been crafted by the blacksmiths of Jotunheim many worlds away, to be used against the wyrm Nithog, but it's rare to see those elsewhere. You could visit the giants when there's more time."

So you're saying.. "no".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts not pretty, but if you really believe there's a "reasonable gaming movement" that can include both the normal gamers and the Swine, you've got your head so far up your ass you can see your esophagus.
They're out to slice your stomach open and gnaw at your intestines, and you're trying to invite them for fucking tea.

Wow.  You're not merely high on your own rhetoric.  You're actually insane.  I didn't realize until now.

Cool!

Quote from: ImperatorFollowing your faulty logic, that guy that made a parody portraiting you as a racist homophobe should have been right, shouldn't he? After all, you were squealing loudly about it, so that's an unquestionable proof of some kind.

It all depends on who's doing the squealing and over what, Imperator.  Let's face it, if I say you rape puppies and try to spread that news around, you have a right to point out that I'm promoting a blatant lie in an effort to slander you.

On the other hand, what we have here is me hitting at one of the favoured "Swine games", one that almost epitomizes their preferences, because its ALL style and ZERO substance. Its utterly void of redeeming value other than a pretty cover and glossy paper.

Its also the best con job the swine ever pulled. It is literally the "emperor has no clothes" scenario of Roleplaying.

Why is Borgstrom a "great designer" and not in fact an utterly incoherent writer of crap that she is? Because the fashionistas declared her to be.
Its the RPG equivalent of someone throwing a bucket of their own feces against a canvas, and a bunch of fuckers in black berets declaring "now THIS is art!!!", then claiming that anyone who argues that this is not art is clearly just "incapable of understanding the brilliance of the artiste".

So here, the masses of swine are squealing because of the revelation of an inconvenient TRUTH that shatters their little game of juggling with reality.

Its all the usual suspects. When they start their little piggie squealing, you know Uncle Pundit's got them by the curly tail.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWow.  You're not merely high on your own rhetoric.  You're actually insane.  I didn't realize until now.

Cool!

And you're a dirty little liar, who secretly looks down upon everyone that doesn't game like you do.

My hatreds, sir, are out in the open. That makes me honest.
Yours are hidden behind a very false veneer of civility while with the other side of your face you express contempt for the "unwashed masses" you claim you could co-exist with.  That makes you scum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you're saying.. "no".

Nope. What I'm saying that unless that PC already possesses some ability which would allow him to transform an ordinary sword into a magical weapon, "I decide that this is a Sword of Dragonslaying" isn't going to work. He can try and cry and squeeze his eyes shut and wish really hard, but the piece of metal isn't going to change in any way. And the player must have known that to begin with.

As I repeated in the other thread, the Monarda Law only addresses the actions of the characters, not the wishes of the players. Those characters can always attempt to figure out some way of getting their hands on swords like that, but the players cannot simply choose to have them given to the PCs. There is no rule or mechanic for "instant gratification".

Quote from: GrimGentNope. What I'm saying that unless that PC already possesses some ability which would allow him to transform an ordinary sword into a magical weapon, "I decide that this is a Sword of Dragonslaying" isn't going to work. He can try and cry and squeeze his eyes shut and wish really hard, but the piece of metal isn't going to change in any way. And the player must have known that to begin with.

As I repeated in the other thread, the Monarda Law only addresses the actions of the characters, not the wishes of the players. Those characters can always attempt to figure out some way of getting their hands on swords like that, but the players cannot simply choose to have them given to the PCs. There is no rule or mechanic for "instant gratification".

So, again, you're saying "no".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, again, you're saying "no".

To what?

"Can a Sword of Dragonslaying suddenly and spontaneously and without any explanation appear in my character's hand?" "How the heck would that happen?"

"Can my character turn this rusty sabre into a Sword of Dragonslaying?" "Not with those Domains and Gifts, he can't. But checking his little black book might turn up someone who can do that for him, if the price is right..."

"Can my character search for a Sword of Dragonslaying?" "Of course."

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd you're a dirty little liar, who secretly looks down upon everyone that doesn't game like you do.

Wow ... it's so secret that even I don't know about it?  Like, my boundless contempt (along with, one presumes, my spectacular mutant powers) is locked away behind mental blocks in order to prevent me from unleashing my utter butt-kicking on an unprepared world?  What an awesome backstory!

Or ... darn.  I just thought of another explanation, but it's much less interesting.  Maybe I just genuinely don't despise everybody who isn't like me.  That's probably a simpler way to explain why I act as I do.  Stupid Occam's razor.  I wanted super-powers. :mad:

Quote from: RPGPunditBoy, I don't think you know what war we're fighting here... we're not the ones doing the crushing, we're the ones trying to bite at the boot and shouting "don't tread on me".

That's why y'all need me. You're not going to get anywhere with the Swine by being nice, or by saying "Live and let live". We tried all that before, and they've shown that they need, as part of their raison d'etre, to subvert mainstream gaming.
So we need to wipe them out, or at the very least kick them to the curb of our hobby.

Their weapons are dirty rhetoric, jargon that empowers their side's position, and interpretations of constructed reality.
Therefore our weapons must be smarter more-capable rhetoric, the re-definition of jargon to subvert their positions, and interpretation-shattering Truths.

Now, I don't know what you think I'm up to here. I have claimed no "authority" as a gaming "personality", other than the authority of being a gamer. I'm just a man who would have been happy playing my games and shooting shit on the internet, until the Swine swarmed all over the internet turning it into an unfriendly place.
But shit, boy, I'm no candidate for fucking president; I'm just apparently the only guy who actually knows how to beat these fuckers at the battle they're fighting. That's why they hate me, and fear me, so much.

Its not pretty, but if you really believe there's a "reasonable gaming movement" that can include both the normal gamers and the Swine, you've got your head so far up your ass you can see your esophagus.
They're out to slice your stomach open and gnaw at your intestines, and you're trying to invite them for fucking tea.

RPGPundit

If I may borrow a meme from elsewhere....


man what

Quote from: RPGPunditThere have been an inordinate number of swine showing up lately to try to slag me/defend Nobilis.

I must really be onto something...

Now, you see, I thought this might just be some silly game you were playing, but you were serious?  And here I thought I was playing along.  I figured getting you to call Rebecca a "cunt" and me a "fucker" meant I was scoring points.

QuoteMy hatreds, sir, are out in the open. That makes me honest.

Nah, I called you on that in your first thread.  Even in your third thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2762) on this topic, while you've finally copped to admitting that you really wanted to start a thread about your own GM style, you still lack the balls to keep Rebecca Borgstrom's name out of the title.  And now you're sinking to deleting posts in that thread that object to that?  Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the beginning of the long slide that RPGPundit swore would never happen.  I'm sorry to see that.

!i!

Quote from: GrimGentTo what?

"Can a Sword of Dragonslaying suddenly and spontaneously and without any explanation appear in my character's hand?" "How the heck would that happen?"

"Can my character turn this rusty sabre into a Sword of Dragonslaying?" "Not with those Domains and Gifts, he can't. But checking his little black book might turn up someone who can do that for him, if the price is right..."

"Can my character search for a Sword of Dragonslaying?" "Of course."

Hmm, yup.. that's a "no" alright.
So what's the fucking point if the only thing you're really doing is avoiding mouthing the sound of the letters "n" & "o", but in practice are doing the exact same thing?

You're really trying to argue THAT was the purpose of the law? To say "You shouldn't say no to the players, but you can say a thousand different things that essentially MEAN no anyways"? Its like someone else put it, you're just saying "roll a d6" when you know the "difficulty" is 7.

IF this is really what the "law" is about, then Borgstrom would be just an idiot for writing it, because its a pointless meaningless "law" that accomplishes nothing.
If not, then you are clearly twisting her law to make it playable, meaning that even you, deep down inside, realize that the Monarda law is unplayable junk.

So which is it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNow, you see, I thought this might just be some silly game you were playing, but you were serious?  And here I thought I was playing along.  I figured getting you to call Rebecca a "cunt" and me a "fucker" meant I was scoring points.Nah, I called you on that in your first thread.  Even in your third thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2762) on this topic, while you've finally copped to admitting that you really wanted to start a thread about your own GM style, you still lack the balls to keep Rebecca Borgstrom's name out of the title.  And now you're sinking to deleting posts in that thread that object to that?  Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the beginning of the long slide that RPGPundit swore would never happen.  I'm sorry to see that.

!i!

Dude, you really don't know what you're talking about.
The original thread was a repost of an old blog entry. One where, at that time, there had recently been a thread on RPG.net where Borgstrom tried to defend the "monarda law".

Hence the name of my Law, that and making fun of Borgstrom's tendency to pick incredibly stupidly pretentious names for her "laws".

As for keeping it in the title ever since, I have done that for consistency, and with knowledge of the fact that it annoys the crap out of the Swine. There's no hidden motive there...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo what's the fucking point if the only thing you're really doing is avoiding mouthing the sound of the letters "n" & "o", but in practice are doing the exact same thing?

But you are the one arguing that the players will attempt to do things which they already know to be impossible according to the rules of the game. Sure, they can always try to do the impossible, just as you could jump up and down in the middle of the street screaming "I'm Superman! Watch me fly! Whee!" And they will fail, because the game mechanics and the conventions of the setting state that it cannot be done.

Now, if someone wishes to search for that Sword of Dragonslaying, that's their right, as long as they also understand that it will take some effort and may cost more than they think. If the sword turns out to be an Abhorrent Weapon which once slew the bravest of Aaron's Serpents whose memory is still honoured by their kind, and if the Serpents should discover that the damned sword now has a new bearer... Well, that is a challenge.

Quote from: RPGPunditHence the name of my Law, that and making fun of Borgstrom's tendency to pick incredibly stupidly pretentious names for her "laws".

Monarda is the only "law" in Nobilis which has any bearing on how the game is played. All the others exist only in the setting. They are fluff, if you will.

Quote from: RPGPunditBoy, I don't think you know what war we're fighting here... we're not the ones doing the crushing, we're the ones trying to bite at the boot and shouting "don't tread on me".

If that's the case, D&D would not be the biggest game out there at the moment, would it?

At the end of the day, the "Swine" simply have access to the same tools as you do: the internet, word of mouth, and their wallets. The largest game companies will always be the ones which publish the biggest-selling games, and the gaming public's wallets are firmly behind D&D. D&D, for better or worse, is the RPG that the non-gaming public associated with the hobby, and as such the word of mouth victory is D&D's.

That leaves the internet, your major sphere of operations. Where, erm, the largest and most active forums tend to talk about D&D an awful lot.

Given that you're in Uruguay and, as I understand it, don't have a handy local gameshop, you might be forgiven for thinking that the indie RPGs are crowding out the D&D books. They really, truly aren't. Most game shops I've been to haven't had any. Their major marketplace is the internet. (That's why they promote themselves so much there - if they didn't have a vocal internet presence, they'd die.)

Nobody is being converted in droves to Forge games. The large contingent of White Wolf fans were never satisfied with D&D anyhow. D&D is still the major player in the market.

When you shout about being oppressed like this, you end up sounding like a Fundamentalist Christian complaining about being "oppressed" in the freaking USA. Think about that for a moment.

Warthur, I agree with you. Also: Pundit, you're really getting me to pity you. I mean, you look so opressed. I've never thought of that.

Oh man, his opression is new to you? This shit is way funny when you come to realize that Pundit dwells in a world in which...wait for it....

The biggest, most popular, most successful roleplaying game in the world is not only in constant and very real danger of being gutted into financial ruin by Swine games*, which are doomed to forever be insignificant failures because no-one plays them, but that only his constant vigilance and vitriolic quasi-informed rants to his loyal army of two dozen prevent this. Not being popular, not being a good game, not providing fun to kids with disposable income, imagination, and time to kill; only by his sheer strength of will can the industry leader (by, like, orders of magnitude) be kept from being ground under the heel of small-press games with 200 sold copies to their name and a company staff of four.

* Read: games he doesn't like, or are liked by people who managed to not get banned from the Big Purple.

Quote from: Christmas ApeThe biggest, most popular, most successful roleplaying game in the world is not only in constant and very real danger of being gutted into financial ruin by Swine games*, which are doomed to forever be insignificant failures because no-one plays them, but that only his constant vigilance and vitriolic quasi-informed rants to his loyal army of two dozen prevent this. Not being popular, not being a good game, not providing fun to kids with disposable income, imagination, and time to kill; only by his sheer strength of will can the industry leader (by, like, orders of magnitude) be kept from being ground under the heel of small-press games with 200 sold copies to their name and a company staff of four.

Goddamn it, man. This shit is too big to fit in my sig file.

-Andy

Quote from: Christmas ApeOh man, his opression is new to you? This shit is way funny when you come to realize that Pundit dwells in a world in which...wait for it....

The biggest, most popular, most successful roleplaying game in the world is not only in constant and very real danger of being gutted into financial ruin by Swine games*, which are doomed to forever be insignificant failures because no-one plays them, but that only his constant vigilance and vitriolic quasi-informed rants to his loyal army of two dozen prevent this. Not being popular, not being a good game, not providing fun to kids with disposable income, imagination, and time to kill; only by his sheer strength of will can the industry leader (by, like, orders of magnitude) be kept from being ground under the heel of small-press games with 200 sold copies to their name and a company staff of four.

* Read: games he doesn't like, or are liked by people who managed to not get banned from the Big Purple.

Oh, nothing new :) It's just that I hadn't realized that the Pundit could get so gothy and angsty about that. I've pointed in other chances the lunacy of his position, and he answered that the Swine was a blip, but they dominated the Internet debate.

Except that.., they don't. Most game boards have the bigger part of them devoted to discussing D&D and many mainstream games. Mainstream games are not under a threat in the market, and are not threatened on Internet.

Actually, I'm growing more and more convinced that Edwards and the Pundit are like Jekyll and Hyde. Both hate Vampire with a passion, have had bad experiences with gamers, and have developed a distorted vision of the gaming hobby. I'm sure that they're soulmates or something like that.

Quote from: ImperatorActually, I'm growing more and more convinced that Edwards and the Pundit are like Jekyll and Hyde. Both hate Vampire with a passion, have had bad experiences with gamers, and have developed a distorted vision of the gaming hobby. I'm sure that they're soulmates or something like that.

Side comment:  For those who know the game:  Breaking the Ice.  I'm just sayin'.

Quote from: TonyLBSide comment:  For those who know the game:  Breaking the Ice.  I'm just sayin'.

That session would no doubt prove entertaining to watch, at any rate.

Quote from: ImperatorActually, I'm growing more and more convinced that Edwards and the Pundit are like Jekyll and Hyde. Both hate Vampire with a passion, have had bad experiences with gamers, and have developed a distorted vision of the gaming hobby. I'm sure that they're soulmates or something like that.

But have you ever seen them in the same room together?

Quote from: Christmas ApeThe biggest, most popular, most successful roleplaying game in the world is not only in constant and very real danger of being gutted into financial ruin by Swine games*,

As opposed to, say, a corporate strategy of plunging all their spare money into publishing more paperback novelisations, the profits of which go into publishing more novelisations, and so on and so on...

Actually, the end of TSR kind of disproves Pundit's fear by itself - the company producing the world's biggest and most successful RPG managed to make itself bankrupt (due mainly to their spin-off activities like the novel series rather than any poor performance on D&D's part), and then almost instantly got saved by another big company, who proceeded to make a big deal of money out of D&D once more. D&D makes enough money that there will always be game companies willing to publish it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut have you ever seen them in the same room together?

Only Jong could tell. He is the only one here that has seen Edwards (in the interview with Settembrini) and Pundit... :D But I bet he's keeping it to himself ;)

QuoteAs opposed to, say, a corporate strategy of plunging all their spare money into publishing more paperback novelisations, the profits of which go into publishing more novelisations, and so on and so on...

