TheRPGSite

The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth. This need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives.  In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play".

Likewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs.
So the Swine have it as part of their make-up, conscious of the fact or not, the destruction of the RPG industry, and indeed of the hobby as a hobby or as play. All this for their own selfish, low, contemptible ends.

Now, only a few of the Swine are the truly incorrigible willfully evil kind that have no real interest in RPGs as a game, as play, or as fun, and want only to fulfill some kind of sick psychosis.  Sadly, the vast majority of the Swine were hapless rubes, the willing or unwilling fools that bought into the foul creeds of the real Swine in the 1990s when the Swine took over the entire ideological basis of the Gaming industry; hence that era being what I've called gaming's "generation of Swine". Most of these gamers had come into RPGs playing D&D and having a great old time, but let themselves be hoodwinked into thinking that how they were playing RPGs was "wrong" or "stupid", and in their desperate desire to appear as sophisticated as the Swine appeared (and only the very young and impressionable, or the terminally stupid, could fail to see through the Swine's cheap two-bit artistic posturing and pathetic pseudo-intellectualism), they let themselves be brainwashed into thinking that playing story-based games where nothing happens and the players are cheerleaders for the DM's (or the game designer's) brilliance were somehow more fun than blowing up buildings or cutting orcs in half.
Fortunately, with each year in the last six or so, there have been less and less people fooled by the Swine, some of the lost generation have even reformed themselves, and the damage is slowly being repaired. Slowly, the hardcore Swine are being pushed more and more to the margin, leaving only the most extreme cases to continue arguing meaninglessly in places like rpg.net and the Forge, still pretending that they are the ones who matter.

There is obviously some kind of deep psychological explanation for why the Swine are like this, which I won't pretend to be able to analyze, except to look at the most basic probable cause which is that people who become Gamer Swine are the ones who don't have enough going for them in the real world or in their real lives to give them some kind of a sense of validation. I mean, I sure as fuck don't need to play RPGs as a way to make myself feel smart, or to pretend I'm doing meaningful work. I play RPGs as a way to get away from that shit; that shit being what I do in the real world, in my real life. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of the Swine don't have much of a real life.

Let's hope that (mixed with my original essays on the Swine in the first entries to this blog) this definition ends up clarifying the issue somewhat, and providing a better breakdown of what the Swine are all about.

RPGPundit (february 18th 2006)

Quote from: RPGPunditSadly, the vast majority of the Swine were hapless rubes, the willing or unwilling fools that bought into the foul creeds of the real Swine in the 1990s when the Swine took over the entire ideological basis of the Gaming industry; hence that era being what I've called gaming's "generation of Swine". Most of these gamers had come into RPGs playing D&D and having a great old time, but let themselves be hoodwinked into thinking that how they were playing RPGs was "wrong" or "stupid", and in their desperate desire to appear as sophisticated as the Swine appeared (and only the very young and impressionable, or the terminally stupid, could fail to see through the Swine's cheap two-bit artistic posturing and pathetic pseudo-intellectualism), they let themselves be brainwashed into thinking that playing story-based games where nothing happens and the players are cheerleaders for the DM's (or the game designer's) brilliance were somehow more fun than blowing up buildings or cutting orcs in half.

This little bit is where you lose me.

Here it definitely seems like what you're saying is that anyone who moves away from D&D and plays D6 (used merely because you seem to have categorized it as a crappy game with a swinish bent in the past), and then finds they enjoy that system more, is a swine.  You're saying they are brainwashed (or brain damaged) and they aren't really having fun.  They're deluding themselves if they think they're having as much fun as when they played "mainstream" (or is that "indie"?) games.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

You know, it might be better to describe the "hapless rubes" as merely hapless rubes.  They have embraced the dogma of "swinedom" that playing a "sophisticated" game is inherently better than playing a "childish" one, and they judge games based on those criteria rather than anything else.

I'm not saying the malicious swine don't exist.  The Cyberpunk supplement Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads has a passage where one of the writers belittles gamers who like kicking in the door and shooting stuff, who play for simple fun and escapism, and he comments on how these types of gamers are a pox upon the hobby and "real gamers" must be ever vigilant or lose the hobby to them.

Quote from: GabrielThis little bit is where you lose me.

Here it definitely seems like what you're saying is that anyone who moves away from D&D and plays D6 (used merely because you seem to have categorized it as a crappy game with a swinish bent in the past), and then finds they enjoy that system more, is a swine.  You're saying they are brainwashed (or brain damaged) and they aren't really having fun.  They're deluding themselves if they think they're having as much fun as when they played "mainstream" (or is that "indie"?) games.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

You know, it might be better to describe the "hapless rubes" as merely hapless rubes.  They have embraced the dogma of "swinedom" that playing a "sophisticated" game is inherently better than playing a "childish" one, and they judge games based on those criteria rather than anything else.

I'm not saying the malicious swine don't exist.  The Cyberpunk supplement Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads has a passage where one of the writers belittles gamers who like kicking in the door and shooting stuff, who play for simple fun and escapism, and he comments on how these types of gamers are a pox upon the hobby and "real gamers" must be ever vigilant or lose the hobby to them.

I wasn't suggesting that everyone who plays Swine games is brainwashed or braindamaged. I am saying that many people were momentarily swindled into thinking it was a "cooler" way to play; some of them did have a sort of fun that derived from the "fun" of feeling sophisticated rather than the fun of playing a game. But most of the rest of the gaming world quickly wizened up to the fact that these games weren't fun, and that explained the mass abandonment of the hobby in the late 90s.  Tellingly, many people got BACK into gaming with the advent of D20.

RPGPundit

If Swinedom is include the concept of promoting "intellectual" RPGs (Forge games of the 2000s) or "art" RPGs (White Wolf products of the 1990s), should this not also be extended to those who promote "realistic-simulationist" RPGs (RQ, C&S etc)? Is RQ a swine game because it states, quite explicitly, that the game is improvised radio theatre, which is surely a dramatic art?

What is your response to the "intellectual" and "artful" studies of fun and play? I am thinking here of  Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens, Gregory Bateson's Steps Towards an Ecology of Mind, John Raser's Simulation and Society, and Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilisation. What about such studies about gaming? Do they have any relevance?

Is it not possible that a game can be played "for fun as a mere game" and more for those who want more? Are such multi-layered texts possible in the Pundit's view?

Quote from: lev_lafayetteIs it not possible that a game can be played "for fun as a mere game" and more for those who want more? Are such multi-layered texts possible in the Pundit's view?

I don't think it's whether or not that the game is "fun as a mere game" that bothers Pundit, it's the whole "If your not playing OUR GAME and playing it OUR WAY, you are an inferior, brain damaged fool, plus the pretentiousness in how the games are presented that bother him.

Had they come out and said "We have a new type of game, different than what you've played before, but still lots of fun." I don't think you'd see him ranting.

The Pundit is right. Folks who think that their gaming is morally superior are Swine.

Regards,
David R

I don't understand how fun is meaningless. The experience of real meaninglessness is boring at best, terrifying at worst. Put the baby back in the bathwater.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI don't understand how fun is meaningless. The experience of real meaninglessness is boring at best, terrifying at worst. Put the baby back in the bathwater.

I think you misunderstand Pundit.

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs.

It's not the Fun that is meaningless, it's that it (the game) has no inherent value beyond being fun. In other words, the point of the game is to 'have fun'.

What I think (and this is my take on his rant) flipped Pundit's switch is people who say that RPGs should be played with 'A Deeper Meaningtm', the deeper meaning superseding and even excluding said 'Fun'. You don't play to enjoy the game, you play to "Understand the Deep Moral/Issue"

I suspect the 'rant' is just something to get your attention. Ignore the 'hate' and focus on what he's actually saying. (Though I find the rants more humorous than anything else.)

Grain of salt. That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: NazgulIt's not the Fun that is meaningless, it's that it (the game) has no inherent value beyond being fun. In other words, the point of the game is to 'have fun'.

The internal/external (core/beyond) divide is a nonsensical diversion. His detractors are claiming depth of meaning for playing the game itself, right there at the table. Some of them are then claiming that, giving this depth, the very activity of gaming, and not just game design, is a kind of intellectual pursuit or art form.

In ordeer to fend off that claim, in his definition, which is hysterically trying to evacuate "deep" meaning from "fun," "fun" itself has been drained of meaning altogether. Except that it hasn't.

Because whom are we kidding? As David R may be suggesting, it's not about "fun" vs. "pseudo-intellectualism": it's about one claim to moral superiority vs. another. We've been there. At least Settembrini is putting his cards on the table.

Meanwhile, it's pathetic. Responding to canned rants, I mean. I'm done with that.

A "swine" is anyone who holds an opinion pundit disagrees with and is far enough away from him physically for him to safely attack on the internet.

deleted. There's only so many times I can be a git in one day.

[/FONT]

Even worse, I'm an apostate swine. :)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn ordeer to fend off that claim, in his definition, which is hysterically trying to evacuate "deep" meaning from "fun," "fun" itself has been drained of meaning altogether. Except that it hasn't.

Fun can have a meaning in and of itself. Hell, I think having fun is one of the major, if not THE major reason we're all here (as in, alive on this earth).

Its just not the kind of "Meanings" the Swine want it to have. They want that playing Dogs In The Vinyard should be seen in the same light of seriousness as Herman Hesse writing Siddhartha or Dr. Salk developing the polio vaccine. That kind of meaning. And fun certainly doesn't have that kind of meaning.

In any case, I'm not really saying that the Fun itself is pointless; the part to focus on is the fact that the Swine DONT HAVE FUN with the game.  Their "Fun" is derived from prancing about pretending to be intellectuals.

I'm saying THEIR fun has no meaning, because of the pretense of meaning that they're trying to apply to it, which ruins the real point of playing RPGs.

RPGPundit

I don't think gaming has any great meaning, but I think the Forge started off with a good premise and it just got corrupted to it's present state.  When asked, "what do you like about a game?"  I don't really feel the answer "because it's fun." is entirely valid.   It's a non-answer which avoids the question.  True, some people can't articulate what elements they find fun, but others can, and it's not an invalid question to try to find out what those elements which contribute to fun are.

That's how Forge theory started.  What elements of games contribute to fun?  But along the way it got corrupted into stating "these are the only elements of games which are fun."  It went from identifying the elements of fun to eliminating undesirable elements of fun which didn't fit other parts of the dogma.

This is an odd location for my first post on the board, but the definition of Swine was always something I needed to look at before I de-lurked on this board.

Interestingly enough I think I was one of those gamers in the 90s that was brought into the vortex of "art" gaming. That is the group of people I played with thought their games where of a higher value than the other games that were going on.

And you know what? It did become very boring after a while. The description of becoming cheerleaders for the DM (though they never called themselves that) is spot on. It just took a long time for me to realise it.

Oddly I can even pinpoint the time when I came to realise that I was missing out on something that could have been better...it was when I picked up a little game called Dungeouns & Dragons 3.0.

Since then things have changed.

D&D is not the only game I play, but my play has changed.

Its fun again.

Welcome aboard Bartmoss.

RPGPundit

Has there ever been a checklist or self-diagnosis survey - so one can tell if they are slipping into "Swine-Hood" ?

 I'm serious.

Sometimes I think I might be taking my RPGS too seriously or the characters/NPCs are coming alive in spirit   - is that a danger sign?
Then other times I think that might group is closer to what JimBob describes as a bunch of "Cheeto-ists".

 Or does that mean I just need to get more sleep and eat a better diet?

 Has anyone ever done an "intervention" on a friend who was turning into a SWINE?

 - Ed C.

I'm sure you could probably make a cursory attempt, at least, of a checklist. One of the big ones is, as a DM, are you starting to consider your plot or story more important than enjoying the game?

I don't think games are devoid of literary value (as books) or that the games we play are devoid of meaning (besides fun - they can be moving, et al) but the second that trumps fun, then your game is worthless.

Even great literature is meant to be enjoyed. If it's not, then it's not great.

This rings remarkably true. I remember attending a few GenCon UKs back in the 90s, getting sloshed with the wizard staff and I'd end up sitting with a group of people who appeared (at first) to be having a positive and interesting conversation about RPGs and the "Meta effects". I even remember joining in because I'd only considered RPGs as a bit of a laugh my friends and I did.

Then, it all went sour. I realised that they were trying to use their intellectual argument to disparage the dungeon crawl, AD&D and any other game they deemed was "not worthy". I couldn't see what was wrong with those playing games like that, as long as everyone was enjoying themselves. I must admit I do like a bit of a mindless RPG mosh now and again. The times when you pile in with all the weapons you can muster and really blow stuff up.

Over successive years, I learnt to avoid these elitist types, who have forgotten the point of gaming is to have fun. They're often the same sort of people who ruin Heavy Metal music by discussing "Theological Linguistics" in a song entitled "Shout at the Devil".

Thanks for the essay, Pundit. It means I now have a word for these people: Swine.

You're welcome.

RPGPundit

What if I for some reason actually enjoy Forge games like My Life with Master and Mountain Witch more than Dungeons and Dragons... not because they are some kind of "art" but because they in my case offer me a lot more fun than Dungeons and Dragons...

Does this make me a swine...?

Hi all, it´s nice to be here with RPG legends like Pundit :)

Fritzs: I´m sorry, but do you have some kind of personal insecurity, that you ask this question on each forum? :)

You forgot to say one important thing: WHY are this games makeing mutch more fun to you?

Hi all, it´s nice to be here with RPG legends like Pundit :)

Fritzs: I´m sorry, but do you have some kind of self-doubt, that you ask this question on each board? :)

You forgot to say one important thing: WHY are this games makeing mutch more fun to you?

((EDIT: english :) , I´m sorry, can someboady delete my previous post? I´m used to use PHP BB, so I make a mistake in EDIT ))

I'm a reformed swine.

I was one of those guys who, in the 90s, saw "Art" in RPGs as being superior to "mindless monster bashing" and all that shit. I came back from it when Third Edition came out. I blame a significant part of Call of Cthulhu's fans and later Vampire Emo "Storytellers" for the whole thing. Some of these guys are seriously brain damaged.

I still see RPGs as a creative outlet for me and something that in the end represents much more than a game to me. It's a passion, it's twenty years of my free time, it's zillions of hours spent with friends, thousands of characters, groups, locations, it's this map or that game design... I mean, TO ME, it's more than a game, surely. It doesn't have to be for anyone else though, and there's certainly nothing wrong with playing Orc and Pie. I DO like to play Orc and Pie!

Sirien: OK, no problem... just because they do... and because in games like these I have mechanics that support one story (they are called story games after all) so it's easier to run such particular story in games like that... or the games break GM/player dichtomy...somehow, so there isn't absolute dependence on GM and GM doesn't have so much work with these kind of games... and it's about something, for example Nicotine Girls is about desperate cigarette smoking 16 year old girls, or My Life with Master is about servants of evil manipulating... master. OK other games are also about something like Mage the Ascension is about modern mages, or Dungeons and Dragons are about fantasy heroes, but there's a little difference. Modern mage can be anyone, including 16 year old girl and servant of evil manipulating master, so where is the real difference...? Well for example in Mage the Ascension are rules for almost anything magic relat and mundane, so you can run any kind of story in game like this, so game is quite flexible, but unfocused, while My Life with Master is focused on centrain story but aplicable to great amount of settings... sound like I am making up some stupid theory, isn't it...?

And, story games tend to have much shorter rulebooks, than most other games, such as Dungeons and Dragos with it's great amount of supplement and 3 basic books nessesary for playing... who have time to read all this and then use at most 50%...?

Welcome aboard Fritzs and Sirien.

To answer the question, if you really honestly feel like the storygames are "more fun"  and yet really honestly aren't just getting off on feeling like you're doing something "smarter" than "Normal" RPGs, you have to ask yourself why they seem more fun to you.  If the point is that they are helping you to create collaborative stories, then you need to consider that what you're actually enjoying is not playing RPGs, but telling stories, and maybe you should try to just do that instead.

RPGPundit

RPGPundit: I don't think they are "smarter", they are just different... and they are helping me to create colaborative stories while playing RPG so it's the best of both worlds...

well... I don´t agree.

This "story games" are just reduce the posibilitys of the story in RPG. They are helping? May be. But just becouse they limit players creativity. They don´t allow to play something else.

I would like to say - there is nothing in this games, what can not be playd in other games. Yes, there are some good mechanics for the game like that - for example in Mountain witch mechanics for trust, it´s realy good. But this mechanics can be use in other games (with some small modifications).

For example - I can play Mage the Ascension (awakening, whatever) with Trust from MW, and I can install it to the setting to (for example I can say that it´s some kind of mystic-avatar bound betwen characters), so I can play MtA about trust and relationships as good as MW, but I will have more posibilitys.

It´s all about players agreement about game and about game subject

Pundit thanks for welcoming :)

Out of curiosity, what is it about d6 that makes it an "artsy-fartsy" swine game according to the Pundit? Is it the pools of dice mechanic?

Lancer: Probalby just fact, that it isn't  some edition of DnD, D20, Gurps, Classic traveler or any other game he likes is enought for d6 to classsify...

Quote from: FritzsLancer: Probalby just fact, that it isn't  some edition of DnD, D20, Gurps, Classic traveler or any other game he likes is enought for d6 to classsify...

I've long tried to figure this out.

I think it does boil down to the fact the RPGpundit persona doesn't like it.  The only thing in the actual game I can think it might be would be the instruction to not to kill the player characters.  Outside of the rules, I guess the only thing would be that d6 was once host to Star Wars, and the Pundit persona tends to viciously attack anything which could be perceived as d20 not being the ONE TRUE GAME.

I personally find the Pundit's devotion to Amber to be more confusing.

Quote from: LancerOut of curiosity, what is it about d6 that makes it an "artsy-fartsy" swine game according to the Pundit? Is it the pools of dice mechanic?

Did he say that?

I am actually not completely sure, Claudius. I apologize to Pundit or anyone else, if I have misinterpreted/misread their arguments, but according to an earlier post in this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=83191&postcount=2)Gabriel stated that was the case..

I am just going by what was stated here, true or not. In any case, the Pundit didn't deny the statement.

If that is true, I am oblivious as to why.
D6 is  not my favorite system by any means,but to me it seemed just like a normal trad RPG like D&D, GURPS, FUZION, HERO..etc.
I don't see the artsy aspects there that are present in Forgista and (arguably) WW games.

Quote from: FritzsRPGPundit: I don't think they are "smarter", they are just different... and they are helping me to create colaborative stories while playing RPG so it's the best of both worlds...

Fritzs, Ignore the pundit.   whether you are playing a traditional rpg or you are playing a game where you focus on the story aspect, you are still playing a role playing game.

To answer the Swine question:

"Swine is a made up term created by The RPG Pundit" to discribe gamers who play games he doesn't like"

Only he and a couple people use  it and it is not a widely recognized term.  It's meaning less.

