Not to be obstuse but frankly I'm kind of lost here. I the find the disctinction between "roleplaying gamen" and "story gaming" as unclear as the distinction between "genre emulation" and "fiction emulation".

Quote from: Soylent Green;372839Not to be obstuse but frankly I'm kind of lost here. I the find the disctinction between "roleplaying gamen" and "story gaming" as unclear as the distinction between "genre emulation" and "fiction emulation".

That's because a lot of it is bafflegab as bad as the Forge's.

Quote from: Soylent Green;372839Not to be obstuse but frankly I'm kind of lost here. I the find the disctinction between "roleplaying gamen" and "story gaming" as unclear as the distinction between "genre emulation" and "fiction emulation".

Genre emulation in this case implies a color, or feel to the game that is still a role playing game, where you are playing characters in a game world that is "actual" in your mind's eye. You are your character, your character is you.

Fiction emulation implies the implementation of patterns and techniques used to write fiction, which leads to players seeing themselves as "narrators" apart of their characters, which become "protagonists" in a "story" with storylines, plots, subplots. A way to look at the game as a piece of fiction with a narrative, as opposed to a game of immersion and actuality.

The fact that you're not seeing the difference, along with the way you were saying that you don't see anything "wrong" with story gaming, actually validates my point that fiction genre emulation may lead to story gaming. You like that. I don't.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372840That's because a lot of it is bafflegab as bad as the Forge's.

Fuck you.

Nailed it, twice!

Quote from: Benoist;372845Fuck you.

Right back at you, sunshine. The terms are confusing, there's no consensus on what they mean, and they don't appear useful for analysing actual play experiences. Their only use is rhetorical and political, to indicate that one likes the right type of games and to execrate the wrong kind.

The terms are confusing, there's no consensus...is irrelevant when the terms are explained for the purpose of a given discussion. Benoist was unclear in his first go at it, I called him on it, he explained, end of story.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372847Right back at you, sunshine. The terms are confusing, there's no consensus on what they mean, and they don't appear useful for analysing actual play experiences. Their only use is rhetorical and political, to indicate that one likes the right type of games and to execrate the wrong kind.

Except that I just explained what these terms meant to me, in the context of my argument. That you do not care to recognize this meaning and address the actual argument on a fair basis, whether your own preferences/opinions end up differing with mine or not, to instead concentrate on what you imagine are motives behind said arguments, is not my problem. It's yours, and yours alone.

I have preferences and opinions. Deal with it, or fuck off.

Quote from: Benoist;372849Except that I just explained what these terms meant to me, in the context of my argument. That you do not care to recognize this meaning and address the actual argument on a fair basis, whether your own preferences/opinions end up differing with mine or not, to instead concentrate on what you imagine are motives behind said arguments, is not my problem. It's yours, and yours alone.

I didn't say anything about motives. I can't address your argument because there's no argument to address here. Patterns do something, which leads to emulating "fiction" which leads to "story gaming" whatever that is.

QuoteI have preferences and opinions. Deal with it, or fuck off.

I am dealing with it. I'm telling you the language by which you express your preferences and opinions expresses them poorly.

Look, if you want to make the point that people focus too much on having plots like in fantasy novels for their games, and that they ought to let PCs explore the world through their characters without the DM forcing them to follow his plot, you can just do so. Heck, you can copy and paste that sentence fragment next time to save yourself some effort.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;372848The terms are confusing, there's no consensus...is irrelevant when the terms are explained for the purpose of a given discussion. Benoist was unclear in his first go at it, I called him on it, he explained, end of story.

If you think those constitute "explanations", comrade, you're using a pretty low bar. They're just bafflegab piled on bafflegab. I've taken you guys to task for this before, many times, and all I ever see is an abandonment of some of the old jargon and its replacement with new, equally bad, jargon.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372851(...) I can't address your argument because there's no argument to address here. (...)

I understand you're just pissed because I actually disagree with you on something. Your argumentation really can be summarized with: "your vocabulary sucks, you write like you don't understand a word of English - I don't want to make any effort to actually exchange ideas with you, and I'm just here to tell you how much you suck at it. That, or you're a Forgite asshole, whatever insults you the most."

Great arguments. Really, I'm stunned.
*golf clap*

Call me when when you actually want to exchange ideas, instead of throwing poo at each other.

Quote from: Benoist;372854I understand you're just pissed because I actually disagree with you on something.

I'm not pissed at you at all. I'm rarely pissed off by mere disagreement. You're taking this much more personally than I am.

QuoteYour argumentation really can be summarized with: "your vocabulary sucks, you write like you don't understand a word of English - I don't want to make any effort to actually exchange ideas with you, and I'm just here to tell you how much you suck at it. That, or you're a Forgite asshole, whatever insults you the most."

Great arguments. Really, I'm stunned.
*golf clap*

Call me when when you actually want to exchange ideas, instead of throwing poo at each other.

I'm happy to exchange ideas. I just ask that we do so in plain language, rather than needing to invent a bunch of terms. I've been consistent about this for years and years. It really is my critique of the Forge (which is distinct from the general anti-Forgism around here), and it's my critique of much of the discussion of the differences between editions of D&D, and the evolution of styles of roleplaying over time.

Both suffer from the same problem: the accretion of meaningless jargon that is useless because it is so abstract and divorced from the actual activities it purports to describe.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372856I'm not pissed at you at all. I'm rarely pissed off by mere disagreement. You're taking this much more personally than I am.

It certainly doesn't look like it. *shrug*

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372856I'm happy to exchange ideas. I just ask that we do so in plain language, rather than needing to invent a bunch of terms. I've been consistent about this for years and years. It really is my critique of the Forge (which is distinct from the general anti-Forgism around here), and it's my critique of much of the discussion of the differences between editions of D&D, and the evolution of styles of roleplaying over time.

Both suffer from the same problem: the accretion of meaningless jargon that is useless because it is so abstract and divorced from the actual activities it purports to describe.

From there, I see two options: you don't understand what I mean, in which case you ask me, I explain (which again, I already did, after Elliot called me on it), and we move on with the discussion of ideas from there. Or you do understand, and we move on with the discussion of ideas.

That's not what I'm seeing from you right now.

Quote from: Benoist;372858It certainly doesn't look like it. *shrug*

Mate, you're the one running around going "Fuck you!" here every other post.

QuoteFrom there, I see two options: you don't understand what I mean, in which case you ask me, I explain (which again, I already did, after Elliot called me on it), and we move on with the discussion of ideas from there. Or you do understand, and we move on with the discussion of ideas.

That's not what I'm seeing from you right now.

I know what you're driving at because I've sat through thousands of words about this jargon at this point and because we've spoken about gaming at length on other occasions, but that doesn't mean I find it any less obfuscatory.

It's also maddeningly vague and abstract jargon, in that talking about how there are "patterns" and whatnot doesn't talk about any specific pattern and its consequences, which is the interesting stuff (also the stuff that serves as proof of any assertion made here).

Look comrade, you're not a dumb guy, you don't need to use all this jargon and abstract talk. I'm pretty sure you actually play RPGs so just focus in on specifics and you'll be OK.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372860Look comrade, you're not a dumb guy, you don't need to use all this jargon and abstract talk. I'm pretty sure you actually play RPGs so just focus in on specifics and you'll be OK.

Look mate. I don't need you to coach me on how to formulate my ideas. Either you want to understand, or you don't.
That really is your problem, you know? Not mine.