Actually, the end of TSR kind of disproves Pundit's fear by itself - the company producing the world's biggest and most successful RPG managed to make itself bankrupt (due mainly to their spin-off activities like the novel series rather than any poor performance on D&D's part), and then almost instantly got saved by another big company, who proceeded to make a big deal of money out of D&D once more. D&D makes enough money that there will always be game companies willing to publish it.

An interesting aside...

Marvel Comics and DC Comics, both without doubt the biggest and most successful comic companies in North America -- run their actual comic publishing businesses at a loss.  They make their money on the related merchandizing and film deals.  The actual comic publishing division is more like Research & Development.

WotC is unquestionably running a better business with D&D than TSR did... but I couldn't tell you to what extent WotC and the actual earnings from sales of RPG books plays a role in the overall finances of all revenue streams across everything under the Hasbro umbrella.  Keep in mind that Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley and Avalon Hill are all subsidiaries of Hasbro as well.

Quote from: StuartWotC is unquestionably running a better business with D&D than TSR did... but I couldn't tell you to what extent WotC and the actual earnings from sales of RPG books plays a role in the overall finances of all revenue streams across everything under the Hasbro umbrella.  Keep in mind that Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley and Avalon Hill are all subsidiaries of Hasbro as well.

Yeah, if there is a danger to D&D it's that Hasbro will decide it is not making enough money, or that the licencing rights aren't making enough, and they'll cancel it but not release the intellectual property to anyone (witness the fiasco with Runequest).

That said, the fact that it does seem to MAKE money (under TSR the core game line was one of their few profitable products), and that the novels are selling as well as they ever were are good signs (especially now that the novelisations are being published on a more sustainable basis).

And the bottom line is that no other roleplaying game is really in a position to impact D&D profits enough for Hasbro to notice, never mind act on. The World of Darkness didn't manage it, and the Forge games certainly aren't.

QuoteYeah, if there is a danger to D&D it's that Hasbro will decide it is not making enough money, or that the licencing rights aren't making enough, and they'll cancel it but not release the intellectual property to anyone (witness the fiasco with Runequest).

They don't have to cancel it.  Just squeeze it. ;)

God help me I've just waded through 10 pages of this idiotic bullshit.  "Dude, why are you posting then?"  Because I just waded through 10 pages of this shit, and I'm damned well going to get something out of it.  This post will suffice.

Quote from: RPGPunditHmm, yup.. that's a "no" alright.
So what's the fucking point if the only thing you're really doing is avoiding mouthing the sound of the letters "n" & "o", but in practice are doing the exact same thing?

You're really trying to argue THAT was the purpose of the law? To say "You shouldn't say no to the players, but you can say a thousand different things that essentially MEAN no anyways"? Its like someone else put it, you're just saying "roll a d6" when you know the "difficulty" is 7.

I have not read Nobilis, nor do I know Ms. Borgstrom from Adam.  Never heard of her.  But based solely on what I've read in this thread, this 'Monarda Law' in essense appears to say nothing more than the DMG has been saying all along.  
Basically that is the PCs declare their wish to attempt something, don't tell them no unless it's just stupid.  
Case in point, if the party Rogue wants to attempt to jump off the balcony, catch the chandelier, swing across the room, and deliver a flying kick to Duke Crustypants' face then you tell him how hard that's going to be to TRY.  If the party rogue wants to attempt to float 1' above the balcony floor in a firey nimbus of energy and blast Duke Crustypants' with his super-vision, then you (assuming you're playing a somewhat typical fantasy game) give him a look like he just joked about pissing on your bookshelf and ask him what he really wants to do.
Whether this is telling the Player No, Maybe, or 'Stop fucking around and play right, dickhead' is irrelevant.

RE: This "Moron Law":
I could be misinterpreting here, but this reeks of DM behavior that typically leads to the players coming to the group consensus that if they want to do or get something, they don't tell the DM ahead of time.  
Player 1: "Dude, my Fighter/Cavalier is going to try to get ahold of that abandoned Keep we cleared out two weeks ago.  I just need to save up enough gold to pay the Duke off for the land it's on"  
Player 2: "Sweet.  Don't tell the DM or that idea's shot"
I've played in those types of games, and they suck ass.  Legitimately challenging the PCs is good, dicking them over and only letting them have what they can take with the price of buckets of blood and piles of dead comrades sucks.

RE: The "War":
Is tripe.  Know where you're going online and understand whose there.  Just like I don't wander into gay bars and begin to demand that any female there who isn't drooling for my He-Pole is a stupid fucktard, I don't go to the Forge and demand they play D20 (I don't go there at all, but that's irrelevant to the point) anymore than I expect them to go to EN World and start bad-mouthing D20.
RPGNet's a special case.  And by special I mean "short bus" special.  That place is just full of fucktards.  Again, know where you're going.

I agree with Settembrini's defense.

First of all, step back and remember, in the end, we're only really talking about gaming. Or to be more precise- we are talking about talking about gaming.

I do believe that a cultural war is going on, exactly as described by Settembrini. Otherwise Andy K and TonyLB wouldn't even be here at this site. In general they are here to put out fires and represent their side. Just read Andy's sig quote. He knows very well that he's at war.

This war has been going on for a while and has been for the most part unacknowledged, chiefly because the mainstream doesn't know about it and doesn't care. In most ways it can't be affected anyhow- the most ambitious and obnoxious of the forgies are utterly lacking talent and do not genuinely care much for the hobby in any case. The real goal is celebrity. That's all it has ever been about. It's not about the gaming or the games.

It's important to point out: nearly as soon as this war was acknowledged, the swine started to lose. Nearly as soon as we could definitively point out the 'braindamage link', it started to be over. Swine blather is ultimately more destructive to swine than it is to anyone else. You just have to link to it, bring some focus and context, and show it to the public. The swine can respond by either moderating their obnoxiousness or keeping it behind closed gates. Either way, we mainstreamers have nothing to sell (and thus nothing to lose) in this fight. We're civilians.

The 'Indie Gaming Scene blog' pretty much marked the end of their era.

This was, I think, classic- all that time they spent to portray the pundit as a scary crazy stupid angry guy who could only speak in capital letters, and then he basicly pulls off the most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody I've seen in years. Heck, Tony was confused for the first day or so whether it was even really making fun of his side.  

So now we have people pretending to be outraged over foul language and the dissing of Nobilis? Come on. I'm not even taking this seriously. We're just talking about gaming.  

Many of you are really here to fight public relations fires and you can be confident you won't get banned for saying anything you like.

Well put, Maw.  They aren't fooling anyone.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawMany of you are really here to fight public relations fires and you can be confident you won't get banned for saying anything you like.

So, tell me, Abyssal, why am I here?

To be blunt... and I've made my feelings about Noblis pretty plain in this thread already:

Calling a game ass is fine and dandy. Calling the game designer, whom you've never met in person, a Moron and defending loudly over THREE FUCKING THREADS that YOU created.... well, in this one, Pundit, you look to be the one with egg on your face.

To be honest, I don't think much of Borgstrom's talents as a game designer. I don't think much of her writing.  I'll bite that she's obviously creative.  But I've never met her, not even online really, and I'd be extremely hesitant to claim anything about her personage... so unless you can bring up shit she's said 'in person'... via the internet... that backs up your diatribes about her personal character I think you've gone a few steps over the line. You've gone from rabid punditry to general bitchy. Not a good career move.

Huh? Had a posting issue, reposting below.

EDIT: OK< there's some sort of time issue going on. I created a new post, but it looks like the timestamp rolled back or up the thread. Aaaaannnyway.

Quote from: Abyssal MawOtherwise Andy K and TonyLB wouldn't even be here at this site. In general they are here to put out fires and represent their side. Just read Andy's sig quote. He knows very well that he's at war.

Hey shitpants, I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm wearing fatigues in some goddamned geek war, but that ain't me.

I have that quote in my sig not to show my distaste of d20 (I've probably played more d20 in the past year than you have), it's because I found the quote funny. It was also a response to whatever funny-yet-retarded rant that Pundit was on about that day.

Don't drag me into your fucking little Racial Gaming Holy War. It makes me look almost as pathetic as you folks are, trying to play all these sides against each other as if it was as important a movement as fighting AIDS in Africa.

I enjoy games. I like talking about games with other people, even here where I can get some good talk about running good games (in between all the "Bergstrom is a cunt" threads). I'm sure as fuck not here just to cover ass for "my peeps" or whatever like some, or suckle on the Pundit's sweet colon like others.

Jeff Rients convinced me that this could be a place to discuss gaming. GAMING. Not "I hate RPGNet", "I hate White Wolf", "Bergstrom's a Cunt", "Edwards is a Fucktard", "I hate X Games", "I Hate Y Games" being all about hating other things without actually creating anything positive or having any substance. Folks like Pundit and you are quickly proving him wrong.

-Andy

Quote from: SpikeTo be blunt... and I've made my feelings about Noblis pretty plain in this thread already:

Calling a game ass is fine and dandy. Calling the game designer, whom you've never met in person, a Moron and defending loudly over THREE FUCKING THREADS that YOU created.... well, in this one, Pundit, you look to be the one with egg on your face.

To be honest, I don't think much of Borgstrom's talents as a game designer. I don't think much of her writing.  I'll bite that she's obviously creative.  But I've never met her, not even online really, and I'd be extremely hesitant to claim anything about her personage... so unless you can bring up shit she's said 'in person'... via the internet... that backs up your diatribes about her personal character I think you've gone a few steps over the line. You've gone from rabid punditry to general bitchy. Not a good career move.

So it's okay to say that the RPGs someone writes are crap, but it's not okay to say someone's a crappy RPG writer because that's a matter of "personal character?"  That makes loads of sense.

Quote from: hgjsSo it's okay to say that the RPGs someone writes are crap, but it's not okay to say someone's a crappy RPG writer because that's a matter of "personal character?"  That makes loads of sense.

:rolleyes:

There's a world of difference between "Bergstrom is a shitty writer" and "Bergstrom is a cunt". Or do you really not know the difference?

Quote from: Andy KHuh? Had a posting issue, reposting below.

EDIT: OK< there's some sort of time issue going on. I created a new post, but it looks like the timestamp rolled back or up the thread. Aaaaannnyway.

Dude.  Weirdness.

Quote from: Andy KHey shitpants, I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm wearing fatigues in some goddamned geek war, but that ain't me.

-Andy

I'm afraid it is you. It's not like I put your sig qote together or anything. Not only do I believe this is a war, but it's one you have been part of long before any of us were ever involved.

So thats all I really see you as anyhow. I'm not sure what Jeff Rients promised you, and it doesn't have anything to do with this either way.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's not like I put your sig qote together or anything.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression there that you could read the English sentences I was typing.  Let me spell it out for you in greater detail:

1) Again, I stand by the claim that I've played more D&D/d20 than you have in the past year.
2) My sig was not to diss d20.
3) My sig was copied from Geekkake, who was putting nails in some retarded thing or other that Pundit said back then.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo thats all I really see you as anyhow. I'm not sure what Jeff Rients promised you, and it doesn't have anything to do with this either way.

I came here to talk about gaming, not to fight the front lines of the GaHoWa. Enjoy keeping the fight going with your Brothers.

Later-

Andy

Frankly, I'm a little curious if Abyssal thinks he's got my reason for being here sorted out. I mean, I'm fuckin' nobody in terms of RPGs online, but still. Apparently there's a war on, so I'm either with 'em or against 'em, right?


Nah, I'll spoil it for everybody. I'm here to sell guns to both sides, and 'cause I can say the "fuck" word. :D

Quote from: Andy KI came here to talk about gaming, not to fight the front lines of the GaHoWa. Enjoy keeping the fight going with your Brothers.

Later-

Andy

Fair enough.

Is there some kind of argument playbook you guys all use by the way? I can't count the times I've seen a swine argument go downhill and then it inevitably draws in something about race or politics as a defense. So far you've mentioned 'racial war' twice. I've seen other guys in the greater swine circle do this more than a few times, so it's not just you or anything.
I always totally imagine you guy sorta slinking back to whatever gated community you post freely in and saying "yeah we got into it, but then I totally got one of those racial comments off! AND I totally said he was Hitler!"

endlessly amusing.

And if your'e still curious, yes I still totally know why your'e here. Everyone does. Your'e here for public relations.

Quote from: Christmas ApeFrankly, I'm a little curious if Abyssal thinks he's got my reason for being here sorted out. I mean, I'm fuckin' nobody in terms of RPGs online, but still. Apparently there's a war on, so I'm either with 'em or against 'em, right?


Nah, I'll spoil it for everybody. I'm here to sell guns to both sides, and 'cause I can say the "fuck" word. :D

Oh wait, for you I have no idea. Your'e just some guy. As am I.

Quote from: WolvorineI have not read Nobilis, nor do I know Ms. Borgstrom from Adam.  Never heard of her.  But based solely on what I've read in this thread, this 'Monarda Law' in essense appears to say nothing more than the DMG has been saying all along.

Yes: it's a piece of advice for novice GMs. When you get right down to it, Nob isn't really all that different from D&D.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd if your'e still curious, yes I still totally know why your'e here. Everyone does. Your'e here for public relations.

On, uh, whose behalf?

Get specific, now.

Quote from: GrimGentYes: it's a piece of advice for novice GMs. When you get right down to it, Nob isn't really all that different from D&D.

Well, there are some crucial differences. First of all, your average schmuck can grok D&D, and you can actually read the book.

Other than that, sure. Noblis is actually just another RPG, just like any other, only more...flowery.  In all fairness, Noblis is about a hundred times easier to get then it's kin in the 'god game' rpgs. I'd name names, but I fear to summon Azathoth...

Quote from: SpikeWell, there are some crucial differences. First of all, your average schmuck can grok D&D, and you can actually read the book.

Depends on the schmuck, I suppose. But D&D is admittedly easier to read and grasp.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOn, uh, whose behalf?

Get specific, now.

If your'e truly curious, we can put together a social experiment that will denote exactly who we have to offend to get Andy jumping up to perform his public relations duties.

I may have even already conducted such an experiment!

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf your'e truly curious, we can put together a social experiment that will denote exactly who we have to offend to get Andy jumping up to perform his public relations duties.

I may have even already conducted such an experiment!

So...

Andy and Tony are the PR men for a small, faceless group, that you can't or won't clearly elucidate or identify.  They're like the Men in Black, here to hush things up.  I get it.

Damn, I want their job.  That's so cool.

Aww, no way! The Men in Black jobs are taken? I was totally hoping to move up from "profiteer" to "shadowy intelligence agent".

Quote from: Christmas ApeAww, no way! The Men in Black jobs are taken? I was totally hoping to move up from "profiteer" to "shadowy intelligence agent".

We totally need to start an "EXTREME centrist" movement.

I can be Captain Blacktheory, and you can be Agent Christmas.

Well, it's weird! But we're probably thinking different things are cool.

What I think is cool is "by pressing button X, person Y will perform action Z. Without fail."

In other news, there already is an extreme centrist. It's the pundit. Despite his radical (extreme?) demeanor, he's about as centrist and mainstream as it gets.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, it's weird! But we're probably thinking different things are cool.

What I think is cool is "by pressing button X, person Y will perform action Z. Without fail."

In other news, there already is an extreme centrist. It's the pundit. Despite his radical (extreme?) demeanor, he's about as centrist and mainstream as it gets.

Redefining the mainstream of the hobby as an extreme is a tried-and-true swine tactic.

Luckily, there are still sites like this one, EnWorld, Dragonsfoot, etc, that are aimed at real RPG gamers.

RPG.Net and the Forge are the lunatic fringe, make no mistake. If they can convince you that normal, functional, TRADITIONAL mainstream gamers like Pundit and Settembrini are the freaks, they've already subverted your perceptions.

Quote from: YamoRedefining the mainstream of the hobby as an extreme is a tried-and-true swine tactic.

"Make the characters bleed.  Hard.  Usually say no."

That's the mainstream, now?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"Make the characters bleed.  Hard.  Usually say no."