In the case of d6 it doesn't have to do with the system per se. He hates the system, sure, but his reasons for connecting it to Swine are a little more nuanced.

http://weblog.xanga.com/RPGpundit/287084342/item.html

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn the case of d6 it doesn't have to do with the system per se. He hates the system, sure, but his reasons for connecting it to Swine are a little more nuanced.

http://weblog.xanga.com/RPGpundit/287084342/item.html

Um?  You call that "nuanced"?  

It seems to me to be exactly what people say: He likes D20 Star Wars, and he doesn't like D6 Star Wars -- so the fans of D6 are "swine".

D6 is definitely a regular RPG system, there's nothing particularly forgey or artsy-fartsy about it.  Its just a dull mediocre system. And what has put it into the Swine category is not the game itself but its pushers, and their attitude, particularly on rpg.net.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditD6 is definitely a regular RPG system, there's nothing particularly forgey or artsy-fartsy about it.  Its just a dull mediocre system. And what has put it into the Swine category is not the game itself but its pushers, and their attitude, particularly on rpg.net.

RPGPundit

I'll add that D6 receives an exaggerated amount of praise that is disproportionate to the actual quality of the system (or to the number of people that still play it).. I have a feeling much of this is nostalgia from the popular D6 Star Wars game --all this IMHO, and I know its fans would disagree with me-- .. It's relatively few adherents seem to be more vocal (in particular, online), compared to those of other similar games that have struggled financially.

Quote from: jhkimUm?  You call that "nuanced"?  

It seems to me to be exactly what people say: He likes D20 Star Wars, and he doesn't like D6 Star Wars -- so the fans of D6 are "swine".

Well, you missed it in his xanga post, but see the next post here. The idea, it seems to me, is that some portion of d6 fans subscribe to the "benighted masses" theory of why their favorite game hasn't taken over the hobby.

EDIT: True? False? I don't know, I keep wanting to check out d6, but I never have.

I had an impression that so-called "swine" is defined by its motivation for playing particular systems rather than by which systems it plays. And that some systems have more tendency to attract those so-called "swines" doesn't made every and each player of that system a "swine" and also that one can behave "swinishly" even if he playes eg. D&D.

But maybe, I am mistaken.

I think Alnag is correct.

Why is this thread stickied?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn the case of d6 it doesn't have to do with the system per se. He hates the system, sure, but his reasons for connecting it to Swine are a little more nuanced.

http://weblog.xanga.com/RPGpundit/287084342/item.html

The thread which Pundit based his argument in this case was a RPGnet poster venting about how their LGS refused to stock D6 corebooks.  The poster was merely complaining they couldn't walk into a store and buy it.

I think Pundit should have directed his rant towards crappy LGSes who refuse to sell what a customer wants.  The original poster wasn't demanding the LGS toss out all their D20 books and stock the store entirely with D6, but was wondering why the place refused to order even a token number like 2 copies, of which he would have automatically bought one.

So, as I'm reading it, it's not even a good rationale for D6 fans being swine.  Unless the definition of swine is liking any game stocked in less abundance than WotC D&D material.

No, the definition is what it is. If the thread went through a Pundit-colored distortion lens on the way to his brain, that's something else entirely.

BTW, I asked the same question on an earlier thread : http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1762

Don't know where the RPG.net thread is. Link?

Personally I don't buy the "fake themselves into thinking they enjoy the game because it makes them feel special" idea, so much as "decide everyone else are ignorant fools who don't know what they really like, and use that as a talking point for persuading people to play your favorite game".

Which might make Pundit a Swine, but I think in reality he manages to skirt the edge.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPersonally I don't buy the "fake themselves into thinking they enjoy the game because it makes them feel special" idea, so much as "decide everyone else are ignorant fools who don't know what they really like, and use that as a talking point for persuading people to play your favorite game".

Which might make Pundit a Swine, but I think in reality he manages to skirt the edge.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem people are those who consider their way of pretending to be an elf better than other people's ways.  While there may be uncommon cases of play that really are objectionable, for the most part role-playing is just a pastime that doesn't have any objective measures.  

So if you look down on on other people's play for being low-brow and unsophisticated, you're a jerk.

However, it's equally true that if you look down on other people's play for being too artsy-fartsy, you're equally a jerk.  

The same is true if you look down on people because they haven't really earned their XPs because their games aren't challenging enough.

Quote from: jhkimThe same is true if you look down on people because they haven't really earned their XPs because their games aren't challenging enough.

Or possibly scoff at high-powered play from the start of the game because proper PCs should only gain prestige in the setting by the sweat of the brows, by starting at the bottom and inching their way up.

Quote from: GrimGentOr possibly scoff at high-powered play from the start of the game because proper PCs should only gain prestige in the setting by the sweat of the brows, by starting at the bottom and inching their way up.

I never understood this type of Swine. Of course it's alright if the game in question is Amber :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimAs far as I'm concerned, the problem people are those who consider their way of pretending to be an elf better than other people's ways.  While there may be uncommon cases of play that really are objectionable, for the most part role-playing is just a pastime that doesn't have any objective measures.  

So if you look down on on other people's play for being low-brow and unsophisticated, you're a jerk.

However, it's equally true that if you look down on other people's play for being too artsy-fartsy, you're equally a jerk.  

The same is true if you look down on people because they haven't really earned their XPs because their games aren't challenging enough.

Nah, I can't go along with this. While some humility is ultimately required for any discussion of tastes, I don't have any trouble with judging other people's games to be stupid or self-indulgent or whatever. It may mean, if we disagree strongly enough (note: strongly ≠ vehemently), we don't really have anything useful or interesting to say to each other, on certain topics, but that's life. Nevertheless, I'm not going to deny that someone is enjoying whatever it is they say they enjoy.

EDIT: BTW, I want to point out that this thread has gone through several stages. It started and stopped in the second week of March, 2007, then had more activity exactly a month later, still more on Dec. 27-28, and now this last bit started by Lancer a few days ago (April, 2008). I don't mind thread necromancy that actually extends the conversation in a meaningful fashion (which this does), but people who are just coming to this thread should be aware that there's less continuity than meets the eye.

People seem to get lost in the rhetoric.

Swine is not a game. Swine is not what you like or dislike. People like what they like.

Swine is a piggish behavior.

Here, I'll give you an example.

A couple of years ago, Stephen Colbert let it slip that he was a former player of D&D, and sort of worked it into his comedy routine that he had been doing. We all LOL'd, and it was a fun thing.

Then some breathless jackass piped up that he had to send Colbert a copy of Prime Time Adventures immediately.

...and the reasoning was... why?

Well, think about it for a second. But the truth is.. there is No fucking Reason Whatsoever except that here was this thing we got to hear in for-real media channels, and all it was, was like a brief joke mention of D&D, and they wanted in on that. Note that it wasn't a guy who wrote the game wanting to send it, either. It was just a guy who wanted to display loyalty. This is only one example amongst thousands.

So the d6 Star Wars thing: no, whether it's a game someone likes or doesn't like doesn't mean anything. But I can report that I personally have been places talking about D20 Star Wars and gotten like.. swarmed with little fuckers who wanted to point out how D6 was the only true system. I mean, geez, I don't care about D6 Star Wars, and I never played it, so I certainly don't have anything bad to say about it*, but cut that shit out!

Now, multiply this by about 1000x, and include a special pyramid scheme that is designed to enforce loyalty to an aesthetic that doesn't actually work, makes certain people money (so you have coercion for enrichment going on), include defense swarms, Freddy Butterpants style defenders who would verbally attack (and in at least one case, threaten) anyone who dared give a negative review of anyone in the club, stealth marketing where it doesn't belong, and people who used corrupt moderation policies and "staying just inside the definition of legal"
...and you have a very volatile situation.

People were being insulted, and then silenced.

The swine phenomenon isn't actually about gaming or the hobby at all, it was a natural evolution of mixing forgie-style group loyalty, false ideals, and tribal identification with RPGnet tangency style gamer-hatred and malevolence.

Identifying and confronting the swine was worth it, even if people still don't get it or agree with it, or understand why it was vicious at times. If there had been a better way, if there had been a less nasty to way to go about it, I can't imagine what that might be. I think that over the last two years, especially, people have moderated their behavior somewhat, and in general, I like how things are now far better than how they were in 2002-2005. And the primary reason for this is the community you are reading this on, theRPGsite.



*( I don't like dice pools in general. I think that's the sum total of my commentary on D6 anything)

As for me, I have found that cutting pretentious people a new one improves digestion, and possibly libido as well.

I think the root of the confusion seems to be that "swine" (as defined by Pundit) has different definitions depending on the context... Some of which contradicts how he defined it in the OP.

In the OP, he defines "swine" behavior as being driven by a desire to promote  the concept of rpgs as "art" or as "intellectual" endeavor, rather than as the game it is. On this level, I understood him and followed him here.
 
Where I lose him, though, is when he attacks D6 adherents and calls them swine for reasons (apparently) other than the pseudointellectualism he had defined previously.

It seems more and more to me, that in practice, "swine" is really just a  generic pejorative insult which can refer to those snooty artsy types he describes, or perhaps whenever the Pundit wishes to refer to a group of people at odds with his gaming preferences.

Quote from: Elliot WilenDon't know where the RPG.net thread is. Link?

No.  It's been quite a while ago.  The blog entry you quote was back in 2005, and the RPGnet search feature is nothing more than a placebo.  All I have to go on are my recollections of reading Pundit's rant and then the thread which spawned it.

Even barring that, Pundit's argument in this case seems to be something akin to the following:

1) D6 Star Wars went out of print 10 years ago.  D20 Star Wars is still in print.  Therefore D20 Star Wars is mechanically superior.

2) Since D20 Star Wars is mechanically superior, no one should be able to buy D6 game materials.  Anyone who wants them is a swine.

That's what I took away from the rant so long ago, and it stuck in my memory because of my stance on LGSes and the fact D6 is one of my favorite systems.  Plus, I've always found the "swine" and "war" discussions somewhat interesting regular topics for messageboard antics.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPeople seem to get lost in the rhetoric.

I don't deny that might be the case.

Pundit seems to like referring to "swine games" a lot.  And I'm certain most of it is just to spur threads like this.  Disccussions of this sort are the bread and butter of messageboards.  Without them you have a torpid community.    And if you want to stir people up a bit, it can't hurt to say one of the most beloved genre emulation systems of all time, responsible for powering fan favorites like Ghostbusters and Star Wars, is a piece of shit.

Quote from: Gabriel2The blog entry you quote was back in 2005, and the RPGnet search feature is nothing more than a placebo.  All I have to go on are my recollections of reading Pundit's rant and then the thread which spawned it.

Hmm. Google usually works well enough for RPGnet, but in this case just about the only relevant hit for "Nisarg" and "Star Wars" seems to be this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=123156).

Quote from: GrimGentHmm. Google usually works well enough for RPGnet, but in this case just about the only relevant hit for "Nisarg" and "Star Wars" seems to be this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=123156).

You just have to make me waste time hunting for it, don't you?  :p

OK.  Found it.  http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=198317 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=198317)

The OP says nothing whatsoever about the LGS throwing out all it's D20 stuff and discontinuing support for it's majority clientele.  He just bemoans the fact that a SPECIALTY RPG STORE doesn't know about D6 or Buffy.  In fact, the store staff knows about nothing beyond WotC, White Wolf, and Games Workshop.  The OP doesn't even say anything about how those games are superior to any others.  He merely complains about a specialty gaming store knowing nothing about gaming.

If you've ever gone to Gamestop looking for an Atlus game, you will notice the similarities.

The whole D6 versus D20 bit was added later by someone or other.  Maybe it was the tone of Pundit's rants, or maybe it was me.  Fuck if I can remember.

Quote from: Gabriel2OK.  Found it.  http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=198317 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=198317)

Ah, no Nisarg in there, at that point: no wonder the thread didn't turn up in the search.

Well after reading that thread I sure don't see much to justify going off on d6 fans. I'm rather spoiled I suppose, having two game stores with a wide variety of products within walking distance of home and work, and several more within fairly short drives. On top of that, I make most of my purchases secondhand on eBay, so local availability doesn't affect me much. If I were in the shoes of some of those posters, I'd probably be bitching about it, too.

I suspect Pundit was set off by some real or imagined swipes at d20 in the thread (i.e., that it didn't deserve the shelf space it was allocated), possibly catalyzed by prior exposure to the d6/Star Wars fan stuff alluded to by Lancer and AM.

Overall it seems like an unfair cop, but fact is, as attested by the "obscure fantasy games" thread, there are many, many games whose obscurity is owed to bad luck, poor marketing, or poor business decisions rather than lack of inherent quality; the mistake is ignoring this fact and deciding that the successful games are supported by a conspiracy of dunces.

I love(d) me my Star Wars by WEG.

I sense a schism.

Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.

Quote from: RPGPundit;82274the most basic probable cause which is that people who become Gamer Swine are the ones who don't have enough going for them in the real world or in their real lives to give them some kind of a sense of validation.

I knew a Swine who was quite successful financially/career-wise, but it's true she had a terribly lonely personal life and some huge Issues.  It was sad, because she wrecked my D&D group.  And it was all my fault - I'd introduced her to Ron Edwards' Sorcerer & Sword.  :(

S'mon: Taht's great, now we have the knowledge, that loners with issues are source of all evil and they need to be purified... purified with fire.

Let's face it, your D&D group got wrecked not becouse of Ron Edwards game, but because your group slowly dissolved from inside, and because you used "my group" instead of "our group" I would think that you were sort of "leader" of "your group", so it's your fault...

Quote from: Fritzs;228754S'mon: Taht's great, now we have the knowledge, that loners with issues are source of all evil and they need to be purified... purified with fire.

Let's face it, your D&D group got wrecked not becouse of Ron Edwards game, but because your group slowly dissolved from inside, and because you used "my group" instead of "our group" I would think that you were sort of "leader" of "your group", so it's your fault...

I was the GM/DM, I recruited all the players (strangers), and as I pointed out already, it was indeed my fault!  :p

I think you're right though, it was maybe more of a catalyst.  I still use S&S a lot for inspiration - and I defended it against a recent negative review on rpgnet - BUT it's also true that Edwards' style DID push this player into One-True-Wayism.

Quote from: S'mon;228973I was the GM/DM, I recruited all the players (strangers), and as I pointed out already, it was indeed my fault!  :p

I think you're right though, it was maybe more of a catalyst.  I still use S&S a lot for inspiration - and I defended it against a recent negative review on rpgnet - BUT it's also true that Edwards' style DID push this player into One-True-Wayism.

That Ron Edwards must have some powerful brainwashing going in his books. Well either that or you are looking for excuses for your own faults.
I don't believe in brainwashing in RPGs.

Quote from: Saphim;231547That Ron Edwards must have some powerful brainwashing going in his books. Well either that or you are looking for excuses for your own faults.
I don't believe in brainwashing in RPGs.

Hmm - you've heard of eg Ayn Rand?  Karl Marx?  Vampire: The Masquerade?  Plenty of people have that ability to inspire fanatical devotion through their writings.

I don't need an excuse, I'm well aware of my faults.  One of which was listening to this player too much.

Quote from: S'mon;232113Hmm - you've heard of eg Ayn Rand?  Karl Marx?  Vampire: The Masquerade?  Plenty of people have that ability to inspire fanatical devotion through their writings.

Comedy gold.

Regards,
David R

A local NPR talk show had an episode on Hunter S Thompson (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuer/news/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1345699§ionID=184).  I haven't listened to it, but it probably goes into what he thought of as 'swine'.

Which is unlikely to clear things up, but at least there will be a baseline.

I'm thinking my definition of swine is slightly different. All sorts of games attract an undesirable element. One can still have fun with Vampire the Masquerade, without being a pretentious, whiny goth, as an example.
 
I happen to like quite a few games, CoC, EarthDawn, Shadowrun, and Dark Heresy being a few. And over the years of being on the other board, I'd quietly sit by as people picked apart some of the games I dig, but I don't really fucking care, as they're not likely to be in a group I'm running, nor are they going to be allowed to ruin my enjoyment of said games. I have enjoyed VTM for awhile as well, but have grown a distaste for the writing of WW books after about 5 or 6 years. But I don't find the need to slam on people who go on diablerie runs. no need for it. I ain't playing it. I've also noticed some swininess from some people who dig Unknown Armies. Again, I don't feel the need to prop it up over other games.
 
To me, a swine game attracts swine. Human Filth. Wastrels.
 
"Games" such as F.A.T.A.L. and Racial Holy War are swine games. Made by swine, for the swine. And anybody who invites me to play either of these games is like to receive a Doc Marten betwixt their teeth.
 
Unless, of course, they're joking.

Quote from: shalvayez;243113I'm thinking my definition of swine is slightly different. All sorts of games attract an undesirable element. One can still have fun with Vampire the Masquerade, without being a pretentious, whiny goth, as an example.

Exactly.  I started a Vampire campaign once, but it fell through for a couple of reasons.  I didn't care for the setting details this guy was using, for one thing.  However, I was having fun as a Gangrel with a slight German accent who used aphorisms incorrectly.

At any rate, one of Thompson's quotes about swine runs like this:

"In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely."

So, in that context, he appears to be talking about the ones in charge, the nominal 'oligarchs' of the country.  I don't see how that applies here, as the 'oligarchs' of the RPG industry would be WotC or WW.

I would then have to agree:  'swine' are the ones who play to the stereotype.

Quote from: Fritzs;166189What if I for some reason actually enjoy Forge games like My Life with Master and Mountain Witch more than Dungeons and Dragons... not because they are some kind of "art" but because they in my case offer me a lot more fun than Dungeons and Dragons...

Does this make me a swine...?

There seems to be a weird correlation between paedophile apologists and some of the folks that "enjoy" Forge games.
I'm not saying ALL Forge folk are paedofriends but, at least on this site and the storygames one, the trend is obvious.

Was that really necessary, Anthrobot? I'd rather that line of discussion be closed.

RPGPundit

nope

Quote from: RPGPundit;84609Fun can have a meaning in and of itself. Hell, I think having fun is one of the major, if not THE major reason we're all here (as in, alive on this earth).

Its just not the kind of "Meanings" the Swine want it to have. They want that playing Dogs In The Vinyard should be seen in the same light of seriousness as Herman Hesse writing Siddhartha or Dr. Salk developing the polio vaccine. That kind of meaning. And fun certainly doesn't have that kind of meaning.

In any case, I'm not really saying that the Fun itself is pointless; the part to focus on is the fact that the Swine DONT HAVE FUN with the game.  Their "Fun" is derived from prancing about pretending to be intellectuals.

I'm saying THEIR fun has no meaning, because of the pretense of meaning that they're trying to apply to it, which ruins the real point of playing RPGs.

