Ahem... Erick's Forge Adventure?

[Croaker]

Thanks, Pundit, some things seems strange indeed when explained like that.

Otha, you disagree with him, what's your pow on this?

[Otha]

There's no point in going into details.

The fact is, the Forge is a place where a great deal of debate goes on.  It's not this kind of monolithic "our way to play is the best way" kind of place.  Most of the points Pundit pulls out are outdated, and even way back when, there were those who agreed and those who disagreed.

What seems to have happened is that Pundit visited once, several years ago, read up on some of the latest theories, filled in the gaps with his own presuppositions, decided he understood the Forge inside and out, and left.

He doesn't even know that a great deal of the discussion that used to go on at The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/)  has moved to Story Games (http://www.story-games.com/forums/).

[Blackleaf]

He doesn't even know that a great deal of the discussion that used to go on at The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/)  has moved to Story Games (http://www.story-games.com/forums/).

You're new here, aren't you. :haw:

[jhkim]

Those are just a handful of the main ones. But you can see how a game like Amber, which is from their point of view incoherent, GM-tyrannical, player disempowering (to them!), and naturally leading to immersion; and yet is wildly more successful than anything they've ever come up with, and succeeds better at doing everything they claim to want to do than anything they've tried, would be a real sore spot to them.

I've already noted this, but this is nonsense.  

I came back from AmberCon NorthWest recently.  There were a bunch of other Forgies / Story-Gamers there.  We've gotten along fine with the more traditional Amber DRPG fans.  The two past years I ran a traditional Amber DRPG game along with Polaris (a GMless Forgie game), and gotten many of the same players.  This year I ran a non-Amber Parlor Larp ("Hamlet") and an Amber game using Spirit of the Century rules ("Big Trouble in Little Amber").  I played in two traditional Amber games, a diceless Space Opera variant, a boardgame-turned-RPG, and Best Friends (a diceless but GM-using Forge-related game playing a bunch of teenage girls).  

There are differences of styles, but everyone gets along fine in it.  We've joked at times about who drinks the Kool-Aid or whatever, but there is no animosity.

[jhkim]

Apropos the topic...

If the Forge has enforced dogma that rejects and wants to silence what Erik Wujcik says, then why exactly would Ron post his essay in his essay list?  

Really, I was not terribly pleased by Ron's essay list in that I thought it was not very inclusive of the points of view of Forge posters.  However, among the few he did accept were Wujcik's essay -- which suggests to me that he didn't have as much of a problem with that as with the other submissions by Forge members.

[Otha]

You're new here, aren't you. :haw:

Actually, no.  I just didn't speak up on this topic early on.

[Blackleaf]

Actually, no.  I just didn't speak up on this topic early on.

(Pundit is familiar with Storygames...)

[RPGPundit]

I've already noted this, but this is nonsense.  

I came back from AmberCon NorthWest recently.  There were a bunch of other Forgies / Story-Gamers there.  We've gotten along fine with the more traditional Amber DRPG fans.  The two past years I ran a traditional Amber DRPG game along with Polaris (a GMless Forgie game), and gotten many of the same players.  This year I ran a non-Amber Parlor Larp ("Hamlet") and an Amber game using Spirit of the Century rules ("Big Trouble in Little Amber").  I played in two traditional Amber games, a diceless Space Opera variant, a boardgame-turned-RPG, and Best Friends (a diceless but GM-using Forge-related game playing a bunch of teenage girls).  

There are differences of styles, but everyone gets along fine in it.  We've joked at times about who drinks the Kool-Aid or whatever, but there is no animosity.

A tribute to the tolerance of Amber fans, I suppose. Let's hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.

RPGpundit

[RPGPundit]

Apropos the topic...

If the Forge has enforced dogma that rejects and wants to silence what Erik Wujcik says, then why exactly would Ron post his essay in his essay list?  

Really, I was not terribly pleased by Ron's essay list in that I thought it was not very inclusive of the points of view of Forge posters.  However, among the few he did accept were Wujcik's essay -- which suggests to me that he didn't have as much of a problem with that as with the other submissions by Forge members.

Because Erick is far more famous and respected in the RPG world than any of the Forge's self-styled "celebrities", and the mere presence of something of his on the Forge adds legitimacy to them and the concept that they're somehow doing real academic work. In other words, its publicity.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Certainly can't be because they respect his ideas.  Nope.  Simply not possible.

:haw:

[boulet]

Sorry for the necromancy, but this thread scratches a few itches.

I never realized Erick had an article at the Forge. Wow. OTOH I'm not that surprised, the radical approach of diceless roleplaying is in a way a rpg theory of its own, and it probably had an influence on theory people in general. Today diceless is still very sulfurous and I know I would have to argue quite a lot to convince a traditional gamer to even try it.

Now I agree with you Pundit : it seems that Erick's conception of game mastering would be at odds with the general attitude of storygamers. Many of them sound like they're in a crusade against the potential abuse of power from a wicked despotic GM. Though Ron Edwards and others seem to be nuanced when they explore "railroading", "illusionism" and "participationism", and show that the nature of the relationship between a GM and his group, the openness of the dialog and how people agree to share narrative control is important. Still some forgie discussions (about the democratization of narrative control and how it is important that players have a veto rule as a big red button any time something in the common imaginary space would go wrong) reminded me of the propaganda aspect of some anti-terrorist rhetoric. It felt like some phantasmagorical threats and fears were projected on me about bad GM Fiat/despotism when my experience was on the contrary that Erick's game (both as player and GM) had always made me feel empowered and free.

Let me ask you something Pundit. I was quite surprised of your attachment to ADRPG. My first contact with your opinions on rpg has been via your blog. And the overall feeling wasn't really shouting "Amber diceless player", more like "hardcore old school grognard". Have you loved Erick's Amber game at first sight or did it take some acclimatization before you get into it ?

PS : It feels weird to post in a thread where Erick actually wrote. But very grateful too.

[Trevelyan]

Let me ask you something Pundit. I was quite surprised of your attachment to ADRPG.

*whispers* Pssst, it's all ablout the beatstick

[arminius]

At least let him answer first, you unctuous cretin.

[Trevelyan]

At least let him answer first, you unctuous cretin.

I assume that's directed at me?

What is particularly unctious or cretinous about assuming that Pundit's answer to this question will be substantially the same as it always is, that contrary to his perception of Forge doctrine, which tends towards a limitation of GM authority in favour of granting the players more power, ADRPG maintains and even enhances the traditional importance of the GM as ultimate arbiter of all things in the game - i.e. it's all about the beatstick.

Unless you think Pundit is going to surprise us all with a radical new explanation?

[Croaker]

lol

Nonetheless, I think a little more courtesy would have been better. What's the point in calling people names?

Et salut, boulet, je me sens moins seul maintenant! Et c'est marrant de me dire que je dois être le seul à capter ton pseudo