That's the mainstream, now?

The healthy RPG hobby has always focused on challenge and skill. The GM represents the world as a firm, impartial Judge, who does indeed make the players earn their characters' fates, for good or ill.

Mindless, skill-less "instant gratification" backed-up by heavy GM-disempowerment has always been part of the hobby (we used to call it "Monty Haul" play), but only recently has a gang of broken gits online been so intent on uplifting it above its rightful status as maligned, disfunctional play.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAndy and Tony are the PR men for a small, faceless group, that you can't or won't clearly elucidate or identify.

Um. :confused:

Well, there are quite a few threads over at Story Games, including the non-public ones, where people link to all sorts of threads to read/watch.  Often with cross site commentary about what was being said over in the other thread.  That's not counting the whispered comments that are private between members.

In the A Bomb Is Dropped (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=43) thread, it very much seems like a discussion of how to handle the PR fallout of Ron's Infamous Comment (http://lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=158&comment=3777).

"You do the math."
"God dammit Ron."
"I kinda ranted on the RPGNet thread..."
"I got my rant on just after you did..."
"Is there anything useful we can do about this problem, though?"

Now, there's nothing wrong with any of that -- it's actually a very smart thing to do, and you'd be foolish to stop.  But claiming there's no PR work being done -- not even informally -- is a bit disingenuous.

Quote from: StuartUm. :confused:

Well, there are quite a few threads over at Story Games, including the non-public ones, where people link to all sorts of threads to read/watch.  Often with cross site commentary about what was being said over in the other thread.  That's not counting the whispered comments that are private between members.

In the A Bomb Is Dropped (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=43) thread, it very much seems like a discussion of how to handle the PR fallout of Ron's Infamous Comment (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=43).

"You do the math."
"God dammit Ron."
"I kinda ranted on the RPGNet thread..."
"I got my rant on just after you did..."
"Is there anything useful we can do about this problem, though?"

Now, there's nothing wrong with any of that -- it's actually a very smart thing to do, and you'd be foolish to stop.  But claiming there's no PR work being done -- not even informally -- is a bit disingenuous.

Links aren't working for me, Stuart.

The first link requires you to have a Story Games account and be logged in.  The second link was just updated... it goes here: http://lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=158&comment=3777

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"Make the characters bleed.  Hard.  Usually say no."

That's the mainstream, now?

Levi, I don't see that as very radical. GM's routinely give players tough challenges and 'brink' situations. Many (nearly all) of the GM's in my group of associates agree that a successful tactical encounter is practically defined as one in which several pcs are injured, resources are expended, but none are killed.

Personally I think the number one GM guideline is to be fair in everything you do. And with regards to making them hurt, I prefera staggered approach. I believe that you should precede really tough situations with 'development' points and encounters I call 'bleeders'.

I'm frankly not sure I agree with the Pundit's "Borgstrom is a Moron law". but then I don't care about Nobilis.

The links are generally kept behind a gate.

:)

Quote from: StuartIn the A Bomb Is Dropped (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=43) thread, it very much seems like a discussion of how to handle the PR fallout of Ron's Infamous Comment (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=43).

Nice find.  

Keep digging.  Where did I go and rant, and what did I say, to whom?  

Let's see, I ranted about people deciding to derail any abstract discussion of games by dropping "Brain Damage" into the conversation, which was done repeatedly, to me.

Oh, and then I went and told Ron that he was wrong on the Forge.

That's PR work?

Quote from: Abyssal MawLevi, I don't see that as very radical. GM's routinely give players tough challenges and 'brink' situations. Many (nearly all) of the GM's in my group of associates agree that a successful tactical encounter is practically defined as one in which several pcs are injured, resources are expended, but none are killed.

Cool.  

Do you think that tactical encounters, of that sort, are among the central features of mainstream gaming?

Quote from: SpikeTo be honest, I don't think much of Borgstrom's talents as a game designer. I don't think much of her writing.  I'll bite that she's obviously creative.  But I've never met her, not even online really, and I'd be extremely hesitant to claim anything about her personage... so unless you can bring up shit she's said 'in person'... via the internet... that backs up your diatribes about her personal character I think you've gone a few steps over the line. You've gone from rabid punditry to general bitchy. Not a good career move.

Her character is that of a pretentious twat.  Just go look at her Blog if you don't believe me.

Frankly, Borgstrom is second only to Baugh as the RPG-personality that has the least merit, the most pretentiousness, and who I would most like to excise from the RPG hobby with extreme prejudice. She's the Queen Midas of Swine.  Everything Borgstrom touches turns to pretentious shit.
Only fashion queens of the worst kind could possibly claim to enjoy her games, and only because they were told they should by someone in an rpg.net clique somewhere.

Nobilis is the worst, most unmerited of all the RPG.net Darlings. Weapons of the Gods is the second worst. Only Baugh's butchering of Gamma World would beat them, but it never even reached "darling" status.
These are games that make Dogs In The Vinyard look worthwhile by comparison, and their authors make Ron Edwards or Vince Baker look like intelligent people with something to contribute in contrast.

Have I been clear enough now?

RPGPundit

QuoteNice find.

Keep digging. Where did I go and rant, and what did I say, to whom?

I remembered seeing a lot of Andy's links to the Pundit in the Links to Gaming Discussion (http://www.story-games.com/forums/?CategoryID=6) category... but that thread was the only one that came up with a search on the keyword "Evangelize".  

Actually, that was your comment about joining forums: "Getting involved strictly to evangelize is bad"... so I hardly thought you seemed RANTY in that thread.

Again, I think a community approach to promoting your games is a smart thing to do, and beneficial to the members of the community.  However, to flat out deny people have any association with each other, and that there's never any PR type efforts... well, that's not quite Cricket, is it old chap?

Quote from: GrimGentYes: it's a piece of advice for novice GMs. When you get right down to it, Nob isn't really all that different from D&D.

:killingme:

Yes, Nobilis is just like D&D... just like the "Piss Christ" is identical to the Sistine Chapel, or New Kids On the Block are identical to Led Zeppelin.

:killingme:

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"Make the characters bleed.  Hard.  Usually say no."

That's the mainstream, now?

Yup. I know its shocking to the "new education" types that think Little Billy should get his blue ribbon even if he can't eat with a fork without doing himself an injury, but hardship builds character; not unearned reward. Most normal people, and most normal gamers, know this.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's PR work?

You're a living breathing piece of PR work, Levi. You're the Colin Powell of the Forge set. We all know that.

Its like the Republicans, when they want to "prove" they aren't racist, haul out Colin Powell or one of a tiny handful of other tokens, wave him around, and loudly shout "See? A Negroe! We ain't redneck klansmen!! We got no problem with old Colin, cause he ain't all uppity!".

You're the same thing. Anytime the Forgeites want to try to appear to not be Batshit insane, they haul you out, use you as the example, let you do the talking.  You're their token "Sane person".

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartAgain, I think a community approach to promoting your games is a smart thing to do, and beneficial to the members of the community.  However, to flat out deny people have any association with each other, and that there's never any PR type efforts... well, that's not quite Cricket, is it old chap?

Well, there's two sides to that.

If you look and say "Well, yeah, folks go out onto message boards and post, and in posting they reflect upon their community ... by posting reasonably, and correcting misconceptions they create good PR as an effect," I don't think anybody's going to disagree with you.  Yes, being reasonable people is a terrific 'selling point'.

If, however, you look at that and say "They're only being reasonable in order to generate good PR" then I think you've stretched the argument from observable effects to presumed intentions, and I think that's a step too far.  Even when people consider the effects of their actions on PR it doesn't mean that they're motivated by PR first and foremost.

It looks to me like you're asserting the first, and Levi is disagreeing with the second.  Does that sound right?

Quote from: StuartI remembered seeing a lot of Andy's links to the Pundit in the Links to Gaming Discussion (http://www.story-games.com/forums/?CategoryID=6) category... but that thread was the only one that came up with a search on the keyword "Evangelize".  

Fascinating. A private thread where they post links to sites and people who they need to go and argue against, conversations they need to disrupt, etc.

Of course, if anyone ever went on Storygames or the Forge to do that, they'd be called trolls and threadcrappers. Which they would be.

As are some people here, it seems.

RPGPundit

My rant was on RPGnet.  Trust me, it was ranty.

Quote from: StuartHowever, to flat out deny people have any association with each other, and that there's never any PR type efforts... well, that's not quite Cricket, is it old chap?

I'm trying to stretch my definition of "PR" to match what you're saying, and I think I've got it.

So, you've got a bunch of people that know each other a bit.  Now, someone they know has said something asinine.

And they're being shit on as if they were a completely unified group, guilt-by-association style.

They talk about how this is exasperating, and about their reactions to it.  And a number of them, individually, go out and try to put a hold on that process.

By doing so, they're doing PR work.

Got it.

Sorry, no.  Nobody here is doing PR work.  Because, see, even the people on "the other side" aren't organized.  They're just people.  It's not a "smear campaign" when somebody decides to scream "BRAIN DAMAGE" in the middle of a thread about something else, either; it's just somebody being an asshole.

Elevating this shit to the standard of pretending it's a culture war is melodrama; it's an attempt at trying to draw lines in the sand that do not, in reality, exist.

Quote from:  RPGPunditHer character is that of a pretentious twat. Just go look at her Blog if you don't believe me.

If this is Rebecca's blog (http://imago.hitherby.com/) I found it no more pretentious that so many other author's blogs.  

I've seen no evidence that she deserves any of the recent hostility...

:confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're a living breathing piece of PR work, Levi. You're the Colin Powell of the Forge set. We all know that.

That's terrifically interesting.

Show me an example of someone hauling me out.

Except you know as well as I do that there are people (not you, Levi, but many others) who try to maintain an air of "civility" in one forum, and mock and deride those they claim to be willing to co-exist with in others.

They have a hidden and secret contempt. Which makes them pretty fucking contemptible in my book.  And frankly, their patronizing tone and their lies don't fool anyone.

You know and I know that, deep down, MOST of the Forge crowd really believe that they ARE superior to the "common unwashed masses" who play D20.

So their efforts to claim that they're just "doing their own thing", and really believe that their shit isn't more intelligent, more "artistic" and less smelly than ours is highly dishonest. Even more dishonest when they try to claim with a straight face that no one on their side believes those things, or that mainstream gamers complaints about them are totally unfounded.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know and I know that, deep down, MOST of the Forge crowd really believe that they ARE superior to the "common unwashed masses" who play D20.

I know that deep down, most human beings really believe that they are superior to the common unwashed masses.

Full stop.  No sides are required.

Quote from: StuartIf this is Rebecca's blog (http://imago.hitherby.com/) I found it no more pretentious that so many other author's blogs.  

:confused:

Ahem.

Quote“You project onto me,” says the great heap to Tara, “the failings of the world.”

Sid is watching.

It is the strangest thing. He cannot help but feel: what a horrible, horrible thing.

And a burning sympathy for it, as it lurches on.

“Do I?” Tara says.

“Do I prey?” says the heap. The fight begins—a fight that we shall describe momentarily; for now, let us say, a shifting, a blurring, a great movement like the wind. “Am I a devourer of wastes? A cold, hard, compassionless thing, who closes the door on the suffering of children and keeps every creature from enlightenment?”

And I cut and pasted that AT RANDOM.

Quote from: StuartIf this is Rebecca's blog (http://imago.hitherby.com/) I found it no more pretentious that so many other author's blogs.

That's the one. It can be pretty hilarious at times. Just check out her take on the Care Bears in "Rainbow Noir".

Quote from: TonyLBIf you look and say "Well, yeah, folks go out onto message boards and post, and in posting they reflect upon their community ... by posting reasonably, and correcting misconceptions they create good PR as an effect," I don't think anybody's going to disagree with you. Yes, being reasonable people is a terrific 'selling point'.

If, however, you look at that and say "They're only being reasonable in order to generate good PR" then I think you've stretched the argument from observable effects to presumed intentions, and I think that's a step too far. Even when people consider the effects of their actions on PR it doesn't mean that they're motivated by PR first and foremost.

It looks to me like you're asserting the first, and Levi is disagreeing with the second. Does that sound right?

I'm asserting the first.  

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm trying to stretch my definition of "PR" to match what you're saying, and I think I've got it.

So, you've got a bunch of people that know each other a bit. Now, someone they know has said something asinine.

And they're being shit on as if they were a completely unified group, guilt-by-association style.

They talk about how this is exasperating, and about their reactions to it. And a number of them, individually, go out and try to put a hold on that process.

By doing so, they're doing PR work.

Yes, that's right.  Although it's implicit that they're bringing this to each others attention, so that those with the time/inclination/ideas can go out and deal with it.  We did the same thing in the indie webcomics scene.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenElevating this shit to the standard of pretending it's a culture war is melodrama; it's an attempt at trying to draw lines in the sand that do not, in reality, exist.

I certainly never said THAT.

Quote from: StuartI certainly never said THAT.

"PR work" implies a distinction of organisation between the group and the public.

Don't it, now?

Quote from: YamoAhem.

What, you mean that a chapter which begins with "Tara's master had always said, 'Don't become a pirate and sail around trying to force enlightenment on people. That's not the Buddha's way!'" is meant to be taken with nail-biting seriousness?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"PR work" implies a distinction of organisation between the group and the public.

Don't it, now?

Couldn't it be all indie and self-motivated, like the other stuff folks in that community do, but still be PR?

Quote from: TonyLBCouldn't it be all indie and self-motivated, like the other stuff folks in that community do, but still be PR?

...Ur?

I think we have a semantics issue, because that fails to register with me.

Quote from: GrimGentWhat, you mean that a chapter which begins with "Tara's master had always said, 'Don't become a pirate and sail around trying to force enlightenment on people. That's not the Buddha's way!'" is meant to be taken with nail-biting seriousness?

It's not that it seems overly-serious, but that it's clearly straining to be oh-so-clever and twee. Straining HARD. Way too hard.

Unless you're the bona-fide reincarnation of Lewis Caroll, that's a style better left alone.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI think we have a semantics issue, because that fails to register with me.

See, "PR" is a hard phrase here.  It's dead easy to describe in terms of whuffie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie).

If I go to fora (as I tend to do) and say witty, reasonable things (as I also tend to do) then I generate whuffie for myself and, to an extent, everyone associated with me in the public perception.  I do this whether it's organized or not, deliberate or not.  I do this whether I am actually associated with the people I'm perceived to be associated with or not.

Is that "PR"?  I dunno.  It's not hard for me to stretch my understanding of the term to encompass that sort of effect.  What the "real" definition of the term is ... that I couldn't tell ya.

Quote from: YamoIt's not that it seems overly-serious, but that it's clearly straining to be oh-so-clever and twee. Straining HARD. Way too hard.

Hmm. I can't say that fits in with what I've seen, and I've been reading the site for years.

"Airily, Tara says, 'I decided it'd be faster to bring enlightenment to all living beings if I skipped the last few million years of the process and just became a pirate. These are my monks. If you won't willingly abandon your attachment to material existence, I'm afraid I'll have to use the cannon.'"

Given the choice between 30+ pages of posts about this bullshit or utter nothing such is as unknown even at the heart of the void, cold oblivion is looking pretty fucking good right now.

That is all.

Quote from: fonkaygarryGiven the choice between 30+ pages of posts about this bullshit or utter nothing such is as unknown even at the heart of the void, cold oblivion is looking pretty fucking good right now.

That is all.

It has driven me to attempt to define "What is a Roleplaying game"

Because, see, that would be a step up, as debates go.

Quote from: fonkaygarryGiven the choice between 30+ pages of posts about this bullshit or utter nothing such is as unknown even at the heart of the void, cold oblivion is looking pretty fucking good right now.

That is all.

Some people in this thread really need to go read my hypothesis in the off-topic forum.

Maybe some perspective would get them to chill the fuck out.  

and for the sake of those that don't care to, I'll summarize:  We are all completely fucking irrelevent.