RPGPundit

Excellent rant and follow-up posts, IMO. I found it to be helpful, personally, as I was being led astray by this sort of thing.

You wield a sledgehammer, but hit with precision.

RPGs are for fun. Lots of people dismiss the importance of fun, feeling that every moment of their lives has to be productive/serious (which is why they try to make RPGs into something serious/meaningful beyond fun). It's not so. We are humans; we need time to replenish/rejuvenate our brains/minds/souls so that, when we are rejuvenated, we can do the things that are really important in life.

You mentioned polio vaccines, and spiritual writings. Exactly. After a surgeon puts in a hard week of saving lives in the OR, that man needs to have a break. He needs recreation for rejuvenation, so that he can continue to do the really important things that he does.

We all have jobs to do. We all have to contribute to society somehow. A game designer contributes by designing something fun for people to do -- and fun/recreation is a necessary part of life for maximum productivity in doing things that really matter in the world. So, I guess, by extension, designing RPGs is doing something that matters. But I repeat myself.

So, come on guys. Let's get together, roll some dice, and have fun. When the fun is over, hopefully we feel ready to get back to doing the important things in life. Gygax himself said D&D was nothing more than an amusing and entertaining pastime.

I want to nuance this argument. Games are games. They have as their object fun, but also learning and challenge for it's own sake as well. Learning a game is, in fact, part of the fun of playing a game. That is why young children enjoy the "challenge" of Candyland when in fact it requires no strategy. They are happy simply to be able to play the game correctly.

Thus RPGs can be art, of a kind, without being Shakespeare or the cure for cancer.

Quote from: pawsplay;337058I want to nuance this argument. Games are games. They have as their object fun, but also learning and challenge for it's own sake as well. Learning a game is, in fact, part of the fun of playing a game. That is why young children enjoy the "challenge" of Candyland when in fact it requires no strategy. They are happy simply to be able to play the game correctly.

Thus RPGs can be art, of a kind, without being Shakespeare or the cure for cancer.

If you mean the "art" of a game, then yes. But that's not what the Swine want it to be.

RPGPundit

the game is about what the GM says the game is about. But what can you do about swine? What can you do to stop the swine?

Bacon sandwiches?

You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us. We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig... bovine after bovine... game after game... forum after forum...

Regards,
David R

The horror, the horror.

The bacon, the bacon.

Mmmmmm...  Bacon.

Why are you talking about bacon?

So is the Burning Wheel an RPG?  Some aspects give the players minor narrative control, but the GM is always able to override this, and everything else seems to be handled systemically.

I haven't played it, but I have read through the corebook a bit, and it doesn't seem too far off the deep end as far as "storygaming" goes.

Quote from: Girl;345637Why are you talking about bacon?

Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.

And after he's finished with the Swine, the Pundit will walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Girl;345637Why are you talking about bacon?

Because,
swine = pig
pig = bacon
bacon = awesome

Quote from: David RAnd after he's finished with the Swine, the Pundit will walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."

So hes gonna be a bum?

Quote from: Ronin;345652So hes gonna be a bum?

He'll just be Pundit, Ronin – no more, no less.

Regards,
David R

Youre quoting Pulp Fiction, arnt you? Do sewer rats taste like pumpkin pie in your game?

Николай Лужин: Forget any of this happened. Stay away from people like me.

Quote from: Girl;345637Why are you talking about bacon?

Because 'they' are trying to make a pun related to swine, pigs, bacon - all that stuff.

 Actually, we used to have wonderful threads in something called the "other" section sub-forum all about either bacon or bagels. (sometimes about the two of them combined)
Back in the old days....of barely two years ago.....


- Ed C.

Gee thanks mister obvious no one would have figured that out without you.:rolleyes:

On a serious note being that this is a stickied topic on Pundits own section. As much as I like quoting stuff and goof'n off. Perhaps we should respect it a little bit and cut it out. We can always goof off else wheres.;)

Pundit is old-school, he understands things.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;82274The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth. This need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives.  In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play".

Likewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs.
So the Swine have it as part of their make-up, conscious of the fact or not, the destruction of the RPG industry, and indeed of the hobby as a hobby or as play. All this for their own selfish, low, contemptible ends.

Now, only a few of the Swine are the truly incorrigible willfully evil kind that have no real interest in RPGs as a game, as play, or as fun, and want only to fulfill some kind of sick psychosis.  Sadly, the vast majority of the Swine were hapless rubes, the willing or unwilling fools that bought into the foul creeds of the real Swine in the 1990s when the Swine took over the entire ideological basis of the Gaming industry; hence that era being what I've called gaming's "generation of Swine". Most of these gamers had come into RPGs playing D&D and having a great old time, but let themselves be hoodwinked into thinking that how they were playing RPGs was "wrong" or "stupid", and in their desperate desire to appear as sophisticated as the Swine appeared (and only the very young and impressionable, or the terminally stupid, could fail to see through the Swine's cheap two-bit artistic posturing and pathetic pseudo-intellectualism), they let themselves be brainwashed into thinking that playing story-based games where nothing happens and the players are cheerleaders for the DM's (or the game designer's) brilliance were somehow more fun than blowing up buildings or cutting orcs in half.
Fortunately, with each year in the last six or so, there have been less and less people fooled by the Swine, some of the lost generation have even reformed themselves, and the damage is slowly being repaired. Slowly, the hardcore Swine are being pushed more and more to the margin, leaving only the most extreme cases to continue arguing meaninglessly in places like rpg.net and the Forge, still pretending that they are the ones who matter.

There is obviously some kind of deep psychological explanation for why the Swine are like this, which I won't pretend to be able to analyze, except to look at the most basic probable cause which is that people who become Gamer Swine are the ones who don't have enough going for them in the real world or in their real lives to give them some kind of a sense of validation. I mean, I sure as fuck don't need to play RPGs as a way to make myself feel smart, or to pretend I'm doing meaningful work. I play RPGs as a way to get away from that shit; that shit being what I do in the real world, in my real life. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of the Swine don't have much of a real life.

Let's hope that (mixed with my original essays on the Swine in the first entries to this blog) this definition ends up clarifying the issue somewhat, and providing a better breakdown of what the Swine are all about.

RPGPundit (february 18th 2006)

I see a slight flaw in your logic here. A game is something which there is a clear "winner" or "loser", RPGs do not have these concepts really. There is a goal in mind, but another always follows, so there is never a real "winner" ... just survivors to pick off in the next adventure. The only real "winners" of an RPG are those who have fun with them.

Quote from: Girl;345637Why are you talking about bacon?

Nummers!

Swine is a good word. It has a nice condescending elegance about it. Too bad there isn't a shot for it.

Quote from: KittenKoder;346046I see a slight flaw in your logic here. A game is something which there is a clear "winner" or "loser", RPGs do not have these concepts really. There is a goal in mind, but another always follows, so there is never a real "winner" ... just survivors to pick off in the next adventure. The only real "winners" of an RPG are those who have fun with them.

You can win or lose each individual level. If you let the princess die, you lost. If you got the kingdom's gold back, you won. If you were trying to do both at the same time, got the princes but lost the gold, you tied.

Just because the characters have track records of wins and losses doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. In real life, sometimes I win at Call of Duty, other times I lose. Just because I will play again doesn't mean I didn't win or lose.

Heh, I received an infraction on the Onyx Path site for this sentence: "Don't you venture a little bit into the "swinish" part of the RPG community by calling it racist?". Someone pulled the racism card and I poked fun at him for policor behaviour. Unbelievable! It doesn't have any consequences for me. I am not banned and have full acces, but really? I am glad I found this site. Much more laid back and I learn something everytime I make a topic.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;739886Heh, I received an infraction on the Onyx Path site for this sentence: "Don't you venture a little bit into the "swinish" part of the RPG community by calling it racist?". Someone pulled the racism card and I poked fun at him for policor behaviour. Unbelievable! It doesn't have any consequences for me. I am not banned and have full acces, but really? I am glad I found this site. Much more laid back and I learn something everytime I make a topic.

Was wondering who was the necromancer of this thread.  Still that is pretty shitty cause I had to do the same thing in rpgsoapbox because some one tried to drag racism into the forum.  Mainly points out that one mage npc from Wanton Wicked mage venue is stereotype.

I had to post links to that site of the other black mage venue npcs.  They all have very successful jobs, never been to jail, and frankly are respectable people within their various fields.  I take that back.  One didn't have a job because she is retired, but she is also has very high status in the guardians of the veil.  That mage order does not have lazy people in its organization and screw ups that end up getting fired get their throats slit.  The point is the mage venue is clearly not racist.  It just have one shitty example among a group of great examples.

Spoiler

For those wondering what the hell the Guardians of the Veil is my best description of them is the CIA/FBI of mages.  Not a group to mess with.

What makes it worst is that a actual none white person came in confess that he doesn't see any racism.  Fair enough and I pretty much agree with him.  Sadly the swines didn't and one them sought out to educate him with the, "just because your a minority doesn't mean you know what is best for minorities," speech.  Fucking idiots...

Well, this was about the settings of vampire. I found the Kindred of the East and Ebony Kingdom books bringing more variation to the table than the covenants in Requiem. That is strange because the covenants are designed to be more varied. Then someone brought in racism. I was indicating that person was moving into swinish territory and that was considered as insulting a poster. To me that poster is to blame, because we don't really need more policor people.

I saw the Pundit said "Fuck off, swine!" towards a poster who found his Indian caste system with social penalties for lower classes "discrimination". I didn't went that far, I merely poked fun at him. But most people in that forum agree with that dude, because they are "swines". The pseudo-intellectuals of the RPG world. :rolleyes:
I won't be posting a lot there anymore. They even made a cultural sensitivity thread. :banghead:

I posted a reply in which I said I found the whole thing overblown and that I was just poking fun at them for their political correctness.

And that resulted at me getting suspended for one day. :jaw-dropping:

Didn't say anything weird or offensive. It's just so childish. This was the post:

What I meant to say was that people pull the racism card to quickly imo. Hence that one word I won't mention again. Actually it was kind of poking fun at the needless political correctness about this forum and rpg.net. But it exploded in a way. Hell, I forgot I posted on this thread.


Nothing wrong with it as I can see. Well, nuff said. Storm in a teacup.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;739954Then someone brought in racism. I was indicating that person was moving into swinish territory and that was considered as insulting a poster. To me that poster is to blame, because we don't really need more policor people.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740019What I meant to say was that people pull the racism card to quickly imo. Hence that one word I won't mention again. Actually it was kind of poking fun at the needless political correctness about this forum and rpg.net. But it exploded in a way. Hell, I forgot I posted on this thread.

So you insulted individual posters and board culture, and hid behind "oh it's political correctness gone mad!". What did you expect to happen next?

Quote from: Ladybird;740076So you insulted individual posters and board culture, and hid behind "oh it's political correctness gone mad!". What did you expect to happen next?

Some times a little jesting insult is in order when you do some thing fool hardy.  People's emotions do not over rule freedom of speech.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;739954I saw the Pundit said "Fuck off, swine!" towards a poster who found his Indian caste system with social penalties for lower classes "discrimination".

Well, it is discrimination, but if one wants it to be historically correct, it would be wrong to not include that systematic discrimination.

Essentially, it is wrong to imply that pundit is the discriminating one, just as i don't think what'shisname is a racist for using a certain word several times in his movie "Django". ... Or a few times in Pulp Fiction, for that matter.

Quentin Tarantino.

Quote from: Snowman0147;740080Some times a little jesting insult is in order when you do some thing fool hardy.  People's emotions do not over rule freedom of speech.

Owning or being given authority over particular private property, however, does permit people to say you're not allowed to exercise that particular free speech privilege there.

But that doesn't impact your ability to say it anywhere else.

Quote from: Ladybird;740076So you insulted individual posters and board culture, and hid behind "oh it's political correctness gone mad!". What did you expect to happen next?

Well, I was provoking it a little. But that's why I masked it a little. Anyway to me an insult often is a truth people don't want to hear. In this case I think it's true, so I have a right to say it. As long as I don't say "Hey, asshole! You Swine!" or accuse people of selling children's pornography, I think it's allright. Or keep saying the same thing over and over again. This wasn't that offensive to my standards.

Quote from: Catelf;740127Well, it is discrimination, but if one wants it to be historically correct, it would be wrong to not include that systematic discrimination.

Essentially, it is wrong to imply that pundit is the discriminating one, just as i don't think what'shisname is a racist for using a certain word several times in his movie "Django". ... Or a few times in Pulp Fiction, for that matter.

I agreed with him saying that. I was just quoting him to show the difference with my "hate speech" which is considerably milder.

Quote from: Ladybird;740185Owning or being given authority over particular private property, however, does permit people to say you're not allowed to exercise that particular free speech privilege there.

But that doesn't impact your ability to say it anywhere else.

You are right! It's Onyx Path (former White Wolf). It's their site, their product, they can do what they want with it. But I don't think it's chill. I wouldn't invite them to my birthday party, so to speak.

They also have a habit to close topics if people say something "offensive" and the other people act like crybabies. Instead of telling the crybabies to shut up, they support the "insulted". The dirty insulted who are increasingly touchy ever year.

They also close down topics if you say you didn't really like a particular book of them. More annoyingly is that the same moderators are often moderator on RPG.net as well and the now deceased Shadownessence. The moderators are often (freelance) writers for the games, so they feel like you stepped on their cubes with even the slightest bit of criticism.

/:rant:

I thought most people are in this forum for the mild moderator policy?

Yeah I see your point.  I went to this site for its honesty.  I hate the passive aggressive bullshit in other sites.

Well I don't play RPGs for "meaningless good fun," in fact I see RPGs more as a hobby like building model airplanes, especially the world building of the GM/DM.  In fact I think they should sell RPGs in hobby shops.  "Meaningless good fun" is riding a roller coaster or getting drunk to me, I'm all for that, but when I work on a RPG or playing one, I'm going for a different experience.

Quote from: Snowman0147;740233Yeah I see your point.  I went to this site for its honesty.  I hate the passive aggressive bullshit in other sites.

We take a particulary dim view of both passive and passive-aggressive bullshit here. Aggressive bullshit is, however, perfectly acceptable. In fact, some would say that it's mandatory.

Quote from: Dodger;740284We take a particulary dim view of both passive and passive-aggressive bullshit here. Aggressive bullshit is, however, perfectly acceptable. In fact, some would say that it's mandatory.

I hear a lot about this so called passive-aggressive behavior, but I still don't know exactly what it is. Is that for example saying people can't say certain things, because "other people" might be offended? Not directly saying you are offended by something? In other words speaking for others?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740314I hear a lot about this so called passive-aggressive behavior, but I still don't know exactly what it is. Is that for example saying people can't say certain things, because "other people" might be offended? Not directly saying you are offended by something? In other words speaking for others?

Pretty much summed it up.  I ST (aka Game Master) a few new world of darkness chats so I know passive aggressive behavior when I see it.

Sad part is I know it isn't the players.  At least not the players that go up to me to voice their complaints which I try to resolve those complaints.  Most players come out happy because I am honestly not trying to screw them over.  It is the players with no back bone and choose to talk trash behind my back that I find most of problems with.

God help you if any of those problem players is a friend with the admin, or site owner.  Your going to get a lot of "complaints by the players" from that shit.  My advice is if you find a admin, or worst case the site owner to be a passive aggressive person it is just wise to avoid that site.  

The reason I even go to sites is because no one in my area that I know of plays role playing games.  So I am fuck in that regard.

All of this results in getting a bland forum audience. All the people who are a little bit more colorful usually get banned. I knew one guy who always went totally overboard with his statements. But he was like the village idiot, I didn't mind. I didn't take him that seriously.

If he didn't like a game (mostly new Mage for being bland, he was right btw) he went totally overboard. "WW is always is good at rules or setting, never both!" or "WW is making games specifically to annoy me!". I believe he likes GURPS, TORG and RIFTS the best. He only played the oWoD because of the pulp factor. He got banned eventually.

I guess I just don't get it. I don't mind if people don't like something I do like. Taste is taste. Just express it.

A little derailing here:
Another thing I never got on those WW fora is the fact some people get over there and throw all their personal problems on the table in hope for sympathy. I ran over my dog, I am sick but I don't have any money to pay the bills, I am depressive for 20 years now or I have Asperger syndrome. I saw them in all variations. And then all those phony reactions. "That's awful, I am really sorry for you.". Yeah, right. I am not buying it. Makes me want to throw up in my mouth. Why do people even bring this to an RPG forum in the first place? Even if is the off-topic section, I just don't understand.
/derail

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740428All of this results in getting a bland forum audience. All the people who are a little bit more colorful usually get banned. I knew one guy who always went totally overboard with his statements. But he was like the village idiot, I didn't mind. I didn't take him that seriously.

If he didn't like a game (mostly new Mage for being bland, he was right btw) he went totally overboard. "WW is always is good at rules or setting, never both!" or "WW is making games specifically to annoy me!". I believe he likes GURPS, TORG and RIFTS the best. He only played the oWoD because of the pulp factor. He got banned eventually.

I guess I just don't get it. I don't mind if people don't like something I do like. Taste is taste. Just express it.

I guess that banning might had caused the passive aggressive attitude in chats.  Say something honest that might offend people and boom you are ban.  Makes people want to find another way to complain about a chat.  Which doesn't make my life any easier cause I rather have some one flat out tell me I suck other than drag out some bullshit agenda around.

I'm here for the discussion, rather than the mild moderation policies, and usually prefer this site's craziness over RPGnet's; I've ran into too many idiots on the internet who think "free speech!" means they should be able to get away with being obnoxious little shits, with no comeback, and feel that devalues the "free speech" concept for those who actually need it, whistleblowers like Snowden or Manning or those in oppressive regimes. I'd happily trade my ability to call someone a cunt to, say, release Manning from prison.

RPGnet is not an oppressive regime. Thanks for the heads up on the Onyx Path forums though, it doesn't sound like somewhere I'd like to post, even if I did play WW games.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740314I hear a lot about this so called passive-aggressive behavior, but I still don't know exactly what it is. Is that for example saying people can't say certain things, because "other people" might be offended?

Well, I could explain what it means, but then you'd just fly off the handle and cause a scene, and I've done enough running around after children tonight. So I'm sorry that you don't know what people mean by such a common and simple phrase.

That, by the way, was an example, rather than me actually insulting you.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740428A little derailing here:
Another thing I never got on those WW fora is the fact some people get over there and throw all their personal problems on the table in hope for sympathy. I ran over my dog, I am sick but I don't have any money to pay the bills, I am depressive for 20 years now or I have Asperger syndrome. I saw them in all variations. And then all those phony reactions. "That's awful, I am really sorry for you.". Yeah, right. I am not buying it. Makes me want to throw up in my mouth. Why do people even bring this to an RPG forum in the first place? Even if is the off-topic section, I just don't understand.
/derail

Because they're the closest to community and friendship that some people have? Because they don't have anyone they feel they can talk to in real life? Because the internet has a bit of an "the people on the other end of the screen aren't really real" effect, and this is the less offensive version of it, compared to calling someone a Teabag'd420NoobSucker  (I'm a little out of touch on current FPS trash talk)?

