I would add that none of your linked articles seem to talking about getting a game group and keeping it. Some touch on the second, but most don't, and none talk about getting it in the first place.

It's all looking at them abstractly, or fine-tuning stuff, which as I said is useful to get a group to "perform," but not to get the group in the first place, or keep it. It's polishing the car, while I'm asking how we start it.

Polish is good, looks nice. But lots of us have enough trouble starting it, once we can get it going reliably and well, we'll worry about polishing it, then.

Quote from: JimBobOzOkay, you think I'm a cunt. But what do you think of what I've actually said?

I'm just welcoming you to RPG Theory, mate, in the traditional greeting.  

Part of posting theory stuff, which you'll have to get used to, is that certain assholes will diss everything that you say in blanket statements which ignore most of the substance of your work.  

Do you want to change that?  It sounds like a good idea to me in principle to me.  Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck in deterring those assholes from making their blanket insults.  There just seems to be a lot of hostility.  Any ideas on what to do about getting those assholes to actually acknowledge stuff and substance that other people said?  

Quote from: JimBobOzAre you trying to say that people other than me say useful things about roleplaying? I agree heartily. All my best ideas I took from someone else. As I said on my LJ, I'm a compiler, not an innovator.

I'm saying, "rpg theory sucks, here's something better." You're stuck on the first part. Remember when RPGPundit was saying that in this forum, rather than just dissing other ideas, he'd like it if we came up with our own ideas? That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to put together into one wiki or book the best ideas.

So here's an example.  If these good ideas were around and expressed by people, then maybe they should be acknowledged, instead of just saying that everything else sucks and that it is all nothing but useless "isms".

Quote from: jhkimI'm just welcoming you to RPG Theory, mate, in the traditional greeting.  

Quote from: jhkimPart of posting theory stuff, which you'll have to get used to, is that certain assholes will diss everything that you say in blanket statements which ignore most of the substance of your work.  

I certainly get the ironic point you're making. However, I feel that I've pretty thoroughly examined the substance of, for example, GNS, before dismissing it. I can point you to the relevant links if you're extremely bored.

I don't feel it would be productive to read each and every rpg theory ever written before stepping forward to write my own stuff.

I'm generally indifferent to people dissing me. I've persisted with you simply because I know you're not just J. Random Internet Tough Guy, but a person with a depth and breadth of rpg play knowledge and ideas which are very worthwhile and interesting.

Quote from: jhkimSo here's an example.  If these good ideas were around and expressed by people, then maybe they should be acknowledged, instead of just saying that everything else sucks and that it is all nothing but useless "isms".

I've acknowledged them many times, and said that on the whole, whether they're correct or not, they're not useful for what I'm aiming at talking about: getting a game group and keeping it.

If I say that polish is no use to me if the car won't go, it's not very helpful to say, "well, have you looked at all the different polishes on the market?" It doesn't go!

The rpg theorists can go write about polish. I want to make the thing go.

Certainly there's more than just polish in many rpg theories, many cross over into useful craft. But as I said, there comes a point when you're better off not studying any more, and just trying to come up with something new yourself. For example, it's sensible to say that you should read and play lots of rpgs before writing any. Your site lists over 1,600 roleplaying games. How many of those do I have to read and play before I can write one? Likewise, how many of the linked essays, how many forum posts, how many blog entries, do I have to read before I can go and do my own stuff on "getting a game group and keeping it"? Especially since so few of them mention that at all?

Quit whingin' about the dissing of the old stuff, and start dissin', with substance, the new stuff. If I have to look at people's posts about "brain damage" and gamers being "autistic", and consider the substance of what they've said, and not just the way they've said it, then it's sure as shit fair for me to expect the same.

I expect random internet fuckwits to diss me, based only on reading the title or whatever. I don't expect you to do that.

Quote from: JimBobOzI certainly get the ironic point you're making. However, I feel that I've pretty thoroughly examined the substance of, for example, GNS, before dismissing it. I can point you to the relevant links if you're extremely bored.

I don't feel it would be productive to read each and every rpg theory ever written before stepping forward to write my own stuff.

That's fine.  Then my suggestion is to critique GNS.  I'm not too fond of it myself.  

But don't say that all the theory stuff out there that you haven't read sucks.  That makes for lots of irony in your welcomes.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: jhkimI'm no fan of GNS, but you're not attacking GNS here -- you're attacking all theory and, by your logic, all possible theory.

You are close now.

So close.

Take that leap.

Let's just change the name to 'JimBob's Big Theory of Gaming Group Socialisation'. That's more honest.

Quote from: YamoYou are close now.

So close.

Take that leap.

Um?  As they say around here -- English!  Learn to use it, mother-fucker!  WTF are you trying to say?

Quote from: jhkimI'm just welcoming you to RPG Theory, mate, in the traditional greeting.

Mr. Kim;

Currently, as I type this, I am drunk.  And, also, at this moment, I wish to bear your man-babies.