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Well, that makes two of us.

Look, it was fun playing your little game for a while, and I know that you're going for being all provocative and shit in order to stir up some action on the site, but there's a point at which being "provocative" becomes simply "horseshit".  If you'd really like some honest responses to your GM style, cut out the horseshit and state your case plainly.  Leave Borgstrom's name out of it, and anyone else's, too -- it's plainly yourself you want to discuss.  Have the balls to say so without trying to make yourself look good in comparison with an unflattering and inaccurate description of someone else.

!i!

You've lost me Levi... :(

You said

Quote from: Levi KornelsenElevating this shit to the standard of pretending it's a culture war is melodrama; it's an attempt at trying to draw lines in the sand that do not, in reality, exist.

Which I quoted and said

Quote from: StuartI certainly never said THAT

Which you then quoted and said

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"PR work" implies a distinction of organisation between the group and the public. Don't it, now?

um. wha???

Anyway, I work in PR, and have done PR for the indie comic groups I've worked with, so I hope you don't think I'm using "PR" as a bad word.

And I agree... this topic is *not* a high point of our discussion here.

Quote from: YamoRPG.Net and the Forge are the lunatic fringe, make no mistake. If they can convince you that normal, functional, TRADITIONAL mainstream gamers like Pundit and Settembrini are the freaks, they've already subverted your perceptions.

Personally, I don't find that RPGPundit's gaming tastes are what makes him a freak. I find it's his shrieking paranoia that makes him a freak.

Hint: powerful majorities tend not to get oppressed. Marginalised minorities do. Ranting about how you are being oppressed by fucking Forge games with print runs in the low thousands at best is shrieking paranoid lunacy.

Quote from: Stuartum. wha???

Anyway, I work in PR, and have done PR for the indie comic groups I've worked with, so I hope you don't think I'm using "PR" as a bad word.

And I agree... this topic is *not* a high point of our discussion here.

To me, "Public Relations" means that the person doing the relating is, plainly, speaking for people that are not part of the public.

Given that what we're talking about here are forums which are, in point of fact, open to the general public, the term sounds like an attempt to create a distinction that says "that forum over there is a closed group".

And they aren't.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's terrifically interesting.

Show me an example of someone hauling me out.

Oh come on, didn't you just say you hated this kind of evasionist shit? You KNOW that there have been many-a-time on RPG.net (and elsewhere) when people have pointed to you as the "reasonable theory guy".

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurIf that's the case, D&D would not be the biggest game out there at the moment, would it?

At the end of the day, the "Swine" simply have access to the same tools as you do: the internet, word of mouth, and their wallets. The largest game companies will always be the ones which publish the biggest-selling games, and the gaming public's wallets are firmly behind D&D. D&D, for better or worse, is the RPG that the non-gaming public associated with the hobby, and as such the word of mouth victory is D&D's.

That leaves the internet, your major sphere of operations. Where, erm, the largest and most active forums tend to talk about D&D an awful lot.

Given that you're in Uruguay and, as I understand it, don't have a handy local gameshop, you might be forgiven for thinking that the indie RPGs are crowding out the D&D books. They really, truly aren't. Most game shops I've been to haven't had any. Their major marketplace is the internet. (That's why they promote themselves so much there - if they didn't have a vocal internet presence, they'd die.)

Nobody is being converted in droves to Forge games. The large contingent of White Wolf fans were never satisfied with D&D anyhow. D&D is still the major player in the market.

When you shout about being oppressed like this, you end up sounding like a Fundamentalist Christian complaining about being "oppressed" in the freaking USA. Think about that for a moment.

I think I might have a new hero. Unfortunately it's wasted breath. Pundit doesn't care about being sane. If he's sane then the tiny speck of fame, that miniscule drop of "they like me" goes away. If he loses the crazy he loses "the war". However, that war is actually between him and obscurity.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh come on, didn't you just say you hated this kind of evasionist shit? You KNOW that there have been many-a-time on RPG.net (and elsewhere) when people have pointed to you as the "reasonable theory guy".

Reasonable Theory guy, all good.

Reasonable guy that stands for any existing group, I'm not interested in.

The only group I would ever have been straight-up pleased to be taken as the "stand-up guy" for was rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Every other group, not so much - many because I'm plainly not actually representative of the group.

So, if you like, consider me 'their' guy.  Except that, as a group, they no longer exist.

Quote from: WarthurEITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

What about just rolling the dice instead of saying yes or no?  That's pretty much what I do as a GM.  The real world is indifferent to wants and needs of people.  It doesn't default to saying "no" or "yes" when I want something.  Why should a game world be any different?

When I GM, if the players ask, "Is there a zoo in this city?", I'll either answer based on what I've already defined about the city (if the presence or absence of a zoo has already been determined) or I'll roll dice to see if there is a zoo or not.

I can't believe this conversation is actually taking place. But if there is indeed a war going on, and it has gone beyond the realm of calm discourse, I think we all know the means to settle it.

(http://secretninjahideout.homestead.com/conventionadventure3/mackthrust.jpg)

As you can see Abyssal Maw is already trying to "establish dominance" over AndyK, but I think Andy could just knee Maw in the junk, so this Dance Off! is anyone's call.

Let's settle this like gamers...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/BOOM!.JPG/180px-BOOM!.JPG)
BOOM! Headshot! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQR9WEIyKsQ)

Quote from: Andy K:rolleyes:

There's a world of difference between "Bergstrom is a shitty writer" and "Bergstrom is a cunt". Or do you really not know the difference?

I do know the difference, which is why your comment seemed off-base to me.  All the criticism of Rebecca Borgstrom I've read here has been of her abilities as a game designer.

Quote from: hgjsI do know the difference, which is why your comment seemed off-base to me.  All the criticism of Rebecca Borgstrom I've read here has been of her abilities as a game designer.

All these threads spilled out of a recycled rant posted under the same name (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=44495&postcount=72). Besides, I'm yet to see any solid criticism of the design or the mechanics, or evidence that Pundit is even familiar with the rules of the game; instead, all we've had here is bickering about the prose style and GM advice in the book.

Quote from: GrimGentAll these threads spilled out of a recycled rant posted under the same name (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=44495&postcount=72). Besides, I'm yet to see any solid criticism of the design or the mechanics, or evidence that Pundit is even familiar with the rules of the game; instead, all we've had here is bickering about the prose style and GM advice in the book.

Is there a reason you quoted my post, or did you mean to reply to someone else?

Quote from: hgjsIs there a reason you quoted my post, or did you mean to reply to someone else?

I suspect that Andy was thinking about that linked comment when he replied to you. In this particular thread, Pundit may not have been as virulent in badmouthing Borgstrom, but this same discussion is spread out over several forums and he hasn't shown similar restraint in the other threads.

So, I came across this:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe 'Indie Gaming Scene blog' pretty much marked the end of their era.

This was, I think, classic- all that time they spent to portray the pundit as a scary crazy stupid angry guy who could only speak in capital letters, and then he basicly pulls off the most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody I've seen in years.

And so I tracked down the "most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody" AM had seen in years...

And all I could think was, "Really? You thought this was brilliant and subtle?"

Because the "parody" seemed so wrong-headed on so many points that it clearly was written by somebody who simply hadn't played the games and hadn't even read the games (except, perhaps, as admitted, flipping through a few pages while standing around in a game store...)

This quote from "Cornell" in the comments section leaped out:

"I am an advocate of shared-power GMing, which means I believe that a GM who does not let his players arbitrarily change the settings and rules on a whim is deficient."

Subtle? No. Brilliant? Not really, since it's so off-the-mark for any games we could be discussing, I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be a paradoy of...

What we have is angry diatribe misrepresenting issues and games.

Hey! Is that a surprise from the Pundit. No way! If nothing else, the Pundit is always the same old Pundit!

The only really funny part:

the whole idea that if I enjoy, say, Sorcerer or HeroQuest I'm going to spend all my time looking down on people playing any other game I'm not interested in playing -- and this from the Pundit, who spends all his time actually insulting people who play games he doesn't like!

Can you say Projection? Yeesh!

I noted earlier on this thread he accused Tony of looking down on people who play games Tony doesn't play. Pundit's proof? He just knows. People like Tony -- who play those other games -- are just like that.

Of course the Pundit's not like that. He's only forced to behave that way because he's at war!

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikSo, I came across this:

And so I tracked down the "most brilliant and subtly humiliating parody" AM had seen in years...

And all I could think was, "Really? You thought this was brilliant and subtle?"

I guess Andy sent you over! Please promise not to write any more gaming novels about sado-masochistic Earthdawn characters, though. On the plus side, you came over pretty much directly as a representative and not to pretend to discuss gaming. Which is good.

Anyway, I think it may have actually been too subtle for you. You probably went straight for the obvious pokes and the "where are they talking about us" parts. The good stuff, however, is entirely fictional.

Here's some good parts:

"afterwards, he let me play his “thematic” game Cats In The Cradle, which is all about the choices we have to make regarding giving up pets if we have children..."

See? Totally subtle. It's not even a real game.

or here's a good one:

" if there’s a mental illness or repressed emotional issue that can’t be cured with Polaris, I haven’t heard about it yet! "

See? It has nothing to do with Polaris actually. Nada. I mean, I feel like if I have to explain the jokes they won't be funny anymore, but if you need me to go slow, I will. The funny parts are the gushy self endorsements, the hammy buzzwords, and the grandiose claims.

I also liked when he ended several of the reviews with the line "Possibly a great date game." Man!

The reason you guys are funny is not because you make games. There are plenty of people (even here) who are doing this game designer thing.

But.. usually just not in such a way that involves such hilarious self-pumpery.

I didn't see any "angry diatribes", either. Maybe we are looking at different things? But you mentioned Cornell so you must have read the same thing...

I actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

I think I'd have to be angry for it to count as a screed. Please take it in a casual way.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

The last post is about how the Indie Gaming Scene blog is funny by parodying pretentious game designers, and how Chris doesn't get it, which I think is a little true, but still pointless as it's just a joke.

Writ large, it's just more idiocy about how 'we're at war' when the enemy is only a tiny slice of the overall market and only really gets their points across in internet discussions that most gamers don't even get within a mile of. He's trying to let us know that he's our Cassandra, against the barbarian at the gate. And yes, there is only one if you try to make an analogy out of my previous statement.

Personally I wonder if he's trying to single-handedly destroy the nice signal to noise ratio we got going on here.

Quote from: JamesVThe last post is about how the Indie Gaming Scene blog is funny by parodying pretentious game designers, and how Chris doesn't get it, which I think is a little true, but still pointless as it's just a joke.

Writ large, it's just more idiocy about how 'we're at war' when the enemy is only a tiny slice of the overall market and only really gets their points across in internet discussions that most gamers don't even get within a mile of. He's trying to let us know that he's our Cassandra, against the barbarian at the gate. And yes, there is only one if you try to make an analogy out of my previous statement.

Personally I wonder if he's trying to single-handedly destroy the nice signal to noise ratio we got going on here.

Well, let's get this straight: I don't think there's a war with games, or a war with people, or a war between guys who play X versus guys who play Y.

But there is definitely a war (let's call it "a struggle") over the discourse. Or at least there has been, and it's mostly pretty much over.

FWIW, the person who coined the term 'Culture War' was not Pundit, or me, or Settembrini or anyone else: it was John Kim. Like, back in MAY.

http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26541.html
http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26836.html
http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26920.html

And I think John Kim probably describes it better. You will also note that in just a few months time things have changed. Now is different than then. I would say now is better than then. And this place is one of the reasons.

Now- do I think *I* am some kind of Cassandra? Or I am doing anything special at all? No. I'm only a sideline commentator. Seriously, I'm just "some random guy".

Actually, no one "sent me over..." I don't know what that even means. You say you're not really part of a war, and yet you use language that suggests partisans are being air dropped in.

I showed up following a link. I then realized someone had quoted a post of mine from another site at this site. I decided to check it out....

And found that RPGPundit holding forth on a wide range of issues on which he seems to have no actal experience and prattling on about matters of war.

I would say this is all about gaming. When he misrepresent rules, techniques and points of view all bearing on games, then it's about gaming. And he does. Relentlessly.

I'm amazed the man's defensive and childish rages have boiled over so fiercely in the last week. He's really only left with two camps now: those who say, "Dude, you're kind of wierd," and those who say, "I, too, am obsessed with what other think about me! Please we have to beat back those mean people who look down on us!"

I'm not "representing" anything except, perhaps, clear thinking. Or, rather, I'm an enemy of murky thinking.

I "get" the parody to the degree that Michael Savage can broadcast to his 8 million listeners that homosexuals have declared war on religion, and "make no mistake folks, they want to stop religion in this country." Sure, it's a statement, and sure, it plays into the anger of people who like being defensive and angry. But does Savage's statement have anything to do with homosexuals as a group? You, know... reality?

Of course not.

And in the same way, RPGPundits rants, where he kicks ass and takes no names. They are as removed from reality (actual games, actual content of people's thoughts and imagination) as Michael Savages idiocy.

As for the novels, some folks loved 'em, some folks hated 'em. That's life. A grown up knows that. Unfortunantly, there are some people (like Christian fundementalists, left-wing nutjobs, and RPGPundit's little crew) driven insane by the fact there are people who are different than them -- different tastes, different desires -- and drive themselves into frenzies figuring out how to wipe out the "enemy."

Whatever.

Is there a "clash" or a "conflict" or a "war" -- of course not. There are differences. They are just out there. The same way some people like to see a romantic comedy when they go to the movies, and others really want to see SAW III. Or David Lynch movies. Or whatever.

According to PunditThink, people who have different taste in movies should be railing at either, making it clear that what those "other" people like aren't "really" movies. Everyone Horror movies made is one less Romantic Comedy made, and that's a bad thing... and so on.

Which strikes me as absurd. But I can't really claim to understand the logic of those around here, so maybe they're nodding their heads going, "Exactly, yes...!"

If there's conflict it's not about games. There are plenty of people and plenty of games, and people are going to play what they want.

The conflict is about either being the kind of person who enjoys the fact that with seven billion human beings on the planet there's going to be a lot of variety about what is made and enjoyed, and people who are freaked out by that fact.

That's the conflict. And it's not even a war. Because people like me, who love the variety of life look at someone like RPGPundit and say, "Oh, look, another pretty little flower I never saw before." He's not my "enemy." He's just one more example of the strangeness of human life.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI "get" the parody to the degree that Michael Savage can broadcast to his 8 million listeners that homosexuals have declared war on religion, and "make no mistake folks, they want to stop religion in this country." Sure, it's a statement, and sure, it plays into the anger of people who like being defensive and angry. But does Savage's statement have anything to do with homosexuals as a group? You, know... reality?

I have nothing to add to this except this is straight out of that argument playbook I was talking about earlier.

It kinda goes like this: "Well, I don't know about X but here's a completely irrelevant reference to a political guy who hates gays.."

Geez. If I had a nickel for every time. And it's always someone from the Forge too. Go figure.

As for the rest, I dunno. I think you misunderstand what this really is. No, it isn't people being upset at other people's preferences. That is not the conflict. At all. Seriously. Levi came a lot closer when he described his hypothetical 'Joe-in-search of a community'. The conflict is over the discourse.  In many ways the conversation we are having (this one, right now) is the real battle. This has nothing to do with games or "diversity" or anything like that.

I'll break it down for you.

1) In the last few years: until fairly recently, much of the dicourse in this community (and by community I am talking about the entire RPG-discussion-sphere, not just this website, but.. all of it) has been characterized by a certain school of thought. Maybe not 'most', but a significant amount.

2) As time wore on, this school of thought became increasingly bold about it's pronouncements: who has brain-damage, who is dysfunctional, etcetera. The pronouncements were often insulting and lacking in merit.

Now- the fact that these same guys were also creating games? Totally coincidental. Forget about that part for the moment. The conflict is not over the games. Nor is it over the "diversity" or the "preferences".