Some people are tedious cunts (Not this year, Manning) but some people genuinely need this as a support network, so count yourself lucky that you're not one of them and the next time you get a chance, do something to benefit those with mental health issues.

Quote from: Ladybird;740431Because they're the closest to community and friendship that some people have? Because they don't have anyone they feel they can talk to in real life? Because the internet has a bit of an "the people on the other end of the screen aren't really real" effect, and this is the less offensive version of it, compared to calling someone a Teabag'd420NoobSucker  (I'm a little out of touch on current FPS trash talk)?

Some people are tedious cunts (Not this year, Manning) but some people genuinely need this as a support network, so count yourself lucky that you're not one of them and the next time you get a chance, do something to benefit those with mental health issues.

Or send them to a place that can actually help them.  We are not the best people to help the mentally ill and those with shitty lives.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740428Another thing I never got on those WW fora is the fact some people get over there and throw all their personal problems on the table in hope for sympathy. I ran over my dog, I am sick but I don't have any money to pay the bills, I am depressive for 20 years now or I have Asperger syndrome. I saw them in all variations. And then all those phony reactions. "That's awful, I am really sorry for you.". Yeah, right. I am not buying it. Makes me want to throw up in my mouth. Why do people even bring this to an RPG forum in the first place? Even if is the off-topic section, I just don't understand.

Because they're fucking losers.

Quote from: Snowman0147;740433Or send them to a place that can actually help them.  We are not the best people to help the mentally ill and those with shitty lives.

Speak for yourself. I think I'd make a great therapist!

Quote from: Dodger;740484Because they're fucking losers.

We don't approve you speaking to other members like that. We want you to refrain from attacking members on this forum in the future. ;)

Oh and if you might respond with an "This is bulshit!" reaction I already have a disgruntled moderator quote ready. It goes like this:
THIS IS THE FINAL WARNING! IF YOU CAN'T BEHAVE, WE HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN THIS TOPIC!

Quote from: Snowman0147;739896Was wondering who was the necromancer of this thread.  Still that is pretty shitty cause I had to do the same thing in rpgsoapbox because some one tried to drag racism into the forum.  Mainly points out that one mage npc from Wanton Wicked mage venue is stereotype.

I had to post links to that site of the other black mage venue npcs.  They all have very successful jobs, never been to jail, and frankly are respectable people within their various fields.  I take that back.  One didn't have a job because she is retired, but she is also has very high status in the guardians of the veil.  That mage order does not have lazy people in its organization and screw ups that end up getting fired get their throats slit.  The point is the mage venue is clearly not racist.  It just have one shitty example among a group of great examples.

Spoiler

For those wondering what the hell the Guardians of the Veil is my best description of them is the CIA/FBI of mages.  Not a group to mess with.

What makes it worst is that a actual none white person came in confess that he doesn't see any racism.  Fair enough and I pretty much agree with him.  Sadly the swines didn't and one them sought out to educate him with the, "just because your a minority doesn't mean you know what is best for minorities," speech.  Fucking idiots...

LMFAO  Fuck I remember that one.  I was sure glad to have white folk around to help me understand my peoples were being oppressed. *rolls eyes*

you know whats odd that we have a thread for defining swine but not one for defining storygames i still have no fucking idea what a storygame is

Quote from: tuypo1;806668you know whats odd that we have a thread for defining swine but not one for defining storygames i still have no fucking idea what a storygame is

Nobody here agrees on the definition, and Pundit is evasive because it needs to be flexible enough to include any game by any person he doesn't like.
\
I have a personal definition which I've reiterated on these boards many a time. So far I havent encountered another definition that makes any sense.

you know for the most part i like the pundit (even if he is does support rolling for ability scores one of the 2 things i consider badwrongfun) but this is one instance i have to agree with his detractors he needs to define the fucking word still i disagree with people who say swine is ill defined

although this is one of the people that thinks maidrpg is about sex so we cant expect to much

Quote from: tuypo1;806668you know whats odd that we have a thread for defining swine but not one for defining storygames i still have no fucking idea what a storygame is

A storygame is a game where the goal is to create a story.  Usually by "addressing a theme" through the creation of a "narrative".  Characters are tools by which this narrative gets made, and setting is only a backdrop for the theme being addressed.

An RPG is a game where the goal is to immerse yourself in a character you have created and his experiences in an emulated virtual world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806981A storygame is a game where the goal is to create a story.  Usually by "addressing a theme" through the creation of a "narrative".  Characters are tools by which this narrative gets made, and setting is only a backdrop for the theme being addressed.

An RPG is a game where the goal is to immerse yourself in a character you have created and his experiences in an emulated virtual world.

To me that sounds like storygames are like TV shows like Star Trek. Theme is exploration, world building serves the story. RPGs are like a better computer game.

Which seems odd to me as I like TV shows much more than video games but I play RPGs not storygames.

ah that makes sense

So I've read the first few pages of this thread - not knowing much about the Pundit or this site in general - and was intrigued enough to make an account.

So Swine are defined, it seems, as a) elitists, and b) people who play games despite them being unfun. Is this correct? If so, I'm wondering specifically about the latter definition. Clearly if somebody plays a game in order to seem intelligent and intellectual instead of because they find the act of playing the game in itself fun, they'd be considered Swine. RPGPundit has made statements that seem to collate The Forge-type games (ones created by the likes of Ron Edwards and CR Nixon and Vincent Baker) with Swineish behavior.

So, I have three questions:
1. Does he believe all people who play such games are necessarily either Swine or misguided, or is it possible to play Forge-type games legitimately and unSwinishly?
2. Does he believe all Forgeish games are by their nature unfun?
3. As a corrolary, is the act of playing these games necessarily unfun or is it possible to derive fun from unfun games?

Thanks in advance for any answers and insight provided. Cheers!

Quote from: Mariachi;837564So I've read the first few pages of this thread - not knowing much about the Pundit or this site in general - and was intrigued enough to make an account.

So Swine are defined, it seems, as a) elitists, and b) people who play games despite them being unfun. Is this correct?

I think its more that Pundit's "Swine" declare games that most people find fun (like dungeons and dragons, WoD) "bad" or, in one famous statement by Edwards "causing brain damage to players" , because they arent written the way Edwards and co think games should be written (hyper-focused, conforming to and enforcing one style of play).

I should caveat all that with I personally think the whole "swine" thing is kinda childish and/or a necessary element of the "Pundit persona". Yes, Ron Edwards can be a dick. Probably some other people like him can be dicks. I don't think they in particular (meaning adherents of Forge theory) are intentionally out to ruin the hobby. I think they are just a little self-absorbed in thinking that they know what other people find enjoyable or the "correct" way to have fun.

Unlike another more recent group that IS actively attempting to destroy the hobby...

QuoteSo, I have three questions:
1. Does he believe all people who play such games are necessarily either Swine or misguided, or is it possible to play Forge-type games legitimately and unSwinishly?

Pretty sure its the latter. Ive only seen Pundit's ire raised at the writers of these games and their most obnoxious fans, not just players in general.

Quote2. Does he believe all Forgeish games are by their nature unfun?

Not to speak for Pundit, but no, I've never seen him express any opinion close to that. In some cases he's very intent on making it clear its a different kind of fun than traditional RPGs, in regards to Storygames, but Pundit hasnt been big on the badwrongfun bandwagon. One of the reasons I can generally respect his positions even if I disagree with them.

Quote3. As a corrolary, is the act of playing these games necessarily unfun or is it possible to derive fun from unfun games?

Ill let Pundit field that one, as I think my answer above makes it redundant.

Welcome Mariachi to the Mos Eisley of RPG forums!

I believe much of Our Lord Pundy's crazy uncle persona is a style of advertising to grow his forum, his blog and his online reputation. Please feel free to visit our main RPG forum and jump into the free speech gaming mosh pit. This weekend somebody's giving away a free space penis.

Quote from: Mariachi;837564So, I have three questions:

I have three answers!

Quote from: Mariachi;8375641. Does he believe all people who play such games are necessarily either Swine or misguided, or is it possible to play Forge-type games legitimately and unSwinishly?

You didn't think death panels were just for Obamacare? :)

I believe Pundy takes no issues with players who are having fun doing their thing with whatever game they are playing. His issue is when certain people declare the One True Way of Gaming is defined by the Forge.

I believe Pundy is also concerned players of Narrative RPGs, especially new players, may leave the hobby thinking the Forge games are the be-all, end-all of RPGs.  

Quote from: Mariachi;8375642. Does he believe all Forgeish games are by their nature unfun?

I understand Pundy believes Narrative RPGs are not RPGs.

That why on theRPGsite, discussion of those games is located in our Other Games subforum where gamers talk about all kinds of games which aren't Traditional RPGs.

I kinda agree. Traditional RPGs, Computer RPGs and Narrative RPGs are separate game genres quite different from each other. It is quite possible to enjoy games in one of these genres, but not enjoy games from the other genres.

By their nature, Forge games are not Traditional RPGs. Whether they are fun or not is subjective to a gamer's own tastes.

Quote from: Mariachi;8375643. As a corrolary, is the act of playing these games necessarily unfun or is it possible to derive fun from unfun games?

The problem here is Ron Edwards. He keeps refusing to invite Pundy over to play Sorcerer whenever Ron hosts Hot Strippers & Free Vodka night. I'm quite sure those exact conditions might alter Pundy's view of how fun Ron's games might be!

I believe Pundy's issue isn't whether the games are fun or unfun, but his continued disagreement that Narrative RPGs are actually RPGs. In Pundy's view, only Traditional RPGs should be called RPGs - whether or not some people find them great fun to play.

AKA, let's say you love CCGs or wargames. If you create a forum and blog about how CCGs and wargames are actually RPGs, in fact, more RPG than Traditional RPGs, then thou shalt reap the Wrath of Pundy!!!

So the War vs. Swine is about who gets to define What is a RPG?

Personally, the computer game industry won that fight years ago. WoW is a RPG. D&D is some weird WoW game bizarrely played without a computer. Whatever came from the Forge isn't even on anyone's radar. It's a niche of a niche of a niche.

Huh. I wasn't aware of that statement by Edwards. Are you referring to this? http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0

So, to paraphrase, Pundit's stance is: "Play DitV and Sorcerer and shit all you like, that's all cool and fun and legitimate. Just don't lord it over us as 'a superior way to play'."

EDIT: I crossposted with Spinachcat. Hmm. The statement that 'storygames' aren't RPGs makes me a bit suspicious, but I'll have a think and maybe come back with some more questions and things later when my brain's back to functioning at a non-zero speed.

Okay! So thanks everybody for the warm welcome!

I had a think about stuff and realized that the reason I felt suspicious about the statement that storygames aren't real RPGs is that I'm not sure why they wouldn't be.

Is RPGPundit's argument that these are incompatible definitions?

Quote from: RPGPundit;806981A storygame is a game where the goal is to create a story.  Usually by "addressing a theme" through the creation of a "narrative".  Characters are tools by which this narrative gets made, and setting is only a backdrop for the theme being addressed.

An RPG is a game where the goal is to immerse yourself in a character you have created and his experiences in an emulated virtual world.

Or is it more that 'story-games are a niche of a niche of a niche', or that 'story-games are relative newcomers to the field and therefore just a branch of the real thing', or?

Basically: why aren't story-games real RPGs?

Quote from: Mariachi;837587Huh. I wasn't aware of that statement by Edwards. Are you referring to this? http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0

As I understand it, the infamous brain damage statement was from here originally: http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777

Granted its a bit of a cheap shot to drudge up some random stuff from 2006, though Edwards defended this sentiment for years afterwards and its been a sore point for Pundit since. After the Forge's closure I honestly assumed Edwards would simply fade into obscurity, and Pundit would continue a one-sided battle with his disciples, but he's been on google+ recently stating that he started the OSR, a statement thats not only laughable in context of the OSR being avidly devoted to the games Edwards accused of causing said brain damage, but also seemed almost designed particularly to get up in Pundit's craw as an active (if late-coming) proponent of the OSR.

The real thing to take away from all this, however, is that Pundit is the host of therpgsite and stands by a strict policy of free speech. His particular ideas/vendettas/game theories are not shared by everyone here, in fact many of us have freely argued or disparaged them here many many times. Pundit is Pundit. Therpgsite isnt a fansite for him specifically, and you can feel free to question, disagree, or agree with anything he writes without fear of any sort of reprisal. And thats why we love him, conspiracy theories and all.

I think it's customary at this point to say "welcome to the Adult Swim".

Quote from: Mariachi;837593Basically: why aren't story-games real RPGs?

I dont share Pundit's animosity towards storygames calling themselves whatever they want, so I can only answer this fro my PoV on the whole thing.

There is a distinction that can be made and I think the distinction is useful for a couple of reasons. In the context of game design and play, the games have different goals thus different solutions to common problems. Discussions can become confused when these contradictory goals are confused. When it comes to criticisms, critiques layed on a SG are not going to always equally apply to an RPG and vice-versa. When it comes to consumers, we are talking about two different play experiences and it would be worthwhile for a potential buyer of a game to know what they are getting. If one orders a hamburger, they dont expect to get a malt shake, etc.

The problem arises in that for some people the perception is that separating the types of games implies a sense of disparate value. This isnt akin to calling someone a "fake geek" or a "poseur", the distinction merely means its two different types of games. However, this perception persists and thus is the cause of a great deal of online hostility.

Quote from: Mariachi;837564So, I have three questions:
1. Does he believe all people who play such games are necessarily either Swine or misguided, or is it possible to play Forge-type games legitimately and unSwinishly?
2. Does he believe all Forgeish games are by their nature unfun?
3. As a corrolary, is the act of playing these games necessarily unfun or is it possible to derive fun from unfun games?

Thanks in advance for any answers and insight provided. Cheers!

I've specifically said that it's not that the games themselves are 'unfun' but that the way 'fun' is derived from them is very different than the fun of playing RPGs.

Quote from: Mariachi;837593Okay! So thanks everybody for the warm welcome!

I had a think about stuff and realized that the reason I felt suspicious about the statement that storygames aren't real RPGs is that I'm not sure why they wouldn't be.

Is RPGPundit's argument that these are incompatible definitions?



Or is it more that 'story-games are a niche of a niche of a niche', or that 'story-games are relative newcomers to the field and therefore just a branch of the real thing', or?

Basically: why aren't story-games real RPGs?

The funny bit is when it comes to how many narrative flourishes can you have in a game before it's a story game and not an RPG.
This is where the fighting starts and the nicities of polite conversation are replaced with cold steel and desperate intent.

So Person A might say that the inspiration mechanic in 5e, a tool that is meant to give a reward for good roleplay is infact a narrative rule giving the player not the PC control over the plot. You can extend that rule back to Hero Points in James Bond 007 back in '83 or whenever. Hero points are actually far worse because they let you do things like find a revolver in a drawer, or ensure that the Russian General's uniform you just found fits you perfectly.

The truely ironic thing is that Pundit's favourite game, mine as well as it happens, is Amber. I always played Amber as a straight up trad RPG, the abilites to change the world belong to the PCs not the players (a subtle distinction). I even had players describe their characters' backgrounds in detail and imposed a skill system so I knew who could do what. Now imagine my suprise when in a thread about such things Jason D , who writes on here and wrote the unpublished Remba sourcebook for the game, noted that that type of thing wasn't the designer's plan at all. The intention was always to have the player describe the reason why the PC could pick a lock or decrypt a cipher at the point at which that skill was required. So more, "of course Trillain knows about Dragon Lore because when I was studying under Dworkin he made me memorise the rather labourious Saladan's Field-guide to Dragonkinde as a punishment for putting a snake in his slippers this one time" rather than pointing out the pre-written part of the character sheet that would cover it.This is entirely storygamey as it is about giving PCs abilities that drive the plot forward in a particular scene through the ascribing of skills, abilities, knowledge or contacts that previously did not exist as part of the fictional in game universe. I quite like it and will probably give it a go in my next Amber game as it saves hours on char-gen.

In any case the point of this rambling tangent is merely to say that it might well be the way the Forge presented Storygames rather than the mechanics of storygames that the Pundit persona finds offensive despite protestations to the contrary. After all he also claims to hate Point buy systems but then went and designed one in Lords of Olympus so ... One suspects the wish to generate traffic rather than merely lay out his stall might be at the core of it all and since he has wrangled this position into a sucessful web site and a paying job as a consultant on 5e D&D it seems to have worked jolly well all things considered.

I suspect trolling however, this necro of an old post is the sort of thing I would do if I wanted to prod the Pundit and start a debate. If I were actually interested in the site I would have started with a post about the sort of games I was interested in or the total imbalance between Linear Fighters and Quadratic Casters in D&D :D

Quote from: Mariachi;837593Basically: why aren't story-games real RPGs?

Because you don't play them on a computer like WoW.

BTW, I absolutely fucking hate with burning fury how Traditional Gamers online have allowed the term "story games" to be co-opted by fucknuts.

I absolutely maintain that Traditional RPGs are 100% story games, but the story is what you tell after the game session. Story is the chronicle of what happened, much like how Bilbo writes the Hobbit, not during his adventures, but in the comfort of his home many years later.

Turning "story" into a dirty word for Traditional RPGers has been, is and will always be a freaking BAD IDEA because of how important and how vital telling stories is to our hobby.

I never gave two reeking drippy shits about the Forge, but co-opting the word Story and being allowed to co-opt it is where I draw the line.

Quote from: jibbajibba;837611The truely ironic thing is that Pundit's favourite game, mine as well as it happens, is Amber.

The irony is so delicious!

But I am glad he wrote Lords of Olympus. The Amber concept deserves a re-birth and I just hope RPGPundit somehow promotes and builds upon the game to build a following.

Replacing Amberites with Greek Gods was a sharp move.

Quote from: TristramEvans;837595I dont share Pundit's animosity towards storygames calling themselves whatever they want, so I can only answer this fro my PoV on the whole thing.

There is a distinction that can be made and I think the distinction is useful for a couple of reasons. In the context of game design and play, the games have different goals thus different solutions to common problems. Discussions can become confused when these contradictory goals are confused. When it comes to criticisms, critiques layed on a SG are not going to always equally apply to an RPG and vice-versa. When it comes to consumers, we are talking about two different play experiences and it would be worthwhile for a potential buyer of a game to know what they are getting. If one orders a hamburger, they dont expect to get a malt shake, etc.

The problem arises in that for some people the perception is that separating the types of games implies a sense of disparate value. This isnt akin to calling someone a "fake geek" or a "poseur", the distinction merely means its two different types of games. However, this perception persists and thus is the cause of a great deal of online hostility.