Quote from: droogLet's just change the name to 'JimBob's Big Theory of Gaming Group Socialisation'. That's more honest.

Yeah, but it's not very snappy and catchy.

I mean, by that sort of reasoning, we'd have to rename The Maltese Falcon. Sometimes names aren't accurate, but they're good anyway.

(Side note:  I've got no problem with "Cheetoism" as a name.  The original post was sarcasm.)

'Cheetoism' is dumb. It was a dumb joke, it's a dumb thing to talk about if you want to get constructive. You're just saying "My ideas are anti-intellectual. HUR!"

The second you went further you showed us your arse – you want to do something constructive. We know now.

'Cheetoism' is about trying to rip on somebody else. You should let it go and just try talking to the humans for a bit. Lose the bombast and the rabble-rousing and you might turn out all right.

Quote from: jhkimUm?  As they say around here -- English!  Learn to use it, mother-fucker!  WTF are you trying to say?

For once: Think.

I agree -- call it something else, and it'll stand on it's own two feet.  Call it Cheetoism and it's always linked to dissing other 'isms'.

Quote from: StuartI agree -- call it something else, and it'll stand on it's own two feet.  Call it Cheetoism and it's always linked to dissing other 'isms'.

Yes and no.

There are three points here. The first is that most gamers, even online, are utterly unaware of any "-isms" in gaming, so they won't regard it as a rejection of them. So no. But yes, many will regard it that way.

The second is that "Cheetoism" is just the jokey intro to the wiki. By the time the thing makes it do a paid-for pdf, that'll be gone, and we'll be left with Why Game Groups Fuck Up, or something like that.

That'd be obvious, were you to look at the wiki itself.

Lastly, it's a catchy name which gets people's attention and makes them curious. While it puts some off, I'm betting that it attracts more than it puts off. In writing or advertising, you have to judge these things, balance them up. Thus far, the only people who've complained about "Cheetoism" as a name or title have been those who are fond of discussing the other "-isms." My instinct is that those people are a lost audience to me, regardless of the title of the thing. If those people were interested in discussing or reading about how game groups got together and stayed together, they'd have written about and discussed it already. I think you have to know who's interested in reading your stuff, and who'll never be.

In answer to the obvious question, the reason to charge for it as a pdf is so that it'll actually be read and responded to.

Here's some things I like about Cheetoism.

1. I think language usage is very important. The word-choice that a person uses when trying to convey an idea tells us, IMO, volumes about what they think.

This is why, when I read the original GNS essay, despite the various layers of spin and apologism, it wasn't surprising to me to see Brain Damage eventually come out. There was the deep, ingrained war-metaphors in that body of work ... the victimization language ... and some outright hostility.

The language of Cheetoism, on the other hand, clearly has had it with the theory dialog and is hostile to that--but isn't to gamers and (at least most) games.

And where it is, Kyle owns it in a way an intelligent and articulate poster trying to tell me that his games were like a Ferari but my games were like a Toyota wasn't saying his games were better was just unable to do.

Cheetoism, to me, seems pretty damn honest.

2. It seems to meet its goals.
The dialog of GNS (and therefore present RPG-theory in general) is usually very careful never to ask for community on the part of its readers. A single failure here is in the begining of the GNS essay (and to my knowledge it was never repeated) where it says it has actual goals to provide a language and common perspective for gamers to improve their games/communication.

By any reasonable reading of those words (and I have been subjected to many unreasonable readings of them) the way it has been developed has damaged its own stated goals. We are left now with the suggestions that it's only for discouraged gamers (which the text contradicts--but you see this over and over when addressing the weaknesses in the dialog), that it is only for game designers (which is clearly not true from the early work--but, again, this would excuse a lot of behavior), that it's only for the people willing to do an unreasonable amount of work (which would defeat the only set of stated goals--but defends the intense use of jargon, the acceptance of moving goal-posts, etc.)

Cheetoism has actual, definable goals and seems willing to try to meet them.

3. It's struck a cord.
There's a big thread about Cheetoism on RPG.net right now where at least some posters have got problems with it. It's anti-intellectual. It's a joke. It commits the same sins as 'real' RPG-theory. Etc.

This tells me that it's doing something right. A look at the Wiki shows that whether you agree with it or not, it is several things the body of RPG-dialog isn't.

(a) It doesn't make me 'better' for being cheetoist.
(b) It doesn't make me a victim for being cheetoist.
(c) It doesn't excuse my bad behavior.
(d) It doesn't blame games that I continue to return to play for my own bad experiences.

I submit there's a reason that GNS and related dialog is as popular as it is and that's the same reason role-vs-roll was as popular as it 'was' (and still is, I bet: if you go to 10 college campuses, I bet you could find 8 of them with groups of snooty RPGers who think the campus gaming group is just "roll-playing").

If most RPG-theory is a fancy way of saying I-game-better-than-you then Cheetoism is, at least, saying I-theorize-better-than-you ... which is an improvement, IMO.

Cheetoism doesn't feed roll-vs-role.

-Marco