3) Because of editorial policies in the major arteries of discussion, direct redressal was impossible.

4) Eventually someone spoke up. Or rather- in the most Walt Whitmanesque terms: Pundit sounded his "barbaric YAWP over the roofs of the world."

And now YOU guys are coming over to redress us! Often poorly or clumsily. But still, I like the effort.

This is why even the most excessive thing the Pundit says is acceptable to me. As much as I love to screw with you guys (and make no mistake, I am screwing with you guys and pretty much enjoying it), I think it's important to have this confrontation on our terms, in a place with no censorship. I think we've already been hugely successful at burying some of the BS that popped up over the last few years. We even have people trying to straddle the communities to come to terms with both sides. We're a wretched hive of scum and villiany, sure. But we stand for freedom and fairness, too.

And sure there's still a few cranky, humorless, and barely-talented guys who cling to the world of 2004-2005 where they all smarmily agree about how we're all dysfunctional and brain damaged until we try out the right game. But those guys are defeated now, and they know it.


As for the Earthdawn novels, I read three of them!

a) I enjoyed them!
b) They're terrible!

Quote from: Abyssal MawI have nothing to add to this except this is straight out of that argument playbook I was talking about earlier.

It kinda goes like this: "Well, I don't know about X but here's a completely irrelevant reference to a political guy who hates gays.."

To be fair, a lot of the time the Pundit's diatribes - especially when he's talking generally, rather than criticising a particular game (which he's normally pretty good at) - could be turned into entirely something else if you, for example, read "the Forge" as "gay people" and "storytelling" as "homosexuality". He has said on this very forum that he finds what story gamers do disgusting and want them to go away and not intrude on the internet RPG community, just as many homophobic politicians these day talk about how they don't hate gays, they would just prefer it if they shut up and went away and didn't get involved in political discussion...

I'm not seriously accusing the Pundit of being homophobic - and anyone who is seriously accusing him of that is being ridiculous. I'm just saying that he tends to use rhetorical tactics often associated with homophobes and Klansmen.

In other words he's reactionnary.

News at 11.

NO. Absolutely not. I don't buy this at all.

Amongst other things, your'e actually making real racism more excusable.

"A man was lynched! Several minorities were arrested and harassed.. And it was (sob!) just like that one time when Pundit was mean about Rebecca Borgstrom!"

That does not fly.

And just as easily as you could recapture the Forge as "gay people" and "storytelling" as "homosexuality", you could repurpose it and say the Forge as "Nazis" and Storytelling as "pedophilia" (which would make it ok to attack?)

No. Bullshit. Let things stand for exactly what they are.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikActually, no one "sent me over..." I don't know what that even means. You say you're not really part of a war, and yet you use language that suggests partisans are being air dropped in.

I showed up following a link. I then realized someone had quoted a post of mine from another site at this site. I decided to check it out....

And found that RPGPundit holding forth on a wide range of issues on which he seems to have no actal experience and prattling on about matters of war.

I would say this is all about gaming. When he misrepresent rules, techniques and points of view all bearing on games, then it's about gaming. And he does. Relentlessly.

I'm amazed the man's defensive and childish rages have boiled over so fiercely in the last week. He's really only left with two camps now: those who say, "Dude, you're kind of wierd," and those who say, "I, too, am obsessed with what other think about me! Please we have to beat back those mean people who look down on us!"

I'm not "representing" anything except, perhaps, clear thinking. Or, rather, I'm an enemy of murky thinking.

I "get" the parody to the degree that Michael Savage can broadcast to his 8 million listeners that homosexuals have declared war on religion, and "make no mistake folks, they want to stop religion in this country." Sure, it's a statement, and sure, it plays into the anger of people who like being defensive and angry. But does Savage's statement have anything to do with homosexuals as a group? You, know... reality?

Of course not.

And in the same way, RPGPundits rants, where he kicks ass and takes no names. They are as removed from reality (actual games, actual content of people's thoughts and imagination) as Michael Savages idiocy.

As for the novels, some folks loved 'em, some folks hated 'em. That's life. A grown up knows that. Unfortunantly, there are some people (like Christian fundementalists, left-wing nutjobs, and RPGPundit's little crew) driven insane by the fact there are people who are different than them -- different tastes, different desires -- and drive themselves into frenzies figuring out how to wipe out the "enemy."

Whatever.

Is there a "clash" or a "conflict" or a "war" -- of course not. There are differences. They are just out there. The same way some people like to see a romantic comedy when they go to the movies, and others really want to see SAW III. Or David Lynch movies. Or whatever.

According to PunditThink, people who have different taste in movies should be railing at either, making it clear that what those "other" people like aren't "really" movies. Everyone Horror movies made is one less Romantic Comedy made, and that's a bad thing... and so on.

Which strikes me as absurd. But I can't really claim to understand the logic of those around here, so maybe they're nodding their heads going, "Exactly, yes...!"

If there's conflict it's not about games. There are plenty of people and plenty of games, and people are going to play what they want.

The conflict is about either being the kind of person who enjoys the fact that with seven billion human beings on the planet there's going to be a lot of variety about what is made and enjoyed, and people who are freaked out by that fact.

That's the conflict. And it's not even a war. Because people like me, who love the variety of life look at someone like RPGPundit and say, "Oh, look, another pretty little flower I never saw before." He's not my "enemy." He's just one more example of the strangeness of human life.

Dude, you're hilarious. You come here to say that the Forgeites aren't trying to evangelize or fight a war, and then write this lengthy essay that is basically one long bombing run...

..wait, you aren't the same stupid fucktard who compared the Forge to the Beat Poet movement, are you??

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is why even the most excessive thing the Pundit says is acceptable to me. As much as I love to screw with you guys (and make no mistake, I am screwing with you guys and pretty much enjoying it), I think it's important to have this confrontation on our terms, in a place with no censorship. I think we've already been hugely successful at burying some of the BS that popped up over the last few years. We even have people trying to straddle the communities to come to terms with both sides. We're a wretched hive of scum and villiany, sure. But we stand for freedom and fairness, too.

Yes, well, that's the main difference between them and us.  Their sites have to censor us, because all they've got to base their arguments on are delusions and lies.
We have the truth, so they can come here and bark all the like like the dogs they are, and they'll still be defeated. We're not scared of them the way they're scared of us.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd just as easily as you could recapture the Forge as "gay people" and "storytelling" as "homosexuality", you could repurpose it and say the Forge as "Nazis" and Storytelling as "pedophilia" (which would make it ok to attack?)

Yup.  I like hyperbole as a rhetorical tool as much as the next guy, maybe a little more. But I've got nothing on these fuckers.  Of course, when you're going in unarmed to a battle of wits, personal slander is pretty well the only weapon you've got going for you.

RPGPundit

Honestly, Pundit: I actually disagree with you about Borgstrom, or at least I see it as just harmless foolishness of the usual game designer sort.

But man, if that's the honey that brings these guys in to the trap, then I say play on!

QuoteBut man, if that's the honey that brings these guys in to the trap, then I say play on!

You surely get banned for critisizing her writings on theOthersite...something must have made their alarm bells ring.

Quote from: RPGPunditWe have the truth, so they can come here and bark all the like like the dogs they are, and they'll still be defeated. We're not scared of them the way they're scared of us.

..........

Actually, I'm gonna pause in the poking-wise here.

Pundit, the reason I've been cracking wise at your rhetoric here is because, well, the hyperbole you're using is overblown in the extreme.

I'm happy to attack dumbass jargon, to piss on it as offensive and stupid.  Because it gets in the way of actual communication.

I see your current line of rhetoric as doing the same thing.

So, yeah.  Back to the poking-wise.

..........

Wanna lead a rousing chorus of We shall overcome?

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, when you're going in unarmed to a battle of wits, personal slander is pretty well the only weapon you've got going for you.

Very true (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=44830&postcount=77). :D

Quote from: Christmas ApeI actually feel like I know too much English to make sense of Abyssal's screed here. Someone want to translate it into a functional version? I'm curious what it's barking about.

Am I the only one who is hearing the above quote in Cornell's voice?

QuoteI'm amazed the man's defensive and childish rages have boiled over so fiercely in the last week. He's really only left with two camps now: those who say, "Dude, you're kind of wierd," and those who say, "I, too, am obsessed with what other think about me! Please we have to beat back those mean people who look down on us!"

I have a theory that he injured his hand on his vacation and can no longer masturbate satisfactorily. So until he's healed up the level of mental whacking off he does will increase dramatically. :D

Quote from: James McMurrayI have a theory that he injured his hand on his vacation and can no longer masturbate satisfactorily. So until he's healed up the level of mental whacking off he does will increase dramatically. :D

You're just another damned wanker theorist.

I knew it.

Quote from: James McMurrayI have a theory that he injured his hand on his vacation and can no longer masturbate satisfactorily. So until he's healed up the level of mental whacking off he does will increase dramatically. :D

I'd go with this theory :)

Anyway, is not like what we do here really was of the utmost importance. To the industry as a whole, and to the gamers as a whole, Internet is irrelevant and nonexistant. Whenever the Pundit starts with the colossal wankery about how The Army of Inmortals Shall Overcome The Enemies of Truth (when Pundit wouldn't recognize the Truth if it bited him in the face),... I start hearing a long, neverending song of Manowar in my head. Frankly, I'm sure that the Pundit and Manowar use the same speech writer :D

Ok, I was going to go away and not look at the forums but I happened to read this thread and enough is enough with RPGPundit's constant bullshit.   It may get me banned, but I can't take any more of his crap.

Quote from: RPGPunditYup.  I like hyperbole as a rhetorical tool as much as the next guy, maybe a little more.

Anyone who reads your posts knows this.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut I've got nothing on these fuckers.  Of course, when you're going in unarmed to a battle of wits, personal slander is pretty well the only weapon you've got going for you.

RPGPundit

Nope, Personal Slander is not a weapon, it simply shows that you have nothing of value to add to the argument and your side of the argument is bankrupt.

Quote from: Geek MessiahIt may get me banned, but I can't take any more of his crap.

Calling bullshit on each other will not get you banned around here.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well, that's the main difference between them and us.  Their sites have to censor us, because all they've got to base their arguments on are delusions and lies.

Coming from someone who posts things that come from delusions and lies I find that funny.

QuoteWe have the truth, so they can come here and bark all the like like the dogs they are, and they'll still be defeated. We're not scared of them the way they're scared of us.

RPGPundit

Pundit, you arent going to win because there isnt a war.  You are a small fringe site that most people dont know exists or cares about (much the same way my two former rpg sites, now sold) are.    Rpg.net doesnt care about your so called war nor does Enworld or anyone else (and lets face it, this site and my two sites are piss-ants compared to them.

Not to mention (and listen closely) "The majority of gamers dont go online and read message forums!"   So those gamers who are on message forums are a "fringe group within a fringe hobby" that doesnt make up one percent of the world population.

Quote from: jrientsCalling bullshit on each other will not get you banned around here.

And thank the Lord Almighty for that.

Quote"The majority of gamers dont go online and read message forums!"

What might be the reasons for that?

You don't think you'll actually convince him of anyhitng, do you? He still has yet to answer wuestions about what exactly doesn't work in the game, but continues to shout about the game being completely unworkable. And he certainly isn't going to listen to anyone but himself on this, that is, unless you're stroking his ego.

Quote from: Abyssal MawFair enough.

Is there some kind of argument playbook you guys all use by the way? I can't count the times I've seen a swine argument go downhill and then it inevitably draws in something about race or politics as a defense. So far you've mentioned 'racial war' twice. I've seen other guys in the greater swine circle do this more than a few times, so it's not just you or anything.
I always totally imagine you guy sorta slinking back to whatever gated community you post freely in and saying "yeah we got into it, but then I totally got one of those racial comments off! AND I totally said he was Hitler!"

endlessly amusing.

And if your'e still curious, yes I still totally know why your'e here. Everyone does. Your'e here for public relations.

Abyssal Maw,

There are those who can, do (Create a rpg) those who can't who then hide on a message forum and insult those who can (I think we all know who we are talking about).

(woops corrected name)

Quote from: SettembriniWhat might be the reasons for that?

Generally it's one of three things:

1) They use message boards only for informational tools

2) They don't use message boards at all

3) They don't have internet access

#2 is probably the most common. Reasons for it that I've heard range from not being sociable, not wanting to "hang around with dorks," not liking the crap that flows at the first sites they come across, and probably a few others. It certainly isn't proof of a culture war though, which I get the impression you're hinting at.

Quote from: Geek MessiahWell Spike,

There are those who can, do (Create a rpg) those who can't who then hide on a message forum and insult those who can (I think we all know who we are talking about).

I don't recall seeing Geek Messiah on any books. What titles have you done? Don't take this as an "oh yeah!?" I'm really just curious. I personally think I'm capable of creating an RPG, I just don't feel like going through the trouble when there are already so many good ones available. Whether I actually can or not will probably never be known.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat might be the reasons for that?

Yanno, some people just really don't like talking about something to death, even if they really like it.  

And some people feel that Internet discussion is a futile waste of time in general, and would rather just get on with gaming.  

Some people lack the obsessive geek impulse to talk about something they like every hour of every day.  They just game, and it's one of the things they do.

Some people have active lives outside the Internet, and more important things to do than spend hours of their lives wasting time on an Internet message board.  

Some people have realized that he nature of the Internet basically makes every conversation a damn flamewar eventually, and thus give up on it.  

There's any number of gazillions of people who do not spend much time at all on message boards, and gazillions of reasons not to, gamers or not.  It's just the way it is.  The vast majority of fans of anything, whether its gaming, computers, movies, sports, you name it, do not spend any time on message boards, let alone the kind of time it takes to be a recognized member of one.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat might be the reasons for that?

Because they are busy playing role playing games and doing other things.   Game designers themselves say that the online game community is the minority because they talk directly to gamers at cons and find that most dont bother going onto rpg forums.

I wished to hell I had never gone onto a message forum.   Maybe I wouldnt have burned out of the hobby.  Because I am convinced that many of those people I talk to dont actually play (many admit to it- all these conversations happened on rpg.net btw) and the crap they throw around really jaded my view.

Quote from: Geek MessiahWell Spike,

There are those who can, do (Create a rpg) those who can't who then hide on a message forum and insult those who can (I think we all know who we are talking about).

Speaking of calling bullshit!  Questions about Pundit's motives or capabilities aside, the man hardly qualifies as 'hiding'.  Name someone who does what he does and has a higher online profile.  I dare you.

Also, any attempt to wander into 'don't critique unless you can create' territory will get a lot of people riled up.

Quote from: Geek MessiahWell Spike,

There are those who can, do (Create a rpg) those who can't who then hide on a message forum and insult those who can (I think we all know who we are talking about).

Get over yourself.

And keep the fallaciously wankish cliches for your own mental fantasy world.

You could also try getting the posters damn name right.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou don't think you'll actually convince him of anyhitng, do you? He still has yet to answer wuestions about what exactly doesn't work in the game, but continues to shout about the game being completely unworkable. And he certainly isn't going to listen to anyone but himself on this, that is, unless you're stroking his ego.

That's true.   Which is probably why he has been considered a troll on most message forums and has been banned from them.  I don't think that rpgpundit has anywhere else to get his voice (sic) heard.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't recall seeing Geek Messiah on any books. What titles have you done? Don't take this as an "oh yeah!?" I'm really just curious. I personally think I'm capable of creating an RPG, I just don't feel like going through the trouble when there are already so many good ones available. Whether I actually can or not will probably never be known.

That's fine, it wasn't directing that at you but I doubt rpgpundit has the ability to do so.   As for titles I have done, none published.

Partly I gave up because I burned out of the hobby and secondly it would be foolish to try to get anything published in this oversaturated market.  If I were going to publish any of the works I have worked on (in various states) I would wait until the market corrected itself.