Different subcategories of the same thing can be approached in different ways, surely? Action films have entirely different goals, means of achieving those goals, and elicit different reactions than (for instance) drama films. Action films tend to emphasize adrenaline, rapid-fire editing, and more minimal character arcs, for instance, while drama films tend to emphasize emotion, slower editing (often focusing on characters' faces) and more involved character arcs. They're two entirely different paradigms. But they're both considered films, and neither genre is more valid than the other.

In the same token, I'd suggest that story-focused RPGs can coexist as two separate genres under the term 'RPG'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806981An RPG is a game where the goal is to immerse yourself in a character you have created and his experiences in an emulated virtual world.

Certainly, Pundit's definition of the term RPG far from precludes most Forge-type storygames' inclusion in that list. I'm having difficulty thinking of storygames that don't fulfill that definition: Microscope, probably, and some of Ben Lehman's games like Beloved and maybe Polaris?

Apart from those cornercases, nearly all Forgeish games involve, first and foremost:
* The creation of a player-character,
* Immersion into that character and his experiences,
* An emulated virtual world into which the player-characters are placed and with which they interact.

Furthermore: they nearly always involve a game master (although oftentimes renamed to, I dunno, Storyteller or Master of Ceremonies or whatever), generally involve dice, often involve detailed combat mechanics. Hell, while some storygames can be deepset profound narrative experiences, there's loads that are just beer-and-pretzels fun. Like Apocalypse World, for instance.

Quote from: Mariachi;837714In the same token, I'd suggest that story-focused RPGs can coexist as two separate genres under the term 'RPG'.

Sure, but we gamers are a pedantic bunch. Heck, just look at how many online arguments have been had over whether star Wars should be called "science fiction, "science fantasy" or "space opera". Technically even science fiction can be rightly labelled a subgenre of fantasy, just as fantasy can be labelled a subgenre of science fiction. The debate is interesting enough to sustain any number of an online arguments, even though ultimately, in the realw world, it probably just doesnt matter that much.

Really, its just history repeating itself. Before (and shortly after) the term "role-playing game" was coined, most RPGs were sold under the umbrella of "wargame", and there was in the late 70s a great deal of animosity between traditional wargammers and people playing any hundred variations of D&D, to the point I recall lobbies from certain wargame conventions to ban "those sorts of games". One can argue either side quite easily. Ultimately, for example, one could say that by adopting the moniker of "RPG" and striking out as a new hobby, RPGs were able to grow, diversify, and expand their market in a way they might not have if they remained just a form of wargame, from the public perspective.

But really, I don't care what a game choses to call itself. Many RPGS were calling themselves "storytelling games" before the first storygame was ever published (Prince Valiant, Theatrix, oWoD). If a publisher wants to call a game an RPG, its not like there is (or even should be) some edict saying they cant, and that goes doubly so for the people actually playing the games.

For Pundit, the distinction is important in the context of this forum. Thats his business. It doesnt mean one cant discuss both here.

QuoteBen Lehman

This is neither here nor there, but I think my personal level of animosity towards Ben Lehman is pretty much on par with Pundit's towards Ron Edwards...

Quote from: Mariachi;837714In the same token, I'd suggest that story-focused RPGs can coexist as two separate genres under the term 'RPG'.

Except that words and definitions matter and mind space of the audience is limited.

I demo RPGs at conventions. Many times I've had new players at the table who only play "real RPGs" and never tried those old weird paper and pen kind. Back in the 1990s, some people told me they played all the old D&D computer RPG games and had no idea people still played D&D without a computer. The computer game companies have done a phenomenal job branding CRPGs as the One True RPG.

The goal of some Forge members is to redefine their way of playing as the One True RPG. RPGPundit and many others do not want that to occur.

Again, I argue vehemently that ALL RPGs are story-focused. It's the just the question of how we get from A to Z. Personally, I don't care how anyone wants to pretend they're an elf until it becomes of an issue of mindspace and redefining the hobby to fit a narrow definition.

Clash between story-style role-playing and other role-playing long predates both The Forge and Pundit.  From at least the early 1980s, there have been articles attacking either side - associating story-style RPGs as railroading or sometimes immature wish-fulfillment / make-believe, and other RPGs as hack&slash and/or plodding grind. This came into sharper focus in the 1990s with White Wolf's Storyteller System games, and has continued from there.

Quote from: Mariachi;837714Certainly, Pundit's definition of the term RPG far from precludes most Forge-type storygames' inclusion in that list. I'm having difficulty thinking of storygames that don't fulfill that definition: Microscope, probably, and some of Ben Lehman's games like Beloved and maybe Polaris?

I've seen the argument made that having out-of-character mechanics like Hero Points / Fate Points means that the game is not immersive.  In my experience, though, the focus on immersion is pointless because most players don't particularly care about immersion.   They just want to kill some orcs and eat some chips, and they don't particularly care about staying purely in character.

Oh no, I totally agree with y'all that terminology is important! That's why it's critical that we define terms  and then use them correctly in discussing games. Like I said in the second half of post #136, a reasonable definition of the term Tabletop RPG actually includes the vast majority of so-called 'storygames'. Certainly the vast majority of the Forge's output (okay, apart from some of Ben Lehman's* wackier stuff) strictly and objectively fulfils any reasonable definition of the term Tabletop RPG (at least, they fulfilled RPGPundit's given definition, as I said). That's my point.

Now, that's not to say that we're to view all types of RPGs the same. We shouldn't. They indeed seek to do different things just as different genres of film (or literature, tillor music, or whatever) seek to do different things. We should absolutely make distinctions about what each game does and doesn't do, what it aims to do and what it doesn't aim to do. But just as different genres of film still qualify as film, I think we should at least recognize that most of them fall under the Tabletop RPG umbrella. I don't believe saying "X RPG is a different type of RPG than Y" is any more confusing than saying "X is an RPG, Y isn't". Certainly most film audiences don't seem to need (say) drama films marketed as "not-films" to keep the action and drama genres separate in their mind.

* I'm with you, Tristram. The only game of his that I actually do kind of enjoy is HQRPG, which is fun and funny in a DCC-with-a-wink sort of way.

Quote from: jhkim;837854Clash between story-style role-playing and other role-playing long predates both The Forge and Pundit.  From at least the early 1980s, there have been articles attacking either side - associating story-style RPGs as railroading or sometimes immature wish-fulfillment / make-believe, and other RPGs as hack&slash and/or plodding grind. This came into sharper focus in the 1990s with White Wolf's Storyteller System games, and has continued from there.

I've seen the argument made that having out-of-character mechanics like Hero Points / Fate Points means that the game is not immersive.  In my experience, though, the focus on immersion is pointless because most players don't particularly care about immersion.   They just want to kill some orcs and eat some chips, and they don't particularly care about staying purely in character.

These are both very interesting points! I have things to add to what you've said, but my brain's scattered and out of focus right now and I'd like to give this the attention it deserves.

Quote from: jhkim;837854I've seen the argument made that having out-of-character mechanics like Hero Points / Fate Points means that the game is not immersive.  In my experience, though, the focus on immersion is pointless because most players don't particularly care about immersion.   They just want to kill some orcs and eat some chips, and they don't particularly care about staying purely in character.

Which is why I, as a player who does care about immersion, who plays in a group of like-wise minded players, appreciate the few games that go out of their way to actually support that despite the beliefs of some people that their experiences are universal :P

Quote from: Mariachi;837863Now, that's not to say that we're to view all types of RPGs the same. We shouldn't. They indeed seek to do different things just as different genres of film (or literature, tillor music, or whatever) seek to do different things. We should absolutely make distinctions about what each game does and doesn't do, what it aims to do and what it doesn't aim to do. But just as different genres of film still qualify as film, I think we should at least recognize that most of them fall under the Tabletop RPG umbrella. I don't believe saying "X RPG is a different type of RPG than Y" is any more confusing than saying "X is an RPG, Y isn't". Certainly most film audiences don't seem to need (say) drama films marketed as "not-films" to keep the action and drama genres separate in their mind.

* I'm with you, Tristram. The only game of his that I actually do kind of enjoy is HQRPG, which is fun and funny in a DCC-with-a-wink sort of way.

I disagree.
Your reasoning is impeccable, except for one thing.
Most of them fall under the "Games" umbrella, not the Rpg umbrella.
After that, there are a clear overlap of categories, and sub categories within that umbrella.

I find it very similar to the "non-game discussion" within computergames nowadays.
Or the "everything is a sport"-trend that was around a decade ago or so.
I do not see contests where judges sets points after style and perfection as "sports", that do not mean that they are lessened as contests, nor that they are less exhausting or requires less skill (as some implied).
And I do not consider Interactive Stories to automatically be games, and several times they are not. But that do not mean that the entertainment they offer is bad or less, it is just different.

But back to rpgs and storygames.
I haven't played any "storygames", but I am quite fond of White Wolf's "Storytelling System".
The times I played variants of it, it was always treated as another rpg, with a lot of action, and a GM("Storyteller") that controlled everything that wasn't the player characters.
Now I know there were some who did not play those games that way.

My impression of what "Storygames" are, is that they are not directly playable as rpgs because of two reasons:
* The GM is more replaced by a kind of Moderator if not removed entirely, and the session is more like collaborative storytelling (in the words actual meaning)than any game.
* The Players tend to be the important ones, with the Player Characters reduced to puppets, rather than being roles.

Now, if one uses a GM instead, with full fiat if need be,  it may yet be an rpg, but if one does so, then the game is no longer played as it was intended, is it?

I may be a bit incorrect about what a Storygame is, but this is at least my impression.

Quote from: Catelf;837896I disagree.
Your reasoning is impeccable, except for one thing.
Most of them fall under the "Games" umbrella, not the Rpg umbrella.
After that, there are a clear overlap of categories, and sub categories within that umbrella.

I find it very similar to the "non-game discussion" within computergames nowadays.
Or the "everything is a sport"-trend that was around a decade ago or so.
I do not see contests where judges sets points after style and perfection as "sports", that do not mean that they are lessened as contests, nor that they are less exhausting or requires less skill (as some implied).
And I do not consider Interactive Stories to automatically be games, and several times they are not. But that do not mean that the entertainment they offer is bad or less, it is just different.

Fair enough. To be clear, though - do we agree that if a game fulfils any reasonable definition of the term 'Tabletop RPG', then it falls not only under the umbrella of 'games' but also that 'Tabletop RPG', and deserves to be referred to as such?

Quote from: Catelf;837896My impression of what "Storygames" are, is that they are not directly playable as rpgs because of two reasons:
* The GM is more replaced by a kind of Moderator if not removed entirely, and the session is more like collaborative storytelling (in the words actual meaning)than any game.

So then you think the definition of an RPG ought to contain the presence of a GM as a criterion? What do you believe a GM needs to be in order for the game to be considered an RPG?

Quote from: Catelf;837896* The Players tend to be the important ones, with the Player Characters reduced to puppets, rather than being roles.

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by reducing Player Characters from roles to puppets? Which 'storygames' do this, in your mind?

Quote from: Catelf;837896But back to rpgs and storygames.
I haven't played any "storygames", but I am quite fond of White Wolf's "Storytelling System".
The times I played variants of it, it was always treated as another rpg, with a lot of action, and a GM("Storyteller") that controlled everything that wasn't the player characters.
Now I know there were some who did not play those games that way.

I wonder whether RPGPundit consider the 'Storytelling System' that fuels the WoD games to be a storygame or a proper RPG?
Incidentally, I've never played WoD (although I very much want to!), but I hear that games generally either tend to be action-horror a la Underworld or supernatural intrigue. But then, loads of D&D adventures/campaigns tend towards supernatural intrigue as well.

Pundit has stated numerous times that he does not think WW's Storytelling games are storygames.

I cannot specifically speak for Pundit's exact definition of storygames. I can give mine.

A roleplaying game is a game where the primary purpose is to roleplay a character that exists in a shared imaginary space defined and arbitrated by a adjudicator, commonly referred to as a GM.

A storygame is a game where the primary purpose is to create a shared narrative, with each player having some limited amount of ability to control, direct, and influence the narrative.

Where this gets tricky is for two reasons; one, the storygame may use and include any number of elements used by, and often otherwise in some way considered unique to RPGs; secondly, many rpgs can be played as storygames, and potentially vice-versa.

It's entirely possible to play D&D as a storygame. Ditto any WoD game. In fact, that likely has happened quite often, whether by intention or misunderstanding. Its actually this aspect of games like D&D that led Ron Edwards to call them "incoherent". His theories are based on the idea that its the job of the game designer to enforce how the games are played, so that they meet a single goal. Hence, According to Ron, D&D would be improved if the rules dictated so that the game could not be played as a storygame, but enforced the specific playstyle that, say, Gygax intended.

It should also be noted that "Swine" doesn't specifically refer to writers of Storygames. Pundit's use of the term predates that particular debate by probably a decade.

Quote from: Mariachi;837898Fair enough. To be clear, though - do we agree that if a game fulfils any reasonable definition of the term 'Tabletop RPG', then it falls not only under the umbrella of 'games' but also that 'Tabletop RPG', and deserves to be referred to as such?

More or less, the question is really what should be deemed as "any reasonable definition".
It also about how to define "any", like "is one criteria enough, or do all criteria have to be met, or just some?

The criteria for being an rpg, as I see it, is:
1) A GM/DM/Whatever that has more or less full control over the rest of the world and potentially full fiat, no matter whether it is used or not.
2) Players that affects the surrounding fictional world through their characters, and not through making history up on the spot as Players.

Now, a few minor steps away from this is may still be argued to be rpgs, but too many or too much, and it is a Storygame instead.
For instance, if it just is Fate Points or that players are ok'd to dictate something that happens occasionally, or that a GM is forced to using RAW (Rules As Written) and may only Fiat if the rules are unclear, then it may still be an rpg.
But, if the GM is removed, it is no longer an rpg (but it may be a wargame), or if the players dictates what happens instead of any present GM-or-replacement, then it is a Storygame.

As you noticed, there was one question I didn't answer, because (as I mentioned) I haven't played any actual Storygames, so I can not answer it.

And Tristram answered your last question.

Quote from: TristramEvans;837883Which is why I, as a player who does care about immersion, who plays in a group of like-wise minded players, appreciate the few games that go out of their way to actually support that despite the beliefs of some people that their experiences are universal :P

Sure, and those games should definitely exist for people who are interested in them. The problem I have is defining the term "RPG" based on pure immersion, when that isn't how most RPGs are played. It's a bit like defining "RPG" based on having orcs and magic. There's nothing wrong with orcs and magic, and those games should definitely exist. But it shouldn't be the definition of RPG.

In particular, D&D pretty much created the term RPG, and continues to be the most popular game. Yet a lot of groups play this as a casual game of eating chips, killing monsters, and having fun without caring much about immersion - perfectly willing to include some out-of-character chatter and play. I say that however we define RPG, it should include players like these.

Quote from: TristramEvans;837901I cannot specifically speak for Pundit's exact definition of storygames. I can give mine.

A roleplaying game is a game where the primary purpose is to roleplay a character that exists in a shared imaginary space defined and arbitrated by a adjudicator, commonly referred to as a GM.

A storygame is a game where the primary purpose is to create a shared narrative, with each player having some limited amount of ability to control, direct, and influence the narrative.

Where this gets tricky is for two reasons; one, the storygame may use and include any number of elements used by, and often otherwise in some way considered unique to RPGs; secondly, many rpgs can be played as storygames, and potentially vice-versa.

I think defining by the primary purpose makes this unusable for most games - because most people don't play for a singular primary purpose like this. They play to have fun in a variety of ways.

For example, some people are happy to completely drop out of character to play through a tactical combat or other challenge, but still get into playing up characters when they get to dialogue for NPCs.

Quote from: jhkim;837950I think defining by the primary purpose makes this unusable for most games - because most people don't play for a singular primary purpose like this. They play to have fun in a variety of ways.

Sure, but there are games that effectively enforce or prevent one or the other. I'm not discussing player motivations, thats part of GNS theory, and I always thought theorizing on it was largely useless for the reasons you state: gamers really cant be solidly lumped into groups by play focus, except in outlying cases. Rather, its about the intention of the designer.

Yeah, I would say there are few RPGs which expend massive effort on supporting immersion (def: IC POV). Not even sure what that would look like rules-wise (explicitly forbidding OOC chatter? requiring players to wear earplugs when their PC isn't in a scene?). More practically, maybe having more realistic (if not more detailed) combat and advancement systems. Most RPGs still have a lot of concessions to game aesthetics in those areas, even if you grant that PCs are heroes and aware of their hero-status.

On the other hand there are a lot of games these days that massively prioritize story qualities over immersion, either by introducing fairly strict procedures to support the former while doing nothing for the latter, or by having procedures that actively hinder immersion.

But Jhkim knows all this.

A fate point per session, which allows a reroll, is a minor concession. A game whose mechanics, rules for scenario design, and GMing instructions are such that players have to actively conspire for their PCs to fail, in order to build up the bennies needed to succeed later, is a much bigger leap.

Quote from: TristramEvans;837953Sure, but there are games that effectively enforce or prevent one or the other.

Quote from: Arminius;837968On the other hand there are a lot of games these days that massively prioritize story qualities over immersion, either by introducing fairly strict procedures to support the former while doing nothing for the latter, or by having procedures that actively hinder immersion.

But Jhkim knows all this

You'd think.

Quote from: jhkim;837950For example, some people are happy to completely drop out of character to play through a tactical combat or other challenge, but still get into playing up characters when they get to dialogue for NPCs.

There's a difference of course between "you must roleplay to be playing this RPG" and "this RPG contains mostly rules that by definition you cannot interface with while roleplaying".

No RPG can force you to roleplay. Ever.  However, many RPGs today actively prevent roleplaying during certain points in the game, namely those where you cannot interface with those mechanics from the POV of the character, and must interact and make decisions as a player.  Normally, these OOC decisions are made to give either tactical or narrative depth and choices to the player.

Can it be a roleplaying game if the game doesn't force you to roleplay?  
Of course it can.

Is it a roleplaying game if the game forces you to not roleplay for part of it?
Well now, that there's the question that has fed a thousand flame wars.

Quote from: Mariachi;837898I wonder whether RPGPundit consider the 'Storytelling System' that fuels the WoD games to be a storygame or a proper RPG?

A proper RPG.  That was Ron Edwards and the Forgists whole beef with them: they claimed to be all about story but in fact they were not different from other RPGs in any way (in that in structure and mechanics they were NOT about story at all).

Quote from: hamstertamer;740241Well I don't play RPGs for "meaningless good fun," in fact I see RPGs more as a hobby like building model airplanes, especially the world building of the GM/DM.  In fact I think they should sell RPGs in hobby shops.  "Meaningless good fun" is riding a roller coaster or getting drunk to me, I'm all for that, but when I work on a RPG or playing one, I'm going for a different experience.

Why I prefer the term enjoyment over fun when it comes to RPGs.

Question:

Do you believe that games are not art, perhaps even that they cannot be art?

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840181Question:

Do you believe that games are not art, perhaps even that they cannot be art?

Can you demonstrate proof that games are art in the first place?

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840181Question:

Do you believe that games are not art, perhaps even that they cannot be art?

A gamebook can be art.

Playing the game is not an act of making art.

Quote from: jeff37923;840182Can you demonstrate proof that games are art in the first place?

Answering a question with a question isn't great form. I think I'll wait on an answer from Pundit.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840189A gamebook can be art.

Playing the game is not an act of making art.

So, a written work of theater can be art, but a performed play or a piece of improvisational theater cannot be art?


Musical score can be art, but a performance cannot?

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840190Answering a question with a question isn't great form. I think I'll wait on an answer from Pundit.

Can't prove your assertion that games are art. Got it.

(http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/2/9/7/4/6/troll_spray.jpg)

For that to be true, it would have to have made the assertion that they are. I have not.

Also, proof it a stupid thing to ask for. You should ask for evidence to support a claim, not proof.

Just so you know, troll doesn't mean "anyone you don't agree with."

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840191So, a written work of theater can be art, but a performed play or a piece of improvisational theater cannot be art?


Musical score can be art, but a performance cannot?

The difference lies within the fact that when you play an rpg, you do not do so with the intention of Creating ART.
You might very well end up with a work of art, but it is not the reason while you do it.

It is at most like a jam session, or when you make a drawing just to make a drawing.
Or, the perhaps most perfect comparison along the lines you suggests:
Improvisational Theatre.
Not even the actors know what will happen to begin with, and no one can normally guarantee that the result will be good enough to be art, and that is not the reason for doing it either.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840191So, a written work of theater can be art, but a performed play or a piece of improvisational theater cannot be art?


Musical score can be art, but a performance cannot?

False equivilance

A book about playing baseball can be art.

Playing baseball is not art

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840198For that to be true, it would have to have made the assertion that they are. I have not.

Also, proof it a stupid thing to ask for. You should ask for evidence to support a claim, not proof.

Just so you know, troll doesn't mean "anyone you don't agree with."

Evidence to support a claim is, indeed normally called "Proof".

And yeah, a lot of people here do know what a troll, or at least a net-troll is.
It isn't just your tendency towards conflating a possible result with the purpose to cause that result, it is also your very witty name, like replacing an old god turned mountain with a goddess of discord, in a title that originally was ... a bit controversial, so to speak.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840198For that to be true, it would have to have made the assertion that they are. I have not.

Also, proof it a stupid thing to ask for. You should ask for evidence to support a claim, not proof.

Just so you know, troll doesn't mean "anyone you don't agree with."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It isn't at all like you are the first dipshit to do this dance.

Quote from: Catelf;840200The difference lies within the fact that when you play an rpg, you do not do so with the intention of Creating ART.
You might very well end up with a work of art, but it is not the reason while you do it.

It is at most like a jam session, or when you make a drawing just to make a drawing.
Or, the perhaps most perfect comparison along the lines you suggests:
Improvisational Theatre.
Not even the actors know what will happen to begin with, and no one can normally guarantee that the result will be good enough to be art, and that is not the reason for doing it either.

Not every theater group or singer set out to make art(, i my self am not setting out to create art when I sing in the shower), and clearly there is an entire movement of people who do sit down to play or make games with the intention of creating art.

if intentionality is what is responsible for something being art (which would be very Dada), then games most assuredly can be art.

Quote from: Catelf;840206Evidence to support a claim is, indeed normally called "Proof".

And yeah, a lot of people here do know what a troll, or at least a net-troll is.
It isn't just your tendency towards conflating a possible result with the purpose to cause that result, it is also your very witty name, like replacing an old god turned mountain with a goddess of discord, in a title that originally was ... a bit controversial, so to speak.

Not strictly, proof is really a thing that belongs in the world of mathematics and pure logic, such things do not require evidence, they simply are, or are not.

Since I don't really want to dive into the realms of Philosophy (and maths is almost certainly the wrong field for this topic, I'd rather stick to us not using the common usage of proof, because at that point I start pulling my hair out when jeff37923 or someone like him says "It's only a Theory". That way madness lies.)

Eris Shrugged is the name of my pet CP setting, and while it is certainly a witty reference to what bollocks Objectivism, it not some illusion to trolldem on my part. Also, Atlas was a titan, not a god, which is a fairly significant difference within that mythology.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840201False equivilance

A book about playing baseball can be art.

Playing baseball is not art

You clearly assert that baseball isn't art, or nor is say a game of dnd. But you have not explained why it is not.

Not to mention that baseball is not to the best of my knowledge a creative endevour where there is an intentional creation of narrative, where individual players perform the part of protaganists within that narrative, or that baseball commonly made intertextual reference to other works of fiction.

In truth, I think that you are the one making the false equivalence here, in comparing baseball and any form of roleplaying game.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840208Not every theater group or singer set out to make art(, i my self am not setting out to create art when I sing in the shower), and clearly there is an entire movement of people who do sit down to play or make games with the intention of creating art.

if intentionality is what is responsible for something being art (which would be very Dada), then games most assuredly can be art.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840210Not strictly, proof is really a thing that belongs in the world of mathematics and pure logic, such things do not require evidence, they simply are, or are not.

Since I don't really want to dive into the realms of Philosophy (and maths is almost certainly the wrong field for this topic, I'd rather stick to us not using the common usage of proof, because at that point I start pulling my hair out when jeff37923 or someone like him says "It's only a Theory". That way madness lies.)

This was your first post in this it seems:

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840181Question:

Do you believe that games are not art, perhaps even that they cannot be art?

As pointed out, a gamebook may be art, but if you sit down to play an rpg, you do not do so with the intention of creating art, so therefor, the game or gaming itself is not normally art.
The result may also be art, but as said, the gaming and itself normally isn't.

Also, "can be" do not mean that it should be a desired goal.

As for proof, you seem to mistake "proof" for "truth".

There is no art.

There are pretty pictures, pretty melodies, pretty ways of putting one's words, pretty sculptures and pretty pussies.

To me that is.

Edit - Insert the word 'thoughtful' or 'emotional' instead of the word 'pretty' and you get the exact same result. No art.

Seems you added this:

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840210Eris Shrugged is the name of my pet CP setting, and while it is certainly a witty reference to what bollocks Objectivism, it not some illusion to trolldem on my part. Also, Atlas was a titan, not a god, which is a fairly significant difference within that mythology.

CP setting?

Also, the Titans were indeed gods, they did give birth to the "new" gods (Zeus and those) who overthrew the Titans and so on.
To claim that the Titans weren't gods is just semantics.

I don't hugely care about the semantics of what we call "art", but I do care about valuing stuffy ideals over personal creativity.

RPGs are creative expression - and actively playing the game is often more meaningful than passively watching an art movie, or reading a literary book, or looking at some paintings in a museum.  Likewise, I think it is more meaningful to actively pay music for myself rather than passively listening to a recording of a professional orchestra - even if I'm just jamming and am not consciously intending to make "art".

So, yeah, I think of my RPG games as art - just as I think of my local theater performance as art, and my friend's garage band as art.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840210Not strictly, proof is really a thing that belongs in the world of mathematics and pure logic, such things do not require evidence, they simply are, or are not.

Speaking as a mathematician, you are a bit confused about math and logic.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840210Also, Atlas was a titan, not a god, which is a fairly significant difference within that mythology.

Speaking as someone who has read a lot of mythology, you are a bit confused about Greek mythology.

Which is really just a preamble to my question for you.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840181Question:

Do you believe that games are not art, perhaps even that they cannot be art?

Why do you care?

Seriously, why do you care about this question? Moreover, why do you care what we think about this question?

I've been gaming for over 40 years and your question is so irrelevant and unrelated to any consideration I have when playing a game, planning a game, or running a game that I have to wonder why the question even arises for you.

I have a pretty strict definition of 'art', of the sort that isn't very popular these days.  And no, I don't think RPGs are 'art'.  Some of the art in RPGs books might be art.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840214You clearly assert that baseball isn't art, or nor is say a game of dnd. But you have not explained why it is not.

True, I have no intention of taking the time to type out a comprehensive definition of art. Suffice to say the terms art and game are mutually exclusive, and its obvious to which of those categories RPGs belong.

QuoteNot to mention that baseball is not to the best of my knowledge a creative endevour where there is an intentional creation of narrative, where individual players perform the part of protaganists within that narrative

Nor, to the best of my knowledge, are role-playing games.

But baseball is a game,and improvisational theatre and musical performances are not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840378True, I have no intention of taking the time to type out a comprehensive definition of art. Suffice to say the terms art and game are mutually exclusive, and its obvious to which of those categories RPGs belong.

Just because you assert it, doesn't make it true. But by all means keep admiring your own personal celestial teapot ;)

Quote from: TristramEvans;840378Nor, to the best of my knowledge, are role-playing games.

Oxford University press define narrative as:

"A spoken or written account of connected events; a story."

My experience of every roleplaying game I have played from my first exposure to basic, through to the weirdest indie fare has activities which meets that definition.

Even if you procedural generated the a dungeon and the DM has no story in mind, the game generates a narrative as an emergent property. In fact, the creation of narrative is the primary(almost exclusive in the early days in fact) activity outside of combat.

In fact, it is the degree to which this occurs (and is a basic aspect of play), that separates RPGs from skirmish war games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840374I have a pretty strict definition of 'art', of the sort that isn't very popular these days.  And no, I don't think RPGs are 'art'.  Some of the art in RPGs books might be art.

And why is that? What is it about games that means you appear to consider that they cannot be art?

Quote from: Bren;840322Why do you care?

Seriously, why do you care about this question? Moreover, why do you care what we think about this question?

I've been gaming for over 40 years and your question is so irrelevant and unrelated to any consideration I have when playing a game, planning a game, or running a game that I have to wonder why the question even arises for you.

Because I wish to understand pundits argument better, and because the answer is interesting to me.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840384Just because you assert it, doesn't make it true. But by all means keep admiring your own personal celestial teapot ;)

I shall, but the truth of the matter is that society decides what is art or not, and in the end, society does not accept playing RPGs as art.

QuoteOxford University press define narrative as:

"A spoken or written account of connected events; a story."

My experience of every roleplaying game I have played from my first exposure to basic, through to the weirdest indie fare has activities which meets that definition.

Where you're definition fails is in the inclusion of the concept of "intention". A narrative is a by-product of an RPG, it's not the intention.

QuoteIn fact, it is the degree to which this occurs (and is a basic aspect of play), that separates RPGs from skirmish war games.

No, that isn't what separates them.

For something you consider a by product of rpgs, we as a hobby seem to have gone to great lengths to foster narrative within rpgs (even in early editions of DnD).

From little things like naming our characters, throught to the production of vast and lavish campaign settings. Even the teaching tools used to show people how to play is couched in narrative terms as a choose your own adventure. Not to mention that clearly for large portions of roleplayers, narrative clearly is an important part of the intent.


 I could understand the claim that narrative is a less important part of the experience of roleplaying than another part of it is, I'd disagree, but it would atleast make sense, but the claim that we don't intentionally create a narrative as part of roleplay, is mind boggling.


Tell me, what is the difference between a combat focused game of basic dnd and a game of Inquisitor scenario run by a gm, with playeracting co-operatively against the scenario?

I think it's a matter of some seeing it as going too far.  Concentrating on the creation of narrative as the point of the game rather than a part of the game.

One group of people spent a good long while hammering out how to have the point of the game be the creation of narrative while you play it, rather than allowing it to emerge naturally like it does whenever a human recounts a series of events.  They were very interested in techniques to use at the table top to help ensure that a narrative like that found in written fiction was produced by the act of playing.

And they didn't stop there.  They spent a lot of time banging on about how a category of RPG play that many people (nearly all RPGers by the sales numbers of games at the time) enjoyed isn't real play, but some sort of "null play" because it fails to do the creation of narrative through the act of playing the way they would like.  They would have also grudgingly accepted games that are about rising to the challenge and showing how awesome you are to the other participants as real play, but in a pat you on the head condescending sort of way.  

Out of many people actively posting about these issues and designing games related to them, maybe one guy (Eero Tuovinen) actually could talk meaningfully about their category of play that they'd lump normal RPG play into.  Even he though, seemed to see it as either some sort of problem to be solved, or in a condescending reductionist way that dismissed every traditional RPG as being basically the same game.

"The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text." - Eero Tuovinen

They also wanted RPG play to force the game into the exploration of morality (which they saw as the only valid way to have an authentic narrative) every time you play it (as in, the game mechanics are specifically about that and often only that).  And the majority of RPG play that has been going on since the 70s simply doesn't count under their framework.  They gave lip service to other modes of play being valid, but it was drowned out by their boosting of exploration of morality and the creation of narrative about that topic right in the moment of play made that seem quite hollow.  

That's the context that formed RPGPundit's extreme stance.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840386Because I wish to understand pundits argument better, and because the answer is interesting to me.

So this is merely intellectual bullshitting. OK. In that case

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840427For something you consider a by product of rpgs, we as a hobby seem to have gone to great lengths to foster narrative within rpgs (even in early editions of DnD).

People describe baseball and football games all the time. That narrative is not the purpose of playing a baseball or football game. A lot of people play RPGs just like that. Back in 1974 and for some time thereafter, everyone I knew or read about played RPGs just like that. Later on some people started pontificating about art, purpose, meaning, and shit like that. Their writing seems like not very clever intellectual wankery to me. :idunno:

It seems like people are talking past each other.

To take a parallel - In the 1960s, few people considered comic books to be "art".  Nowadays, comic books are pretty well accepted as art.  The cool thing about this isn't having arty, depressing comics like Maus.  Rather, there were people like Scott McCloud who looked at the classic comic books like Plastic Man, The Spirit, and others - and appreciated the creativity and style that went into them.  

Saying that "comic books are art" doesn't mean an attack on fun superhero comics.  

Likewise, saying "RPGs are art" doesn't necessarily mean an attack on fun dungeon crawls and sandbox games.  

In particular, I think that intent is irrelevant.  If I'm looking at a painting, I don't have to mind-read into what the creator was intending for it to really be art.  Maybe he was just trying to make a buck, or maybe he was playing a practical joke, or maybe he had some lofty artistic ideals.  I don't have to play mind-reader to say that the painting is art.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840378Nor, to the best of my knowledge, are role-playing games.

But baseball is a game,and improvisational theatre and musical performances are not.

I find that RPGs are much closer to improvisational theater games than they are to baseball.  Improv games typically have very different rules than tabletop RPGs - but both have no objective winner and loser, involve improvisation of what a fictional character says and does.  Also, a lot of improv games are not designed for an audience, but rather just the interest of the players.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840427For something you consider a by product of rpgs, we as a hobby seem to have gone to great lengths to foster narrative within rpgs (even in early editions of DnD).

From little things like naming our characters, throught to the production of vast and lavish campaign settings.

You say "foster a narrative", I say "create an immersive gameplay experience". Since any narrative that come sout of an RPG is, at best, the worste sort of dimestore fanfic one could imagine, but the immersive experience rivals any other form of gaming on the planet, it's somewhat bizarre to ascribe the thing that RPGs are horrible at priority over the thing they're great at.

QuoteNot to mention that clearly for large portions of roleplayers, narrative clearly is an important part of the intent.

And clearly for a large portion of roleplayers , it's not. So the statement is meaningless.

QuoteI could understand the claim that narrative is a less important part of the experience of roleplaying than another part of it is, I'd disagree, but it would atleast make sense, but the claim that we don't intentionally create a narrative as part of roleplay, is mind boggling.

It's obviously not the purpose of playing a game. People play games to have fun. Thats what separates a game from any other activity: their ultimate purpose is nothing besides enjoyment. If a person sits down to write a novel, they may have fun, but thats not the primary goal or purpose. If a concert painist gives a performance, they may have fun, but thats not the primary concern. If a person sits down with some friends to play a game, they might inadvertantly create a narrative, but thats not the primary goal or purpose. If its is, what you have is a storygame, not an RPG. Of course, RPGs can be used to play Storygames. However, storygames for the most part cant be used to play RPGs, because they directly interfere with the things that make RPGs unique in order to provide tools with the focus of creating a story.

QuoteTell me, what is the difference between a combat focused game of basic dnd and a game of Inquisitor scenario run by a gm, with player acting co-operatively against the scenario?

Nothing beyond the description without more specific information to provide a distinction

Quote from: jhkim;840481Likewise, saying "RPGs are art" doesn't necessarily mean an attack on fun dungeon crawls and sandbox games.  

In particular, I think that intent is irrelevant.  If I'm looking at a painting, I don't have to mind-read into what the creator was intending for it to really be art.  Maybe he was just trying to make a buck, or maybe he was playing a practical joke, or maybe he had some lofty artistic ideals.  I don't have to play mind-reader to say that the painting is art.

That's how I see it as well.

The problem isn't that some people think RPGs can be art.  The problem is that some people think if they're not, then something is wrong with what's happening at the table.  And others who think if anything can be thought of as art, then something is wrong with what's happening at the table.

If that problem doesn't exist, then there's no issue.  We don't need fun police or art police.

Quote from: NathanIW;840439I think it's a matter of some seeing it as going too far.  Concentrating on the creation of narrative as the point of the game rather than a part of the game.

One group of people spent a good long while hammering out how to have the point of the game be the creation of narrative while you play it, rather than allowing it to emerge naturally like it does whenever a human recounts a series of events.  They were very interested in techniques to use at the table top to help ensure that a narrative like that found in written fiction was produced by the act of playing.

And they didn't stop there.  They spent a lot of time banging on about how a category of RPG play that many people (nearly all RPGers by the sales numbers of games at the time) enjoyed isn't real play, but some sort of "null play"

This is a crock of conspiracy-theorist bullshit.

Yes, there are some story gamers who are assholes - and who think anything except their favored style of play sucks.  That's bad - but you'll also find assholes and specifically one-true-way assholes in just about every category of gaming.  cf. D&D edition wars, White Wolf fans, etc.  

Story gamers are not some monolithic group who are all organized to destroy traditional gaming.  When Ron made his stupid comments about brain damage, for example, there were a few apologists - but mostly people rejected him.  Likewise, I and others have argued with Eero and his condescending bullshit on Story Games plenty of times.

Quote from: NathanIW;840488The problem isn't that some people think RPGs can be art.  The problem is that some people think if they're not, then something is wrong with what's happening at the table.  And others who think if anything can be thought of as art, then something is wrong with what's happening at the table.

If that problem doesn't exist, then there's no issue.  We don't need fun police or art police.