Quote from: jrientsSpeaking of calling bullshit!  Questions about Pundit's motives or capabilities aside, the man hardly qualifies as 'hiding'.  Name someone who does what he does and has a higher online profile.  I dare you.

Also, any attempt to wander into 'don't critique unless you can create' territory will get a lot of people riled up.

Actually, rpgpundit's popularity isnt as high as he thinks it is.  He puffs himself up like a blowfish but there are plenty of people (gamers) who have no idea who he is.

And those who know who he is do so by being on the forums he was banned on for his trollish behavior

Quote from: Geek MessiahActually, rpgpundit's popularity isnt as high as he thinks it is.  He puffs himself up like a blowfish but there are plenty of people (gamers) who have no idea who he is.

And those who know who he is do so by being on the forums he was banned on for his trollish behavior

Fine.  That doesn't make a guy with a blog and regular activity on a forum into someone who is in hiding.  Are you hiding by posting here?  Am I?

Quote from: J ArcaneGet over yourself.

And keep the fallaciously wankish cliches for your own mental fantasy world.

Of this point I am correct.   Not to mention he spouts off about Nobillis with surprising ignorance

Quote from: J ArcaneYou could also try getting the posters damn name right.

I was trying to quote spike but I quoted the wrong message, point taken none the less.

Quote from: jrientsFine.  That doesn't make a guy with a blog and regular activity on a forum into someone who is in hiding.  Are you hiding by posting here?  Am I?

Ok, maybe hiding was the wrong word (I will admit that), but Rpgpundit has been banned from everywhere else and now he only has this small corner of the world to speak from.

There are many people who don't know who he is and many who consider him a kook.   His delusional rants in which he spouts ignorance doesn't help his cause.   Even people on here have called bullshit on him.

There is no war, if people roleplay in a way you dont like don't role play with them.   He isn't going to win any "war" because as I have pointed out (as well as others) the majority of the gamers dont even go to message forums.    His message will only be heard at this forum which is a niche inside of a niche inside of a niche.

Did the guys over at The Forge start a revolution?   Nope.  There were just a fringe bunch that you either payed attention to or you didnt.    Rpg Pundits "war" will have the same effect on gaming

Quote"The majority of gamers dont go online and read message forums!"

I think people tend to overemphasize the impact of a lot of RPG discussion sites, beyond the relevance they have to their own members.

QuotePageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

A few sites and their current PageRank.

Yahoo.com -- 9

YouTube.com -- 8
Metafilter.com -- 8
BoingBoing.net -- 8
Penny-Arcade.com -- 8
Gamespot.com -- 8

Wizards.com -- 7
Designmeme.com (Stuart's Blog) -- 7
Etsy.com (Crafts) -- 7
BoardGameGeek.com -- 7
SJGames.com -- 7

EnWorld.org -- 6
RPG.net -- 6
Indie-RPGs.com (the Forge) -- 6
PalladiumBooks.com -- 6
GreenRonin.com -- 6

TheRPGSite -- 4
Story Games -- 4

So yes, EnWorld and RPG.net are more influential and well known than TheRPGSite and Story Games... but SJGames, Wizards.com, BoardGameGeek, and even my blog are even more so, and those sites are nothing on the big ones like YouTube, BoingBoing and Metafilter.  And those sites your grandmother might not have heard of.  She's heard of Yahoo though.

I'm really lost here. I see Geek Messiah quoting abyssal Maw, then I see people quote GM as quoting me, then I see GM saying that he got the quote from the wrong post...

Gah!. I've spent the last five minutes trying to figure out who exactly invoked my Name so that I might lay down the Smiting, and upon whom which Smiting might be directed...

Someone seems to have taken my name in vain, and as soon as I work it out there WILL be a Smiting!

:D

Quote from: StuartI think people tend to overemphasize the impact of a lot of RPG discussion sites, beyond the relevance they have to their own members.

*SNIP*

It has nothing to do with page ranking, it has to do with rpgpundit trying to get his word out in a medium that the majority of gamers dont use.

I bet if you go out and interview 100 gamers (or 1000) the number of gamers who have heard of The Forge will be small (if any of them have).

When you ask them why I bet you will be amazed at how many will tell you they do not utilize web based message forums.   Game Designers have talked to gamers and found most dont (check big blue, I dont remember the threads this was discussed in).

Trying to start a movement in a niche inside of a niche (ala The Forge or RpgPundit's "War") is a wasted effort.

Most of those gamers don't use message forums because they are busy actually playing rpgs.

My own blog rates a 5 according to this page (http://www.checkpagerank.com/).

However, I think you're missing one piece of the puzzle.  The sites the designers are on will indirectly influence design to some extent.  If Mike Mearls were to read my blog and come to the conclusion that I am the Platonic ideal of the customer he wants to sell games to, that could potentially effect zillions of 3.5 players around the world.

Quote from: SpikeI'm really lost here. I see Geek Messiah quoting abyssal Maw, then I see people quote GM as quoting me, then I see GM saying that he got the quote from the wrong post...

Gah!. I've spent the last five minutes trying to figure out who exactly invoked my Name so that I might lay down the Smiting, and upon whom which Smiting might be directed...

Someone seems to have taken my name in vain, and as soon as I work it out there WILL be a Smiting!

:D

It was my fault.   I meant to quote you and that message was supposed to be based off your comment, instead I quoted off Abyssal Maw.

As they say "My Bad!"

QuoteSpeaking of calling bullshit! Questions about Pundit's motives or capabilities aside, the man hardly qualifies as 'hiding'. Name someone who does what he does and has a higher online profile. I dare you.

Me.

I think RPGPundit is an online persona of someone who I have no idea about what they're really like.  RPGPundit is an excellent debater, makes lots of great points, and I frequently agree with him -- but as a persona, he can make over the top statements, without worrying about it damaging "his name" in real life.  One of the reasons I dislike these threads about Ms. Borgstrom, is that it's one sided.  Rebecca  Borgstrom is being attacked, not "Lady Nobilis 23" or some other forum name.

QuoteFine. That doesn't make a guy with a blog and regular activity on a forum into someone who is in hiding. Are you hiding by posting here? Am I?

"Jeff Rients" is not hiding.  Any of the forum posters who use aliases are.  That's their right to do so, but it *is* hiding behind an alias, and they have the safety to say things they might not otherwise say if they were using

Quote from: Geek MesiahIt has nothing to do with page ranking, it has to do with rpgpundit trying to get his word out in a medium that the majority of gamers dont use.

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm agreeing with you -- the majority of everyone, including gamers, do not visit RPG discussion forums.

Quote from: Geek MessiahIt was my fault.   I meant to quote you and that message was supposed to be based off your comment, instead I quoted off Abyssal Maw.

As they say "My Bad!"

See... that doesn't help much, because I'll be damned if I can find a recent comment on this thread, much less one that actually would result in that sort of comment.  

If I DO read you right, I should point out that the Pundit HAS designed a game and has been semi-actively shopping it around for a publisher in various countries.  

If I DON'T read you right... well, my tail is still all acquiver anticipating a serious Smiting.:p

Quote from: StuartMe.

I didn't realize you were in the tilting-at-windmills business.  ;)

Quote from: jrientsMy own blog rates a 5 according to this page (http://www.checkpagerank.com/).

And The RPG Outpost which I used to own has a page rank of 7 (Same As Wizards and a few others.   Regardless, page rank means nothing to the many gamers (the majority) who DONT use message forums.  You can be the best ranked site on the internet, but if gamers dont use the message forums it's meaningless.

Quote from: jrientsHowever, I think you're missing one piece of the puzzle.  The sites the designers are on will indirectly influence design to some extent.  If Mike Mearls were to read my blog and come to the conclusion that I am the Platonic ideal of the customer he wants to sell games to, that could potentially effect zillions of 3.5 players around the world.

There is that possiability, so yes the internet has some effect on the hobby but not a large one.

Quote from: jrientsIf Mike Mearls were to read my blog and come to the conclusion that I am the Platonic ideal of the customer he wants to sell games to, that could potentially effect zillions of 3.5 players around the world.

True, but how many game designers do you think well latch onto a raving loon as their quintessential target audience?

Quote"Jeff Rients" is not hiding. Any of the forum posters who use aliases are. That's their right to do so, but it *is* hiding behind an alias, and they have the safety to say things they might not otherwise say if they were using

Yeah me! ;)

edit: the loon in reference being Pundit, not jrients who I quoted

Quote from: StuartI think you misunderstand me.  I'm agreeing with you -- the majority of everyone, including gamers, do not visit RPG discussion forums.

How DARE You agree with me :D

Sorry, I misunderstood you :)  My fault

Quote from: SpikeIf I DO read you right, I should point out that the Pundit HAS designed a game and has been semi-actively shopping it around for a publisher in various countries.

I am curious, what is this game you speak of?  Knowing this could change my view and make some of what I said, well wrong.

James, it's okay.  I was laughing at the first version.

QuoteMy own blog rates a 5 according to this page.

However, I think you're missing one piece of the puzzle. The sites the designers are on will indirectly influence design to some extent. If Mike Mearls were to read my blog and come to the conclusion that I am the Platonic ideal of the customer he wants to sell games to, that could potentially effect zillions of 3.5 players around the world.

So your blog has more influence than an RPG discussion site.  Think about that for a moment in relation to any of the discussion going on here.

Any designer who reads RPG discussion boards or the various blogs of people interested in RPG design / theory and thinks they're the "ideal customer" they should design their games for is very, very mistaken. :D

I think that's what lead to the highly praised, yet not commercially successful Forge games.  By Game Designers - FOR Game Designers.

Honestly, if you wanted to get a better sense of the average gamer, and average potential customer, sites higher on that list (eg. Penny Arcade Forum, Wizards.com Forum, etc) would be a better idea.

Quote"Jeff Rients" is not hiding. Any of the forum posters who use aliases are. That's their right to do so, but it *is* hiding behind an alias, and they have the safety to say things they might not otherwise say if they were using

Right.  So not giving out my name to all and sundry webstalkers and other undesirables means I'm a coward.  :rolleyes:

You don't have to be a coward to hide. There are countless reasons why someone wouldn't want to use their real name on the board, being cowardly and hiding behind an alias so they don't have to face the consequences of their actions is just one of them, and not even the most popular one (most folks take on a name from a favorite book, game, cartoon, etc.)

QuoteI didn't realize you were in the tilting-at-windmills business.

No, I'm not really. I think a Pundit persona would allow you more freedom in that regard. :D

Quote from: StuartOne of the reasons I dislike these threads about Ms. Borgstrom, is that it's one sided.  Rebecca  Borgstrom is being attacked, not "Lady Nobilis 23" or some other forum name.

I agree.   I wish that instead of ranting like a loon RpgPundit would give us a clear outline of what he thinks is wrong with Nobilis.   If he did that one simple thing I think people would take him more seriously.

Quote from: Stuart"Jeff Rients" is not hiding.  Any of the forum posters who use aliases are.  That's their right to do so, but it *is* hiding behind an alias, and they have the safety to say things they might not otherwise say if they were using

Note to self:  Kick yourself in the ass for using the word "Hiding, thus opening a can of worms".

Quote from: Geek MessiahI agree.   I wish that instead of ranting like a loon RpgPundit would give us a clear outline of what he thinks is wrong with Nobilis.   If he did that one simple thing I think people would take him more seriously.

He can't. He's admitted that he didn't read the entire game, has certainly never actually played it, and conveniently no longer has a copy available. All that's left for him to do is rant and rave, garnering a bunch of posts to his boards. Since he posits his popularity in the world on the number of posts and users his board has compared to other sites, acting like a moron is one of the quicker ways to accomplish his goals in that area.

Hell, by his yardstick being hated by everyone in the online RPG community, and having large numbers of people come here to tell him in no uncertain terms exactly why he's a loser would mean he was the most popular person in RPG history.

Quote from: jrientsSpeaking of calling bullshit!  Questions about Pundit's motives or capabilities aside, the man hardly qualifies as 'hiding'.  Name someone who does what he does and has a higher online profile.  I dare you.

Also, any attempt to wander into 'don't critique unless you can create' territory will get a lot of people riled up.

People like me.  Because it's fallacious garbage.  Mostly floated about by arseholes with large yet fragile egos trying to insulate themselves from criticism, or by useless fanboys with roughly the same problem.

I'll criticize whatever the gorram hell I want.  I like what I llike, and don't what I don't, and I don't need to appeal to some inflated notion of my own credentials to do it.

Can I criticize your use of the word "gorram"? You know that's not a real word, right? :)

Quote from: James McMurrayHe can't. He's admitted that he didn't read the entire game, has certainly never actually played it, and conveniently no longer has a copy available. All that's left for him to do is rant and rave, garnering a bunch of posts to his boards. Since he posits his popularity in the world on the number of posts and users his board has compared to other sites, acting like a moron is one of the quicker ways to accomplish his goals in that area.

And this alone is why he got kicked off the other forums.  Not a conspiracy, not an act to censor him, but his inability to have a rational discussion

Quote from: James McMurrayHell, by his yardstick being hated by everyone in the online RPG community, and having large numbers of people come here to tell him in no uncertain terms exactly why he's a loser would mean he was the most popular person in RPG history.

He isn't hated by everyone in the online RPG community because there are plenty of people who don't know who he is (or cares for that matter).   In his twisted mind (and I think the man has problems) I can see how he feels this way.

Of course, after awhile people will go back to ignoring him when they see he cannot be rational and the active users number will drop like a rock.

Quote from: James McMurrayCan I criticize your use of the word "gorram"? You know that's not a real word, right? :)

No you can't.  You understood what the word meant, correct?  It's definition?  Then it's a real word.  

If I was running about referring to my fgohlor, then you could be well within your rights to bitch.

Quote from: James McMurrayCan I criticize your use of the word "gorram"? You know that's not a real word, right? :)

No, because unless you can come up with your own made up words you don't have the right to criticize his ;D

This might provide some clairity (I think): The Art of Linkbaiting (http://performancing.com/node/38) -- specifically the Attack Hook. :)

The RPGPundit is the Anti-Hero of the RPG Theory Micro Community.  His motives are good, it's just his methods I disagree with.

Quote from: Geek MessiahI am curious, what is this game you speak of?  Knowing this could change my view and make some of what I said, well wrong.

Settembrini, who playtested it at a con insists that it is called 'Forward to Adventure', though what the Pundit names it I do not know. I understand it to involve group resolution mechanics similar to Tunnels and Trolls and it is intended largely for the latin American gaming market.  

Beyond that, you'll have to ask either the Pundit or Settembrini for more details.

Quote from: StuartThe RPGPundit is the Anti-Hero of the RPG Theory Micro Community.  His motives are good, it's just his methods I disagree with.

What exactly are his motives?  He rants and raves and makes statements that the majority of the rpg community does not agree with.  I would like to know what his motives are.

Quote from: SpikeSettembrini, who playtested it at a con insists that it is called 'Forward to Adventure', though what the Pundit names it I do not know. I understand it to involve group resolution mechanics similar to Tunnels and Trolls and it is intended largely for the latin American gaming market.  

Beyond that, you'll have to ask either the Pundit or Settembrini for more details.

Ok, thank you for your answer

Quote from: J ArcaneNo you can't.  You understood what the word meant, correct?  It's definition?  Then it's a real word.

A couple of dorks knowing what something means doesn't make it a real word any more than spoo is a real food. Besides, it was a joke, chill out.

Quote from: GeekMesiahWhat exactly are his motives? He rants and raves and makes statements that the majority of the rpg community does not agree with. I would like to know what his motives are.

I should have said some of his motives are good. :)  Certainly motives like seeking fame and/or fortune are no more good or bad than anyone elses.

The good motives that I can see are:
* wanting the RPG hobby to shed the stigma of being "for losers"
* supporting RPGs that are more fun to the average gamer, instead of being designed "By Game Designers FOR Game Designers"
* Promoting the Fun/Gaming side of things so they don't get eclipsed by the Art/Pretention side of things.
* providing a forum to discuss game design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussion

I think these motives are good ones.  The other motives are the good, the bad and the ugly.