The problem of assholes who try to be fun police and/or art police exists - and I would count RPGPundit among these, along with people like Ron Edwards and Eero.  The solution is to reject them, rather than participate in their imagined war between gaming styles.

Quote from: jhkim;840494This is a crock of conspiracy-theorist bullshit.

It's not some grand conspiracy or anything.  It's just people honestly believing their approach is good and the approach of others is not.  And they were jerks about it.  And it wasn't just one or two people.  I don't know how many times I've read online and heard in person that same idea Eero expressed about all trad games basically being the same game.  For a year or two, I think I may have believed it.  I don't know how many times I've read pretty dismissive stuff about how most of the gamers in the RPG hobby play.  It was bad.

I remember tons of podcasts where people are asking advice on how to convert their friends from traditional gaming to being nar or whatever.  Lots of times people had level headed advice and told them not to mess with someone who already has what they are looking for, but far more often there'd be something about introducing them with a hybrid game first (Spirit of the Century was often the go to answer).  There was definitely a proselytizing attitude present in the mid 2000s.

There was definitely a culture of "we have the awesome that the traditional players don't" both at the Forge and later (maybe even currently?) at Story Games Community.  It's certainly less unified or monolithic than is often presented, but it was there.

QuoteStory gamers are not some monolithic group who are all organized to destroy traditional gaming.

If someone believes they're onto something awesome, they want to share it.  It's not some dastardly plan to destroy the hobby, it's just people wanting to share and experience they love with more people.  Combine that with ego, with in-group/out-group identification and the nature of arguing on the internet and you had a recipe for disaster.

I was trying to help Eris_Shrugged understand where RPGPundit was coming from.  If you set aside the extremist rhetoric though, time has born the Pundit right about the industry, the hobby and how many things identified as weaknesses in traditional play are actually strengths (for example, the very ambiguity Eero talks about and the incoherence Ron talks about are actually what make a lot of traditional games accessible to a wider audience).

As for Ron Edwards and brain damage, anyone who cares about a 7 year old internet fight should take a listen to his interview with Clyde Roher here:
http://www.geekyandgenki.com/show008-interview-with-ron-edwards/

I think the whole thing got totally blown out of proportion.  I think he was wrong on the facts and that people's natural ability to string together and describe narrative is not so easily damaged, but what a tempest in a teapot that was.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread/article, I think the area to really assess is whether or not there was (or is) a subset of the Forge/GNS/StoryGames communities that think what they are doing is some form of high art that is above what lesser gamers do.  I think there is, but it's an even smaller proportion of the total membership of those communities now than it ever was in the past.

Those who think that way, the RPGPundit calls swine.  Just as he refers to people who make RPGs their area of advocacy for equality issues as swine.  In both cases, they believe they're doing something fundamentally better than the average gamer.  RPGPundit believes them to be numerous (or just sufficiently vocal?) and harmful.

We may disagree to varying degrees, but that is what he's talking about when he uses the term.

Until we know what definition of "art" is being used, it is pretty much fruitless to say what is or is not "art".

Quote from: NathanIW;840501To bring this back to the topic of the thread/article, I think the area to really assess is whether or not there was (or is) a subset of the Forge/GNS/StoryGames communities that think what they are doing is some form of high art that is above what lesser gamers do.  I think there is, but it's an even smaller proportion of the total membership of those communities now than it ever was in the past.

Those who think that way, the RPGPundit calls swine.

In this post, you specify that there is a subset who are one-true-wayist - noting how it is even smaller now. However, in your previous post (#178 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=840439&postcount=178)), you explicitly said that the group who came up with story games were all engaged in attacking traditional RPGs. ("And they didn't stop there. They spent a lot of time banging on...")

That's the part I reacted against.

I don't disagree that the subset exists - but it's the fucking Internet.  Loudmouths who go on about how superior they are are all over - in every gaming community.

Quote from: NathanIWJust as he refers to people who make RPGs their area of advocacy for equality issues as swine. In both cases, they believe they're doing something fundamentally better than the average gamer. RPGPundit believes them to be numerous (or just sufficiently vocal?) and harmful.

We may disagree to varying degrees, but that is what he's talking about when he uses the term.

Not according to the OP of this thread.  He defines "swine" according to people turning to RPGs for self-worth, regardless of how they regard themselves compared to the average gamer.

Really, there are tons of people who consider themselves superior to the average gamer - such as a subset of grognards who consider the younger 3e / Pathfinder / 4e generation to be inferior and broken. Heck, lot of people are superior to the average gamer, by at least some measure. Presumably, about 50% of the actual gamer population will be superior to the average for any given measure - and of course this will include 100% of Internet posters.  :-)

I consider Pundit's ranting to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, because really he's proposing a war between story games and traditional RPGs as if one side or the other has to win.  The more effective solution is to side with those people who think both can be fun.

Roleplaying games may not be art, but running them sure is an art. :)

Quote from: jhkim;840481It seems like people are talking past each other.

To take a parallel - In the 1960s, few people considered comic books to be "art".  Nowadays, comic books are pretty well accepted as art.  The cool thing about this isn't having arty, depressing comics like Maus.  Rather, there were people like Scott McCloud who looked at the classic comic books like Plastic Man, The Spirit, and others - and appreciated the creativity and style that went into them.  

Saying that "comic books are art" doesn't mean an attack on fun superhero comics.  

Likewise, saying "RPGs are art" doesn't necessarily mean an attack on fun dungeon crawls and sandbox games.  

In particular, I think that intent is irrelevant.  If I'm looking at a painting, I don't have to mind-read into what the creator was intending for it to really be art.  Maybe he was just trying to make a buck, or maybe he was playing a practical joke, or maybe he had some lofty artistic ideals.  I don't have to play mind-reader to say that the painting is art.


I find that RPGs are much closer to improvisational theater games than they are to baseball.  Improv games typically have very different rules than tabletop RPGs - but both have no objective winner and loser, involve improvisation of what a fictional character says and does.  Also, a lot of improv games are not designed for an audience, but rather just the interest of the players.

Very well said, though I would add that getting Maus is ALSO a cool thing.

Quote from: Bren;840477So this is merely intellectual bullshitting. OK. In that case

If this board considers asking questions to understanding another persons position to be intellectual bullshit, no wonder this board is hostile to ideas that conflict with the echo chamber ;)

Quote from: Bren;840477People describe baseball and football games all the time.

Yeah, people who are not actively engaged in them do, but the participants who are actively engaged in them, to the best of my knowledge never do as they play.

Quote from: Bren;840477That narrative is not the purpose of playing a baseball or football game.

Certainly, and creation is not a by product of the act either. Narratives may be spun at the time by those not involved, or afterwards by those involved in play, but players don't say "I kick to steve, who then dribbles the ball around a defense, before stricking for the goal, yes we scored, I feel awesome."

By contrast, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a tabletop RPG where the players do produce narrative as the act of play.

Quote from: Bren;840477A lot of people play RPGs just like that. Back in 1974 and for some time thereafter, everyone I knew or read about played RPGs just like that.

Without the inclusion of named characters? Without settings? Without making reference to other works of fiction. Without characters talking to one another? Without characters having motivations? And so on and so forth?

Because those things are all things you do to promote the creation of narrative within a RPG.

Quote from: Bren;840477Later on some people started pontificating about art, purpose, meaning, and shit like that. Their writing seems like not very clever intellectual wankery to me. :idunno:

These things have nothing to do with weither people go to lengths to foster the production of narrative in RPGs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840486You say "foster a narrative", I say "create an immersive gameplay experience". Since any narrative that come sout of an RPG is, at best, the worste sort of dimestore fanfic one could imagine, but the immersive experience rivals any other form of gaming on the planet, it's somewhat bizarre to ascribe the thing that RPGs are horrible at priority over the thing they're great at.

What are the sensory inputs that you experience in playing the game, if not the narrative?

Your games may produce Dimestore fanfic, I can't really comment, never having played in them. Whatever the case may be with your games, most games I have played in stand up well to most media I have consumed.

It isn't surprising that Tabletop RPGs are stand up well compared to other forms of games at providing an immersive experience. Nearly no other form of game sets out to produce such. Immersion is not the aim or chess(unless you mean immersion into the state of mind that is required for the game, in which case i would argue that the chess provides a far greater, more intellectually stimulating form of immersion), nor is it the aim of risk, or poker, or warhammer, or any other game outside of the realms of computer gaming and RPGs.

On the other hand, if an immersive experience is the aim, why are we bothering with TRPGs at all; clearly high production value, weekend length horror LARPs are the way forwards.
 

Quote from: TristramEvans;840486It's obviously not the purpose of playing a game. People play games to have fun.

What do you mean by fun? Do you mean Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery, Expression, or perhaps Submission. I'd suggest a good starting point would be eight kinds of Fun by Marc LeBlanc, though the MIT open course-ware for their games design course is also a good starting point...

Quote from: TristramEvans;840486Thats what separates a game from any other activity: their ultimate purpose is nothing besides enjoyment.

Demonstrably untrue. Games are not the only activity that can be engaged in purely for "fun", and not all games are engaged in purely for fun, they can be tools for teaching, they can be propoganda, they can be used get their player or players to think about moral or philosophical issues, ways of exerting social dominance over other, and economic activities. You might want to check out PBS game show's video, The Hidden Genius of Monopoly's Rules.  

Quote from: TristramEvans;840486If a person sits down to write a novel, they may have fun, but thats not the primary goal or purpose.

While it is unlikely that a novel will be written purely for fun, there are many people who daily write short fiction or flash fiction purely or primerally for fun.

By the same token, people do not always sit down for a game, primerially or exclusively for the purpose of your illusive "fun". I personally have week in, week out, played in games which give me little fun, in and off themselves, because those games act an important social lubricant which aid in gathering social fun from spending time with friends.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840486If a concert painist gives a performance, they may have fun, but thats not the primary concern.

Are you seriously suggesting they cannot equally sit down and play the same piece, on their own, purely for fun? Or that a three year old who sings itsy bitsy spider cannot be doing it primerally for fun.



The truth is that all forms of play can be about fun. All forms of play can also be about other things too.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840571What do you mean by fun?

I can no longer say that there's no such thing as a stupid question.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;840530Roleplaying games may not be art, but running them sure is an art. :)

I was going to say this.

In a mildly abstract way, I do think there's a little art in GMing. The emergent quality is not in the ACT of GMing itself it's in the end result of the campaigns one runs, if that make sense? I consider myself a good GM. Even great in rare moments. But I fail *far far far far far* more often than I succeed, by my own standards.

The emergent quality of my really good games, still hangs in the air of discussions and memories of my players, and has for decades. It's not something I can point to with any specificity, as the GM, absolutely intended. It's something that happened due to the alchemy of the group in play, actually playing. The players were committed to their characters, I was committed to my setting, the NPC's and the PC's, and we journeyed together. What happened was the game.

I've sat at the tables with suck-ass GM's, decent ones, good ones, and truly gob-smackingly great ones (best GM-experience I've ever had was with Skip Williams. Fucker set the bar insanely high), and when it's great? It's magic. It's ephemeral, when the players are committed and the GM is totally committed, something happens. Like a "peak moment" that keeps rolling along. That's how I know there's some art to it. If you've never had that experience, then I can't bother to explain it to you over text on the screen.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840571What are the sensory inputs that you experience in playing the game, if not the narrative?

A narrative only exists in the past sense. The sensory inputs of my day to day life are not "the narrative". The writings in my journal after the fact are.

QuoteYour games may produce Dimestore fanfic, I can't really comment, never having played in them. Whatever the case may be with your games, most games I have played in stand up well to most media I have consumed.

Bring me a testament from a third party audience to that effect and I'll believe you.

QuoteOn the other hand, if an immersive experience is the aim, why are we bothering with TRPGs at all; clearly high production value, weekend length horror LARPs are the way forwards.

Myriads of answers of depending on the person.
 

QuoteWhat do you mean by fun? Do you mean Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery, Expression, or perhaps Submission. I'd suggest a good starting point would be eight kinds of Fun by Marc LeBlanc, though the MIT open course-ware for their games design course is also a good starting point...

I think at the point you need to turn to a book (or any outside source) to define fun, you've failed at life.
 

QuoteGames are not the only activity that can be engaged in purely for "fun"

Nobody said they were.

 

QuoteBy the same token, people do not always sit down for a game, primerially or exclusively for the purpose of your illusive "fun".

lol, the fact you find it "illusive" is actually speaking volumes.

QuoteI personally have week in, week out, played in games which give me little fun, in and off themselves, because those games act an important social lubricant which aid in gathering social fun from spending time with friends.

That's unfortunate for you, but has very little bearing on anything I've said.

QuoteAre you seriously suggesting they cannot equally sit down and play the same piece, on their own, purely for fun? Or that a three year old who sings itsy bitsy spider cannot be doing it primerally for fun.

Nope, I didn't suggest that. But check out the important distinction of these examples of people doing things for fun vs my example of people creating art: what's missing? What's the relevant ingredient that's separating all of these things? When you get that, then you'll come closer to undertsanding what art really is.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear your personal definition of art you're working from, and also what led you to that definition.

QuoteThe truth is that all forms of play can be about fun. All forms of play can also be about other things too.

Yep, but all forms of play are not art. Like RPGs.

I think the message loses a lot in translation and doesn't benefit (except in cathartic release and agreement from people exactly on your page) from the amusing Swine label.

I also don't agree and don't think it's needed to belittle the worth of gaming even if it is thought of as "just for fun". I think gaming is an art form, and that saying its not just because most people participate just for the fun and/or something to do with friends, isn't logical or needed.

That is, I think gaming is an art form which can quite completely be done all for fun. So can music, painting, dancing, poetry, literature, sculpture, etc.

What I'd say about a certain 90's RPG fad as I experienced it (and we probably had different views on it and may not be talking of the same games), is that I didn't much like the games that tried to redefine or claim superiority to 1970s-1980s RPGs by making games that were more like collaborative storytelling. They made me cringe and loathe the prospect of playing them myself. I thought it was interesting that they had managed any degree of success, but I saw that some players could enjoy that style of playing. Certainly I knew GM's who did so much fiat and/or had such a weird way of using the rules that I could imagine they would probably do better with such systems.

As for the fad and hype about how that style of game was superior or more artsy or valuable or more cool or less geeky or better or an "evolution" or whatever, well yeah that's ... ok sort of making me want to call them names, too. I'll settle with calling them wrong about that. (I speculate it had to do with wanting to combat the 90's social stigma in the USA against RPGs, by trying to make something that seemed different, more adult, possibly more girl-friendly, and less geeky.)

I think there's a trap even in terms of other art forms, of trying to compare genres and calling some better than others, because most of it is subjective and the value of art is not easily measured or defined except for arbitrary rather than absolute purposes. It's fine to prefer comedy to tragedy or vice versa, but neither is more artistic, more evolved, nor more worthwhile.

There are many new game styles that will keep being developed, but the previous ones will always have whatever value and potential for fun interesting play that they ever had, just as each player will continue to have their own mix of tastes and interests.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840554If this board considers asking questions to understanding another persons position to be intellectual bullshit, no wonder this board is hostile to ideas that conflict with the echo chamber ;)

Obviously I was referring to you. Not the board as a whole.

The rest of your post makes it clear that rather than being interested in learning what others think, you have a point of view you wish to promote and you do so using the usual equivocation on the word narrative that is common to people trying to promote an 'RPGs are stories' point of view.

I am no more interested in 'RPGs are stories' than I am in 'RPGs are art.' Neither notion adds to my gaming experience or my abilities as a GM or player. Thus both are the sort of irrelevant navel gazing with which I don't care to pass the time. I will now go do some actual RPG related activities. If you have nothing better to do, then by all means carry on nattering about stories and art.

Quote from: jhkim;840481It seems like people are talking past each other.

To take a parallel - In the 1960s, few people considered comic books to be "art".  Nowadays, comic books are pretty well accepted as art.  The cool thing about this isn't having arty, depressing comics like Maus.  Rather, there were people like Scott McCloud who looked at the classic comic books like Plastic Man, The Spirit, and others - and appreciated the creativity and style that went into them.  

Saying that "comic books are art" doesn't mean an attack on fun superhero comics.  

It is a slightly different situation, however, because comics were a visual medium; they were drawings, and thus at the very root not different from the drawings a Renaissance Master could do, so the foundation for comics POTENTIALLY being 'art' is clear.
That said, Plastic Man and The Spirit didn't set out to be "Art", they set out to be visual stories for entertaining ordinary people.  And while since that time there have been a few comic books that were conscious of 'art' that you could certainly say are good art at least, a lot of the comics that set out from the beginning trying to be 'great art' end up being terrible, terrible comics.

Quote from: jhkim;840494Story gamers are not some monolithic group who are all organized to destroy traditional gaming.  When Ron made his stupid comments about brain damage, for example, there were a few apologists - but mostly people rejected him.

That's revisionist history, right there.  It seemed clear to me from the comments on the Forge and in gaming blogs and other forums of the time, that people who self-identified as Forge-Gamers rallied around Edwards; that in fact there were only a very few people who 'rejected' his idiotic statement.  There were quite a lot more who, INITIALLY, tried to "explain away" the statement, claiming that he didn't literally mean it, and some even asking him to clarify; and then, when Edwards DOUBLED DOWN that yes, he did mean LITERAL BRAIN DAMAGE, the ones who were trying to find a way out mostly folded and started defending the idea.

I remember pages and pages of posts from forge-gamers that were literally THANKING HIM for showing them the way, shit like "wow, I didn't realize it until now but you're totally right that I've been damaged by RPGs!", and praising his insight and courage for talking tough about how awful Regular RPGs are.

Quote from: NathanIW;840501If you set aside the extremist rhetoric though, time has born the Pundit right about the industry, the hobby and how many things identified as weaknesses in traditional play are actually strengths (for example, the very ambiguity Eero talks about and the incoherence Ron talks about are actually what make a lot of traditional games accessible to a wider audience).

Exactly.  History has vindicated me.  And it has totally and utterly disproven and damned GNS theory and almost everything Edwards and his Forge Swine crew argued about RPGs.

Quote from: jhkim;840494Story gamers are not some monolithic group who are all organized to destroy traditional gaming.  When Ron made his stupid comments about brain damage, for example, there were a few apologists - but mostly people rejected him.  Likewise, I and others have argued with Eero and his condescending bullshit on Story Games plenty of times.

Like Pundit, I don't recall this. Obviously the story-gamers were not an entirely homogenised group, but they pretty much universally backed Uncle Ronny.

I was refused membership of the story-games forum, if you're talking about the one I'm thinking of, exactly at the time of the Brain Damage nonsense. I don't think they knocked me back because they expected too much slavish agreement with them.