Quote from: SpikeSettembrini, who playtested it at a con insists that it is called 'Forward to Adventure', though what the Pundit names it I do not know. I understand it to involve group resolution mechanics similar to Tunnels and Trolls and it is intended largely for the latin American gaming market.  

Beyond that, you'll have to ask either the Pundit or Settembrini for more details.

There's a thread on one of these boards about it called IIRC "The Birth of Forward To Adventure" about how he had a dream about this game. I didn't realize he'd made an actual game out of it, but I didn't read the whole thread. I doubt it'll ever sell very well, which would make Pundit an Indie Designer and he'd have to try to simultaneously choke the like out of himself while screaming fucktard at the top of his lungs. Hopefully he'll be kind enough to film it an upload it to youtube for us.

Quote from: SpikeGah!. I've spent the last five minutes trying to figure out who exactly invoked my Name so that I might lay down the Smiting, and upon whom which Smiting might be directed...

Ack!  It was me!  I confess!  "Spank me!  Spank me like Spike's avatar, baby!" I cried ... but how ... how did you ever find out?

Oh God, I'm so ashamed ....

Quote from: James McMurrayThere's a thread on one of these boards about it called IIRC "The Birth of Forward To Adventure" about how he had a dream about this game.

Found it, although it doesn't have a lot of meat to it. Interesting premise, but he gives no insight into how he actually did it so it's impossible to tell if it;s a good game or not.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2804

Quote from: Geek Messiahthat the majority of the rpg community does not agree with.

I refuse to take on your claim without at least a bit of a teaser of evidence. I mean, fuck, you can claim any fantasy you want, but that particular one requires backup.

Quote from: James McMurrayFound it, although it doesn't have a lot of meat to it. Interesting premise, but he gives no insight into how he actually did it so it's impossible to tell if it;s a good game or not.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2804

I was reading his blog as the entire thing unspooled, much of it in the comments section.   I seem to recall it uses 2d6.  Again, ask the experts on the subject. The designer and main playtester both post here frequently after all...:pundit:

No thanks. I'm not into Indie games. ;)

QuoteI refuse to take on your claim without at least a bit of a teaser of evidence.

Do you honestly think the majority of the RPG community agrees with Pundit? LOL!

QuoteDo you honestly think the majority of the RPG community agrees with Pundit? LOL!

With all seriousness...  what do you mean by "the RPG community"?

I think the majority of gamers would agree with the Pundit's appraisal of the relative merits of popular traditional RPGs vs. the more popular Forge games.

Quote from: James McMurrayDo you honestly think the majority of the RPG community agrees with Pundit? LOL!

I honestly think that the majority of the RPG community thinks he's mostly a crazy asshole.  Others, who read him more often, think that he's a largely-deliberately-hyperbolic asshole, who want to provoke discussion.  In the sense of "make it talk by jabbing it with a pointy thing".

However.  He's also counterweight.

Whenever I feel the urge to run around going "New ideas! New games! New fancy words! So much better than the old way!", I take two Pundit rants, call me in the morning.

Look here for a playtest report:

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/06/prussian-gamer-special-delivery.html

The majority of the "community" doesn't care about theoretic BS, neither from people who actually know their stuff nor from enthusiastic laypersons.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI honestly think that the majority of the RPG community thinks he's mostly a crazy asshole.  Others, who read him more often, think that he's a largely-deliberately-hyperbolic asshole, who want to provoke discussion.  In the sense of "make it talk by jabbing it with a pointy thing".

However.  He's also counterweight.

Whenever I feel the urge to run around going "New ideas! New games! New fancy words! So much better than the old way!", I take two Pundit rants, call me in the morning.

I'd agree if you change it slightly to "the majority of the online RPG community who care to notice this crap thinks..."

I'd bet that the majority of people who play RPG's (a much larger community than the online RPG community) would agree with Pundit's basic argument that traditional RPG's are the mainstream, designed with various degrees of success, and are played for many years without need for focus on Creative Agendas or Coherence.

Quote from: James J SkachI'd agree if you change it slightly to "the majority of the online RPG community who care to notice this crap thinks..."

Yes.

I won't speak about people I don't communicate with.  How would I know?

Quote from: Settembrini's BlogThen adventure commenced, and they had their first fight with some wild boars. The Orcish Bard and the dwarf slugged it out with the boars, whil the halfling sex-dancer (rogue: thief) hid behind some bushes along with the ranger (rogue:loremaster "wilderland survival") to do miniscule damage with sling and bow.

Well it's just a hunch, but I think the Ranger was probably distracted. :hmm:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYes.

I won't speak about people I don't communicate with.  How would I know?

I think lots of people here (and in other fora) do that all the time - myself ashamedly included.

Quote from: James J SkachI think lots of people here (and in other fora) do that all the time - myself ashamedly included.

*Shrug*

I always assume that I'm only talking about the people I know, or at least communicate with a little, and that others are doing the same.

It makes things easier.

Quote from: SettembriniLook here for a playtest report:

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/06/prussian-gamer-special-delivery.html

From the comments it looks like an interesting idea that won't go anywhere. Classes + skills + spell lists + dungeons =  D&D, and a different combat mechanism is unlikely to be enough of a boost, especially if the combat options are expected to rapidly stale. I'd play a session of it though, just to see, primarily as an homage to Tunnels and Trolls.

The lunacy of the internet is, that a persona like the Pundit had to come along to utter some very basic and true things.
In an entertaining way.

QuoteFrom the comments it looks like an interesting idea that won't go anywhere. Classes + skills + spell lists + dungeons = D&D, and a different combat mechanism is unlikely to be enough of a boost, especially if the combat options are expected to rapidly stale. I'd play a session of it though, just to see, primarily as an homage to Tunnels and Trolls.

Wouldn't Warhammer FRPG and Palladium FRPG both also be described as Classes + skills + spell lists + dungeons?  Unless you more or less feel the entire genre = D&D...

QuoteFrom the comments it looks like an interesting idea that won't go anywhere. Classes + skills + spell lists + dungeons = D&D, and a different combat mechanism is unlikely to be enough of a boost, especially if the combat options are expected to rapidly stale. I'd play a session of it though, just to see, primarily as an homage to Tunnels and Trolls.

It´s designed to be marketed for small change on South American Newsstands, and as a pick up game. It´s not "the new Anglophone RPG". It does what it is supposed to: being (literally, you don´t need polyhedral dice for example) a poor man´s D&D with some unique twists.

It works really well, but is quite tactical and unforgiving to errors on the players side. Numerical superiority is way more important than in D&D.

Quote from: StuartWouldn't Warhammer FRPG and Palladium FRPG both also be described as Classes + skills + spell lists + dungeons?  Unless you more or less feel the entire genre = D&D...

Yes, but those two have something going for them beyond that small equation. They've got both name recognition and builtin settings. I don't know if there's a grand setting that comes with the book or not. If so, that might be something that would draw eyes towards it.

QuoteIt does what it is supposed to: being (literally, you don´t need polyhedral dice for example) a poor man´s D&D with some unique twists.

It's the unique twists I'm interested in, as D&D is the cheapest game on the planet internet. One set of dice and an internet connection and you're ready to rock and roll. But if it truly is designed to be inferior but more accessible than D&D and it does that job well then more power to it.

And hell, all this talk I'm doing is based on a single playtest report. In other words it's worth about as much as the pixels it's made up of. Of course, iof you want to zip me a copy I'll be happy to run a session or two for my group. :)

edit: switched from cheapest on the planet to cheapest on the internet, as I've got no idea how much internet connectivity and a few hundred printed pages cost outside of America.

QuoteOne set of dice and an internet connection and you're ready to rock and roll.

Ehm...if you have polyhedral dice and internet, you are not the target audience! having internet access and access to a printer is not "cheapest game on earth".

You were hitting post as I was hitting edit. :)

Out of curiosity, how is the game supposed to reach it's audience? Will it be carried around to newstands with the hopes that it'll be picked up? It seems that advertising in an area without easy internet access might be cost prohibitive. But hell, for all I know Pundit rakes in the dough and never spends it on anything bu web space and stogies.

I fear the development is halted. Ask him or Jong about the problems.

What I can vouch for, is that the game text is as ready as any commercial product in the hobby. More examples could be added, but that´s only a bonus.

Quote from: James McMurrayDo you honestly think the majority of the RPG community agrees with Pundit? LOL!

I don't know. With his essential points I think it is possible, and at least not a fore gone conclusion either way.

please ignore

Isn´t it interesting, how Pundit´s accomplishments and messages get more reasonable and liked when he is on vacation?:eek:

Even Levi saw the "Swine" these days...;)

Yeah, the less you hear of him the more he makes sense. Maybe if he's gone long enough for us to forget everything he's ever said we'll lift his memory on high and liken him to a God.


Nah. :)

Quote from: Geek MessiahI wish that instead of ranting like a loon RpgPundit would give us a clear outline of what he thinks is wrong with Nobilis.   If he did that one simple thing I think people would take him more seriously.

That would be nice. But there are always his comments in various old threads over at RPGnet (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=129699), though, a number of which I still happen to have subscribed.

The first 10 pages didn't have any posts by a user named RPGPundit. Can you be a bit more specific?

He wouldn't happen to have been known as Nisarg over there, would he? The first post in the thread says "play Amber instead." The next one is "I hate posts like that, but I'm better than that, so my rule doesn't apply to me." The next post by the person uses the words effette, foppish, and twee.

I smell Pundit, but my nose is broken from too many years as a smoker.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe wouldn't happen to have been known as Nisarg over there, would he?

Yes.

Quote from: SettembriniEven Levi saw the "Swine" these days...;)

Well, there is a WAR and Levi just quit as a mod...post traumatic shock, maybe?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James McMurrayHe wouldn't happen to have been known as Nisarg over there, would he?

Yup, that's the bunny. He even registered later (as seen here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=2598913#post2598913)), which makes it easier to filter out assorted impersonators.

QuoteRebecca,

Thank you for posting. I don't think there has to be a conflict between the games. I certainly don't think that people who are playing Nobilis should be playing Amber instead.

Since you agree that your game shouldn't diminish Mr.Wujcik's game (which is certainly brilliant), I hope you agree that the new edition of Amber should be released as Amber, not as "nobilis 2.0".

I hope you understand that while I do not personally care for your game at all, my comments that your game is a "flavour of the month" only refers to the fact that at the moment your game is very "hot" (good for you!), but that part of that success is because of hype and its relative newness compared to Amber (and, granted, excellent production values on your book; while i didn't like the game itself I have to admit it was one of the most physically beautiful rpg books I've ever seen). Also, that in relative terms to Amber we won't know if Nobilis is really a "success" until Nobilis has been around for another 10 years or so.

Nisarg

See... It's stuff like this portion of the exchange between the Pundit and Borgstrom that have me scratching my head.  

Attacking Noblis, I don't have a problem with. Attacking the Borg herself?

I see, in Grimgent's link, a perfectly rational, even polite conversation between too people that see much in common, but one of them has produced something that the other doesn't like.  

To go from that to 'Moron' and worse just strikes me a baffling.  Both of them like Amber they just disagree on wether or not Noblis is an improvement on it. Hell, the Borg even put forth that her concern in the debate was only that Noblis had put food on her plate.

So, again, I submit that the Pundit far overshot his mark with his frothing rage and hit the wrong target. It might be a bit much to expect him to apologize, but he should back down a bit and let this debate finally die down. And next time he decides to take potshots at Borgstrom style Swine, he can either aim better, or hit hard with actual evidence to support the personal nature of his attacks (as he has done in the past with... Baugh. Maybe it's 'game designers whose name begins with 'B' that get his goat...)

I thought I already posted something like this to the thread...

Wow. So Pundit is so repetitive and predictable that I managed to spot him instantly in a large group of posters? From a post over two years old. Wow. Just... wow.

Maybe he asked Rebecca out at some point and she shot him down?

Quote from: James McMurrayI thought I already posted something like this to the thread...

.

I had too, but without the quote, which to my mind is damning.  I could almost understand if he was calling a comparative stranger a moron, a faceless entity, yet he's had a conversation of sorts with the woman, even a polite and reasonable one at that...

While they are still strangers, she isn't exactly faceless... which makes the personal nature of his attacks rather... :confused:

I didn't need a reference to Borgstrom. Just his wailing about Amber being better than the effette and twee Nobilis did it for me. It took exactly one post. I wonder if he'll see the funny in that.

Nah, he'll think it means he's "famous."

Quote from: SpikeI see, in Grimgent's link, a perfectly rational, even polite conversation between too people that see much in common, but one of them has produced something that the other doesn't like.

Yes: it's remarkable how civil he was in that discussion.

Quote from: James McMurrayI didn't need a reference to Borgstrom. Just his wailing about Amber being better than the effette and twee Nobilis did it for me. It took exactly one post. I wonder if he'll see the funny in that.

Nah, he'll think it means he's "famous."

He's the only person I know that can use the word "twee" in mid-rant and not, apparently, pause.

Being a crotchety old bastard helps with that.

Other noteworthy quotes from later in the thread.

Quote from: BorgstromThat said, it gives me a creepy horror feeling to imagine a world where I'd hit the peak of possibility in 1999. No *way*. In 50 years, Nobilis and Amber are both going to be in the laughably crude old-school bin with 1st ed. AD&D, and if we're very lucky, people will be playing the CyberKenzer & Company retro diceless version, GodMaster.

Quote from: WujickExcellent, Rebecca! We'll have to get together and start plotting out the early 'GodMaster' playtest...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI honestly think that the majority of the RPG community thinks he's mostly a crazy asshole.  Others, who read him more often, think that he's a largely-deliberately-hyperbolic asshole, who want to provoke discussion.  In the sense of "make it talk by jabbing it with a pointy thing".

However.  He's also counterweight.

Whenever I feel the urge to run around going "New ideas! New games! New fancy words! So much better than the old way!", I take two Pundit rants, call me in the morning.

And that's what I appreciate about him, personally.  He's still a crazy asshole, and I think Hunter S Thompson ought to rise from his grave and go at him like only HST could for bastardizing his style.

But he still manages to make some good points sometimes, and he's managed to create a pretty nifty little corner of the internet, and for that, I sometimes regret how blanketly I dismissed him all these years.

Quote from: SpikeI had too, but without the quote, which to my mind is damning.  I could almost understand if he was calling a comparative stranger a moron, a faceless entity, yet he's had a conversation of sorts with the woman, even a polite and reasonable one at that...

While they are still strangers, she isn't exactly faceless... which makes the personal nature of his attacks rather... :confused:

So according to some in this thread, it's insane to say bad things about people you haven't had conversations with.  Yet according to others, having had contact with someone makes it worse if you say bad things about them.  You just can't win! :D

Hmmm.  Yes, there's certainly more history here than I was aware of.  Did the Pundit get banned from RPG.net for something to do with Borgstrom?  I was reading an older thread here from the NutkinLand days, and it sounds like Settembrini was banned for calling her a "C-Grade Would-Be Novelist".

What I want to know, is would The Pundit rail against the advice section of one of the AD&D 2E blue DM books that pretty much mirrors what Borgstrom says?

Quote from: GrimGentYes: it's remarkable how civil he was in that discussion.

But was he being "honest"? :p

!i!

QuoteYes: it's remarkable how civil he was in that discussion.

And it didn´t do any good to his cause.

BTW, everyone is talking about the pundit wrongfully attacking the Borg and Nobilis. Nobody is talking about the merits of Nobilis. Maybe there are no merits?

EDIT: Boy he IS teh funny:

QuoteYes, there are a ton of diceless games no doubt that have been released since Nobilis, by small companies, individuals posting pdfs, guys in bunkers in montana, and talking chickens.

Quote from: James McMurrayA couple of dorks knowing what something means doesn't make it a real word any more than spoo is a real food. Besides, it was a joke, chill out.

I apologize for snapping.  GM's comments rather set me off, and you sort of got caught in the crossfire when you went and did one of my other pet peeves.  ;)

Quote from: SettembriniAnd it didn´t do any good to his cause.

He has no cause, Sett, only his need for attention.

QuoteBTW, everyone is talking about the pundit wrongfully attacking the Borg and Nobilis. Nobody is talking about the merits of Nobilis. Maybe there are no merits?

That's because this thread (and many of his others) are started to attack Borgstrom and Nob. There are some folks who like the game and start threads about its merits elsewhere. Only here, this is one of the surefire ways the Pundit can get attention.

QuoteEDIT: Boy he IS teh funny:

Nope.

Regards,
David R

300+ comments on a thread concerning a topc that doesn't matter at all. Or one that somehow manages to matter even less than anything else on this site. And still manages to be pissy about it (and then calm down... and then get pissy again.)

GET OFF MY INTARWEBz!!!


NOW!

The mere fact you are right now attacking him (as a person!) without telling us one good thing about Nobilis, is proving my aforemade statement.

If you really were this secure about the "kewl otehr place", you wouldn´t be talking bad about the pundit. If he had no cause, nobody would care. Seems even you care, maybe in the contrary direction, but you care about his cause.

Quote from: SettembriniThe mere fact you are right now attacking him (as a person!) without telling us one good thing about Nobilis, is proving my aforemade statement.

I don't care about Nob...okay I may use it for a game. No, you are talking as if folks just attack him for no reason. He starts shit, and in the course of discussions he and them make personal attacks.

QuoteIf you really were this secure about the "kewl otehr place", you wouldn´t be talking bad about the pundit. If he had no cause, nobody would care. Seems even you care, maybe in the contrary direction, but you care about his cause.

What has the other place got to do with this? He does not have a cause but does that mean, I can't point out his delusional nonsense?

And beejazz, point taken...no more shots fired from my end.

Regards,
David R

QuoteHe does not have a cause but does that mean, I can't point out his delusional nonsense?

If it was delusional nonsense, you wouldn´t have to point the fact out.
Actually, you are fighting him, because the truth, or the method of delivery, hurt you for some reason. If it was all blatant crap, nobody would have to talk about him.  Including you.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, everyone is talking about the pundit wrongfully attacking the Borg and Nobilis. Nobody is talking about the merits of Nobilis.

For one thing, that's because his arguments against Nob tend to be the equivalent of "dice pools just don't work and they make any game unplayable", only applied to a diceless game, or more eloquently phrased variants of "ur favrit g4m3 sux": for all his claims that it's an unplayable mess, he still hasn't come up with a single actual example of what precisely is wrong with the game itself.

For another, I generally stay out of SMOX threads. There's little reason to try and convince someone to play an RPG only because I happen to like it, and so my posts on the subject are mostly meant to correct inaccuracies and answer specific questions. Since there are precious few accurate details on Nobilis in the Pundit's rants (apart from it being a diceless game in which you play demigods), that's a bit of a challenge.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, everyone is talking about the pundit wrongfully attacking the Borg and Nobilis. Nobody is talking about the merits of Nobilis. Maybe there are no merits?

EDIT:  I checked the OP, and this thread is not supposed to be about Nobilis (which may explain why people weren't singing its praises ... they were being responsible posters).  So I've exported my praises, and hopefully any follow-up discussion, to a new thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2892).

Quote from: hgjsSo according to some in this thread, it's insane to say bad things about people you haven't had conversations with.  Yet according to others, having had contact with someone makes it worse if you say bad things about them.  You just can't win! :D

Well, technically we should agree on the basic sentiment that going after someone's basic character is a fight you just can't come out of smelling pretty.

On the otherhand it is one thing to insult someone who you don't know but has done something you don't like in the worst terms. Everyone does it. Senator so and so is an utter cocksmock.

And another thing to attack someone who has done something you don't like that you have a history of not liking personally. Dominous Nox is an utter cocksmock.

Yet, to have a perfectly civil discourse with someone and find some measure of common ground after they've done something and STILL refer to them as a cocksmock? Neighbor Bob threw one hell of a party last weekend, but his car is so ugly. What an utter cocksmock.

Well in the last case unless your tone is obviously humorous or otherwise un-serious you'll probably get some odd looks from people.  

See, if I were to attack Grimgent as vitrolicly as the Pundit attacked the Borg it would be vaguely understandable. I've posted more than a few negative comments regarding his one track mind posting style.  If I were to attack you that way it would be sort of 'out of nowhere' as to my knowledge we haven't shared a posting history on any site, but it might still be understandable.

If I were to attack someone like that after they've posted kind loving comments in one of my 'Culture' threads, or elsewhere, I'd be the cocksmock.






Basically, I don't think Cocksmock gets used around here enough, so I had to bring the real purpose of this site back into focus.

Quote from: SettembriniIf it was delusional nonsense, you wouldn´t have to point the fact out.
Actually, you are fighting him, because the truth, or the method of delivery, hurt you for some reason. If it was all blatant crap, nobody would have to talk about him.  Including you.

You're right in that nobody ever has to point anything out to anybody else, blatantly obvious or otherwise. However, thinking that telling someone their cause doesn't exist is proof that it exists is a bit silly.

It's like if Pundit yelled at me that the sky was purple polka dots and I pointed out that it wasn't. I don't have to believe that the sky might be purple polka dots, fear that some day those dots might come out, or be in any other way concerned with purple polka dotted skies. All it takes is the desire to tell a guy that acts like an ass that he's acting like an ass for the sake of a delusion.

Quote from: SettembriniIf it was delusional nonsense, you wouldn´t have to point the fact out.
Actually, you are fighting him, because the truth, or the method of delivery, hurt you for some reason. If it was all blatant crap, nobody would have to talk about him.  Including you.

"If it wasn't true, you wouldn't be getting upset about it."  I don't think I've used that argument since I was a teenager, and a young teenager at that.

Wait.  Are you a teenager?

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia"If it wasn't true, you wouldn't be getting upset about it."  I don't think I've used that argument since I was a teenager, and a young teenager at that.

Wait.  Are you a teenager?

!i!

He's not, at least from what we can see from his video interview with R. Edwards. That makes his argument more shameful.

Frankly, one of the most shittiest arguments puked by the Pundit and friends is that of 'If you're upset about this unfounded, ignorant and stupid shit I have just said, then it must be true!' That makes the Pundit an homofobe racist, given his reaction to that parody guy of him in Indie Gaming Scene.

Along with the continous false assumptions that you (meaning Pundit or you, Sett) make about knowing what other people feels or thinks, make any discussion with you become like a... tour on a mental sewage, or something like it. It's amazing to see the differences between Andreas (the real person) and the Internet person.

So now you are getting personal on me? You guys surely are something. It still remains:

You guys wouldn´t have to fight so hard against Pundit if

1) He was irrelevant
2) There was no "war" going on

Right now you guys are 90% of that "war".

If you´d just shrug and walk, like any sane person does when he sees lunatics, this battle would be over. But it seems, for whatever reasons, you seem to be bound to talk smack about Pundit (and me, it seems), and "prove" that you are right and he is wrong.

We have always been at war with Oceania . . .

Quote from: SettembriniSo now you are getting personal on me?

Not necessarily.  I honestly thought that, if you were a teenager, I might cut you some slack regarding the "If it wasn't true, you wouldn't be getting upset" tactic.  As it stands, though, you seem satisfied with declaring victory through provocation (as does the Pundit), so you deserve whatever you get.  Try arguing a more mature position and see what that nets you.

!i!

Obviously, you have misread me.
I´m not saying anything about nobilis or the monarda law.

I´m saying: You guys clearly show, that Pundit is not irrelevant to you.
Nothing more, nothing less.

And you will not disprove that by posting even more snark about how unimportant he is to you...
Like it seems to be important to you to to talk with me, or about me.

It´s the things we don´t talk about that really we don´t give a  shit about. Like me and cicadas. I give shit about cicadas.
I don´t talk about cicadas.


And to show you how shrugging and walking works, see me leave this thread.
Wallow in your maturity of posting wisecrack fortune cookie lines on a gaming forum at your leisure.

And again, you don't have to be obsessed with turds, or even think that there's something true buried in the odor, to post here. Nor does there have to be some sort of giant under the covers war between piss and shit. You just have to be the type of person that likes pointing out to little brown blobs that they're made of feces, whether it be from sadistic glee, a selfless desire to have the turd recognize its own inner scat and strive to drag itself out of the toilet, or something in between.

Quote from: SettembriniWallow in your maturity of posting wisecrack fortune cookie lines on a gaming forum at your leisure.

Can we really? Oh, thankee massah! :D

You know those fortune cookies? A lot of them actually make sense if you stop to contemplate them before reading them aloud with "in bed" in front of them. ;)

Quote from: SettembriniAnd to show you how shrugging and walking works, see me leave this thread.

Is this where I get to point out that we obviously must have gotten to you, otherwise you wouldn't be retreating and explaining that you were ignoring us?  I mean, if you really didn't care what we thought of you, you'd just walk away without another word.

See how this sort of childish emotional tactic works?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIs this where I get to point out that we obviously must have gotten to you, otherwise you wouldn't be retreating and explaining that you were ignoring us?  I mean, if you really didn't care what we thought of you, you'd just walk away without another word.

See how this sort of childish emotional tactic works?

!i!

I tell you, Bob, this is straight out of the Madden "My E-Penis is Bigger Than Yours" playbook, in the "how to win when the other guy has quit!" section!

Excellent use by Ian, we may see him get an LVP nomination yet this year!

Which was my point exactly.  Go me! :p

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniYou guys wouldn´t have to fight so hard against Pundit if

1) He was irrelevant
2) There was no "war" going on

Right now you guys are 90% of that "war".

If you´d just shrug and walk, like any sane person does when he sees lunatics, this battle would be over. But it seems, for whatever reasons, you seem to be bound to talk smack about Pundit (and me, it seems), and "prove" that you are right and he is wrong.

You're wrong in two points:

1) I'm not fighting about anything, because there's nothing to be won or lost. Simple. I'm laughing a fucking lot reading lunatic rants, and me answering to them obeys just to my own amusing. My gaming is not threatened by some fucknugget in some country far away from here that likes to talk shit about other people in order to get a dickwaving contest about how much people reads his blog, or some other shit like that. He's not going to get any game line that I like closed, he's not influencing the games I play, he's not influencing any publishing decision from anyone, and frankly, he's not achieving shit. So no, there's no war. There's me laughing at how you take this shit so seriously, and think of yourselves as some lunatic crusaders of something. And I answer to get more laughs.

2) I don't need to prove a shit. If someone is going to believe that shit about the war, or the idiotic conspiracy theories you like so much, there's no proof on Earth that can convince you out of any maniac thing you choose to believe. So I don't need to prove shit, because I don't need to convince anyone. No person here has an iota of influence about my hobby. So no, you're wrong.

Oh, and by the way, please, grow a pair both of you. You spend a lot of time getting personal, insulting people, being a pair of elitist jackasses, and doing all of the things you so much claim to detest. At least have some good sportmanship when someone answers you.

The funny thing is that if there really is a war, either Pundit is a complete moron or he doesn't want to win. See, this "war" is being fought on internet forums. As such it's completely a diplomatic battle. Either Pundit is truly stupid and thinks that he can wn a diplomatic battle by calling people names, or he knows that all it will do is stir things up and make the war last longer. The only way to get someone to do something by being a jerk is to have some form of power over them, and even Pundit would probably agree (in a lucid moment) that he has no actual power over anyone at the Forge, Indie Games, or anywhere else online outside the borders of his one small site.

Since he's shown himself capable of the odd intelligent thought here and there, I have to assume he knows that "you're a fucktard" won't convince anyone (even onlookers) of anything. Therefor it has to be that he wants "the fight" to continue forever. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If this "war" goes away, it might take with it the three or four people who actually think Pundit matters, and that's not something he can allow.

Did I miss the part where people mention that they were responding merely because it amuses them?

That's always fun.

Quote from: WillDid I miss the part where people mention that they were responding merely because it amuses them?

I think so.  Might have been another thread - someone said they were " baiting".

Quote from: WillDid I miss the part where people mention that they were responding merely because it amuses them?

That's always fun.

I ALWAYS respond for my own amusment.  I've found it's the best way to deal with internet discussions.

EITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS----------- it is ok

http://www.playerturbo.com

Quote from: xiangyangEITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS----------- it is ok

http://www.playerturbo.com

Yanno, this guy may just be a spammer trying to shil his own site, but I absolutely agree with his advice.

What approach you take is irrelevant so long as your players understand it befroe game starts.

I believe the baiting comment was in regards to Pundit, not the people responding to them. A link was given to a site about different baiting techniques to attract people to your blog, with Pundit using the one called "attack."

Quote from: J ArcaneI ALWAYS respond for my own amusment.  I've found it's the best way to deal with internet discussions.

The cynicism of this remark wounds me deeply. :(

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe cynicism of this remark wounds me deeply. :(

Why?  Isn't the internet (just like gaming) supposed to be fun?

Quote from: J ArcaneYanno, this guy may just be a spammer trying to shil his own site, but I absolutely agree with his advice.

So do I, considering that I'm the one he stole it from.

Quote from: TonyLBWhy?  Isn't the internet (just like gaming) supposed to be fun?

The Internet is serious business! (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/The_Internet_is_serious_business)

Quote from: WarthurSo do I, considering that I'm the one he stole it from.

LOL! I knew I'd seen that quote before. :)

Quote from: TonyLBWhy?  Isn't the internet (just like gaming) supposed to be fun?

Damn it!  That's what I get for a) trying to communicate irony via the Internet, and b) trying to use a smiley ironically.  You see, I needed a sad-frowny-winky-smiley.

:( ;) :(

And, no! The Internet should not be fun.  It's serious business. :mad: ;) :mad:

!i!

Ah!  Now it is all clear! :p :mad: :( :) ;) :rolleyes: :confused: :o

HI,  I COME  HERE THE SECOND TIME...BUT.....
IT SEEMES NOTHING NEW........

http://www.playerturbo.com

Quote from: xiangyangHI,  I COME  HERE THE SECOND TIME...BUT.....
IT SEEMES NOTHING NEW........

Insightful spam with poor grammar? Whoot! :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;44504I want people to tell me their opinions of my law, the "Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law".
RPGPundit's Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law

If your players make requests, unless it is absolutely certain that it is allowed, always say no. You can make it a reserved "no", one that allows for the possibility that if the players' circumstances or approach changes they may be able to do what they're intending or get what they want. Or you can make it a loud boisterous "NO, fuckwit!", involving some kind of a pipe beating to immediately follow. But always say no unless its blatantly obvious that you must permit what they're desiring, either because the player has been crafty enough in his use of resources, or because the player has earned it through sheer balls.

And my method is simple. Make the fuckers bleed.
Make them suffer.
Make them face impossible, life threatening odds. Make it clear that you're the one in charge of what they get or don't get, and generally don't give them anything.
Trust me, make your PCs suffer. Make them suffer horribly. Then make them suffer some more. Make it seem like their every wish is being denied, then their every hope. But occasionally, when by the strength of their own will they pull a victory out of the jaws of defeat, give it to them. Sometimes with dark consequences, but give it.

For fuck's sake, don't let them all survive, either. Kill some of them, seemingly at random. The ones that do survive, and conquer, and go on to make things right again, and ultimately triumph, will be all the more satisfied. Because in that type of campaign their victories, their gains, mean something. Every time they run square into grim death and pluck out a fighting chance at life, it will mean something, because they'll fucking well know the DM brooked them no favours.RPGPundit

Brilliant.
But I probably only say this because it's how I run games.
I killed a PC during CHARACTER INTRODUCTION.
I killed a PC who was MERELY WALKING UP TO MEET THE OTHER CHARACTERS.
It's fun.