Humans have a wonderful capacity to edit their memory like a Word .doc file. "What? No! I never thought that!" It saves our self-esteem when we look back at the failures and mistakes of our lives. Unfortunately, others will remember our silliness even if we choose to forget it.

Quote from: jhkim;840529Not according to the OP of this thread.  He defines "swine" according to people turning to RPGs for self-worth, regardless of how they regard themselves compared to the average gamer.

I guess I made the mistake of taking the more reasonable position of it only being a problem when it involves shitting on other people.  The Pundit might be against it even when people are off doing what they enjoy and aren't bothering anyone.  That strikes me as a bit insane.  But he sees himself as someone who becomes a radical to fight radicals, so umm... Yeah...

One thing a bit of polarization has helped with though is the formation of a rallying point for people tired of having their preference for normal RPG play and products shit on as being shallow, childish, or even racist or sexist.  And a place where you can call the site owner insane in his own subforum without immediate moderator action.

If calling people who would lean in that direction swine helps alienate them and keep them from wanting to come here and shit on people like they do at other sites, I see that as an advantage.

Quote from: Bren;840592I will now go do some actual RPG related activities.

And I did (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=840632&postcount=1).

As one of the people excusing away the brain damage statement at the time (mmmmm, Kool-Aid) here I what I thought he meant:
-Really old games didn't really try to foster stories and thus pretty much sucked at it since it wasn't really a goal.
-Then games like Vampire came along that made generating a narrative a priority but they sucked at it too because despite a lot of verbiage the rules didn't really do much of anything to generate stories than really old games did. It was all smoke and mirrors.
-Because the rules by themselves didn't do a very good job of producing stories  GMs had to step into the gap and lead players by the nose into the story that the GM wanted to tell to them leading to lots of railroading and the rest of failed novelist as GM style crap.
-That kind of crappy GMing engendered crappy behavior among players. Most notably being passive and waiting for the story to come to them instead of going out and doing stuff and the idea that the narrative of a game was something cooked up ahead of time that you then followed along.
-In some players those bad habits (especially passivity and not engaging with stuff and rather just looking for bread crumbs to follow) rise to the level that they could be hyperbolically called "brain damage."
-Therefore we have to make game that can be used to engage GOOD narratives that flow naturally from the rules and encourage those narratives to be generated by players engaging in stuff how they want rather than being yanked around by the GM.

Or tl:dr "railroading and crappy metaplot bullshit bad, makes players stupid."

Maybe that's not what he meant but that was how I spun it.

Don't agree with a lot of that line of thought these days.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840613Exactly.  History has vindicated me.  And it has totally and utterly disproven and damned GNS theory and almost everything Edwards and his Forge Swine crew argued about RPGs.

GNS is thankfully mostly dead - but the main output of The Forge was the games, and the descendants of those games are still going strong.  

The community around more exotic games like Microscope or Universalis is still small, but it's bigger than it ever was.  Indie Games on Demand is a hit at Gen Con, and other story game gatherings slowly grow. Forge-inspired games clearly have had a major influence on FATE and other now-mainstream systems.  It seems to me that Apocalypse World and FATE are among the leading systems of new games today. Meanwhile, True20 seems mostly in the scrap heap - while the Blue Rose setting (with a different system) has made over $40k on Kickstarter.

It seems to me that rather than it being your victory, story gamers have largely dropped the pretense of this war between styles - and moved on to just having fun playing their games.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;840611It is a slightly different situation, however, because comics were a visual medium; they were drawings, and thus at the very root not different from the drawings a Renaissance Master could do, so the foundation for comics POTENTIALLY being 'art' is clear.

That said, Plastic Man and The Spirit didn't set out to be "Art", they set out to be visual stories for entertaining ordinary people.  And while since that time there have been a few comic books that were conscious of 'art' that you could certainly say are good art at least, a lot of the comics that set out from the beginning trying to be 'great art' end up being terrible, terrible comics.

I'm in total agreement about the last part.  Deliberately setting out to make great art has nothing to do with whether the art is actually great.  That's why I'm mystified at how many people here seem to define art by such intent.

Setting out to make great art is just pretentiousness.  Actually making great art has more to do with creativity - and there is a ton of creativity in RPGs.

The long and the short of Ron Edwards and Forge Theory for me is Ron Edwards didnt have a lot of fun playing RPGs, assumed everyone else's experiences were the same as his, and hence set out to solve a problem that largely didn't exist.

Quote from: jhkim;840650I'm in total agreement about the last part.  Deliberately setting out to make great art has nothing to do with whether the art is actually great.  That's why I'm mystified at how many people here seem to define art by such intent.

Thats certainly not the intent I've referred to.

QuoteSetting out to make great art is just pretentiousness.

No, I don't think aspiration is the same thing as pretentiousness.

QuoteActually making great art has more to do with creativity - and there is a ton of creativity in RPGs.

Yes, but the end result of making art (whether the intention is to be "great" or not) is, well...art. The end result of playing a game with some friends is...memories of a game with some friends. Its not an experience that can be shared with an audience. Even if you were for some reason to have observers of an RPG, they wouldn't actually be observing what's going on except in the most banal manner. The experience of being immersed in a shared imaginary world is not one that extends outside of the participants.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840612That's revisionist history, right there.  It seemed clear to me from the comments on the Forge and in gaming blogs and other forums of the time, that people who self-identified as Forge-Gamers rallied around Edwards; that in fact there were only a very few people who 'rejected' his idiotic statement.  There were quite a lot more who, INITIALLY, tried to "explain away" the statement, claiming that he didn't literally mean it, and some even asking him to clarify; and then, when Edwards DOUBLED DOWN that yes, he did mean LITERAL BRAIN DAMAGE, the ones who were trying to find a way out mostly folded and started defending the idea.

I remember pages and pages of posts from forge-gamers that were literally THANKING HIM for showing them the way, shit like "wow, I didn't realize it until now but you're totally right that I've been damaged by RPGs!", and praising his insight and courage for talking tough about how awful Regular RPGs are.

I guess I didn't read many of those pages when I was on the Forge, then.
On the other hand, I guess the original "braindamage essay" had settled a bit when I joined them.
I do remember there were people on the site disagreeing with him, though.
On the other hand, it might not have been many that voiced it clearly.

The situation you describe sounds to me almost like a gospel choir, while I am actually more reminded of a bunch of bible-studies I once took that used to be semi-mandatory when I grew up.
I knew several were there much because their parents had suggested or told them, and the high point was being on a camp.
Anyway, the last evening on the camp, the students were offered to come forward to confess their belief in the trinity, and a lot did (I didn't).
Afterwards, as in the day after, I heard from several that had "confessed" claiming they were only joking.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;840621Humans have a wonderful capacity to edit their memory like a Word .doc file. "What? No! I never thought that!" It saves our self-esteem when we look back at the failures and mistakes of our lives. Unfortunately, others will remember our silliness even if we choose to forget it.

And sometimes it is just a matter of point of view.
A nagging suspicion that "this isn't right" is sometimes enough to claim that "I never truly believed it".

Then there is also effects like expectations, "everyone else is doing it" and mass psychosis to take into effect.

I find it quite interesting I ended up here after The Forge, it was a bit like a needed cold shower to wake up.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840585A narrative only exists in the past sense. The sensory inputs of my day to day life are not "the narrative". The writings in my journal after the fact are.

A substantial part of the input that your taking in, and making decisions about, is the narrative through. A spoken or written account of connected events; a story. The social interaction, and scene setting put forwards by the DM are a narrative. It is the narrative you are immersing yourself into.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840585Bring me a testament from a third party audience to that effect and I'll believe you.

Funnily enough, there are entire actual play podcasts that people choose to financially support or  consume, see for instance RPPR Actual Play. People are doing it, and selecting it over other forms of media or entertainment.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840585I think at the point you need to turn to a book (or any outside source) to define fun, you've failed at life.

So do you have fun when you go out and watch a film? Do you have fun when you play say the The Legend of Zelda(insert a computer game or solitaire card or board game you do like here)?

Is fun the same thing in both cases? I know that personally, the thing I experience and call fun when I am out with friends drinking, dancing like a loon, and singing Karaoke, is fundimentally different from the thing I experience and call fun when playing zelda. Both are great fun, both experiences have basically nothing in common beyond the fact that I am experiencing them and that I use the term fun to describe that experience.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840585lol, the fact you find it "illusive" is actually speaking volumes.

What is Illusive, is what exactly you mean by fun.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840667A substantial part of the input that your taking in, and making decisions about, is the narrative through. A spoken or written account of connected events; a story. The social interaction, and scene setting put forwards by the DM are a narrative. It is the narrative you are immersing yourself into.

You seem incapable or unwilling to distinguish between a past-tense third-person account (a story or narrative) and the first-person involvement in a series of events. Its either that you're only familiar with the sort of gaming that involves being herded through a pre-set "story" by the GM or you are misusing the term narrative.

QuoteFunnily enough, there are entire actual play podcasts that people choose to financially support or  consume, see for instance RPPR Actual Play. People are doing it, and selecting it over other forms of media or entertainment.

People also voraciously read fanfic, romance novels are the best selling genre of book bar none, and reality TV is still wildly successful.

QuoteSo do you have fun when you go out and watch a film? Do you have fun when you play say the The Legend of Zelda(insert a computer game or solitaire card or board game you do like here)? Is fun the same thing in both cases? I know that personally, the thing I experience and call fun when I am out with friends drinking, dancing like a loon, and singing Karaoke, is fundimentally different from the thing I experience and call fun when playing zelda. Both are great fun, both experiences have basically nothing in common beyond the fact that I am experiencing them and that I use the term fun to describe that experience.

Fun is an overarching term for enjoyment. Dissecting the different areas of my brain that are stimulated in different ways by the various forms of entertainment I consume seems quite unfun to me. But another person might find that fun. Or just be obsessive-compulsive. Or looking for some sort of external justification or seeking validation to make up for some lack they feel in their lives. (shrug) Right now, this just seems like a ridiculous tangent.

Quote from: The Dictionaryfun (fən)
noun
1.
enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure.
"the children were having fun in the play area"
synonyms:   enjoyment, entertainment, amusement, pleasure

QuoteWhat is Illusive, is what exactly you mean by fun.

Could you English that sentence up a bit?

The primary external sensory imput of a game in play is listening to the first or third person narration of other players actions, with some second person narration from the DM. Your primary way on interacting with the game is the first or third person

Also those narratives come in future("Titus will throw Alexia the rope and pull her to safety."), present (I throw Alexia the rope and start pulling her to safety), and/or more past tense ("so while you were gone to the toilet, Titus throw Alexia the rope and pulled her to safety).

I can see why you don't enjoy your games.

Not sure where you get the idea I don't enjoy the games I play in.

While i dont much like one game I play in, I still enjoy the larger event. As for the rest of my gaming, i have lots of fun, and that fun varies by game.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840676Not sure where you get the idea I don't enjoy the games I play in.

From here...

Quote from: Eris_ShruggedI personally have week in, week out, played in games which give me little fun, in and off themselves

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840671The primary external sensory imput of a game in play is listening to the first or third person narration of other players actions, with some second person narration from the DM. Your primary way on interacting with the game is the first or third person

I think when TristramEvans said "distinguish between a past-tense third-person account (a story or narrative) and the first-person involvement in a series of events" he was not talking about anything of the sort that you're talking about.

If you want to increase your fun at the table, try remaining focused on the latter.  On actually being there at the table as a participant in the series of events that occur during play.  Let your natural human ability to construct a narrative out of the events you experience take care of the rest.

(Damn it, I know better than to wade into this morass of "Any time you say something in an RPG, it's a story!  Always!  By definition!" bullshit, yet here I am, doing it again...)

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840671The primary external sensory imput of a game in play is listening to the first or third person narration of other players actions, with some second person narration from the DM.

Description != narration.

When I play RPGs, the GM and players describe the situation and their actions, with the intention of experiencing them as if they were actual events taking place around them.  We do not narrate them or experience them as stories being told.  Playing the game is something we do (like a sports player), not something we tell each other about (like a sports announcer).

[

Quote from: TristramEvans;840655Yes, but the end result of making art (whether the intention is to be "great" or not) is, well...art. The end result of playing a game with some friends is...memories of a game with some friends. Its not an experience that can be shared with an audience. Even if you were for some reason to have observers of an RPG, they wouldn't actually be observing what's going on except in the most banal manner. The experience of being immersed in a shared imaginary world is not one that extends outside of the participants.

Nicely put.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840668You seem incapable or unwilling to distinguish between a past-tense third-person account (a story or narrative) and the first-person involvement in a series of events. Its either that you're only familiar with the sort of gaming that involves being herded through a pre-set "story" by the GM or you are misusing the term narrative.

As is usually the case in these sorts of "discussions" Eris_Shrugged is equivocating on the  word narrative, using a loose definition of narrative as 'a description of an action or event' to show that RPGs use narratives on the one hand and using the usual definition of narrative as 'a story' on the other hand to prove RPGs are stories, hence art.

Quote from: NathanIW;840680I think when TristramEvans said "distinguish between a past-tense third-person account (a story or narrative) and the first-person involvement in a series of events" he was not talking about anything of the sort that you're talking about.

Of course not. He was pointing out the difference between talking about actions attempted or results that occur in the game is not the same as recounting the events of the game after the session is over.

The former is a description of actions which takes the place served by moving a counter representing a regiment of cavalry to hex A101 in a board game and saying "I attack your artillery unit in hex B101" or the description of results which takes the place of looking on the third row of the combat matrix to see that the artillery unit has been "disrupted and forced back one hex."

The latter is a commonly called a narrative or story.

Quote from: TristramEvans;840655Yes, but the end result of making art (whether the intention is to be "great" or not) is, well...art. The end result of playing a game with some friends is...memories of a game with some friends. Its not an experience that can be shared with an audience. Even if you were for some reason to have observers of an RPG, they wouldn't actually be observing what's going on except in the most banal manner. The experience of being immersed in a shared imaginary world is not one that extends outside of the participants.

Sure - like a jam session with other musicians, or improv games with other actors, there is no expectation of sharing with an external audience.  As I mentioned, I don't particularly care about word definitions, but I want to at least make sure we understand each other.

Obviously, there are creative activities where a few persons create for a passive audience - and alternately there are participatory creative activities where everyone joins in and contributes / takes part.  

I think participatory creative activities are extremely important. Because of mass media, people today experience a lot of creativity only as passive audience.  Whereas kids past ages often experienced music mainly through participating in lessons at home, singing in church choir, and so forth - now many experience music mainly through headphones. Too often, playing pretend has been replaced by watching television.

It seems strange to me to define art as depending on a set of people being a passive, uninvolved audience.  For me, the important part is the creative expression, not the passive consumption.  

Quote from: Bren;840699As is usually the case in these sorts of "discussions" Eris_Shrugged is equivocating on the  word narrative, using a loose definition of narrative as 'a description of an action or event' to show that RPGs use narratives on the one hand and using the usual definition of narrative as 'a story' on the other hand to prove RPGs are stories, hence art.

I don't speak for Eris, and maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem to me that he is making this argument.

Certainly for me, RPGs being art has nothing to do with them being stories.  For example, if someone creates a life-size diorama that gives an immersive sensory experience - that can be art, just as a painting or sculpture is art.

Quote from: nDervish;840690Description != narration.

When I play RPGs, the GM and players describe the situation and their actions, with the intention of experiencing them as if they were actual events taking place around them.

Your confusing in part, the terms Narration and description.

If the DM says "the orc has blue hair" or "the room is filled light and the scent of lavender", then that is description. If the player says "Tobias swings his sword at the orc." Then that is narration.
Narrative is formed by various combinations of narration and description being stitched together at the table.

Tobias ducks the blow, and then swings his sword, is a complete narrative; a spoken or written account of connected events. It is narrative that we experience at the table. We may also experience descriptions, but is description at least in part to inform the narrative. Exposition also turns up occationally, but again, it is their atleast in part to serve narrative


This link to cliffnotes aught to help get you back up to speed.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/writing/what-s-the-difference-between-description-and-narration


 

Quote from: nDervish;840690We do not narrate them or experience them as stories being told.

Ofcause we do, you do not see the sword in your hand, you do not life it, swing it, and feel it connect.

You narrate the actions you intend to take, then use a rule system to either straight up decide if you do, or decide who gets to decide how the action turns out.

It is that narration that everyone at the table experiences and consumes as part of their fun, they do not witness you or your character picking up the sword and hitting their target.

Quote from: nDervish;840690Playing the game is something we do (like a sports player), not something we tell each other about (like a sports announcer).

Larpers do the things that are happening (and act out the consequences). TRPGs talk about things their characters do. Literally, that is the primary act of playing an RPG. i.e. I hit it with my axe.

Quote from: jhkim;840742I don't speak for Eris, and maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem to me that he is making this argument.

Certainly for me, RPGs being art has nothing to do with them being stories.  For example, if someone creates a life-size diorama that gives an immersive sensory experience - that can be art, just as a painting or sculpture is art.

I think you missed it. Also the argument is not that art < story so talking about other forms of art that aren't story is not a counter example to the argument I am suggesting Eris is making. Here's the argument.

RPGs are narratives. [narrative as description or order]
Narratives are stories. [narrative as story]
Therefore RPGs are stories or are about making stories.

Corollary1: The purpose or goal of RPGs is telling stories.

Corollary 2: Stories are art. [unstated assumption]
Therefore RPGs are art.

Quote from: Bren;840746I think you missed it. Also the argument is not that art < story so talking about other forms of art that aren't story is not a counter example to the argument I am suggesting Eris is making. Here's the argument.

RPGs are narratives. [narrative as description or order]
Narratives are stories. [narrative as story]
Therefore RPGs are stories or are about making stories.

Corollary1: The purpose or goal of RPGs is telling stories.

Corollary 2: Stories are art. [unstated assumption]
Therefore RPGs are art.

Mmm... Thanks for deciding what my argument is for me... Perhaps if you read back, you would see that the entire discussion of narrative comes from the question of if comparing improvised Theatre and roleplaying is false equivocation. Given that jhkim, stated that "I find that RPGs are much closer to improvisational theater games than they are to baseball." in responce, he seems to be closer on my trail that you are.

Perhaps you would find it more productive to engage in "intellectual bullshitting"(i'd of gone with wanking rather than bullshitting but whatever), and less on telling other people what my argument are, especially when they have a clear idea than you do.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840752Mmm... Thanks for deciding what my argument is for me... Perhaps if you read back, you would see that the entire discussion of narrative comes from the question of if comparing improvised Theatre and roleplaying is false equivocation. Given that jhkim, stated that "I find that RPGs are much closer to improvisational theater games than they are to baseball." in responce, he seems to be closer on my trail that you are.

Eris, can you clarify what you are saying - maybe with a summarizing post?  I wasn't entirely clear.  In particular, I looked back where you said that RPGs are:

"a creative endevour where there is an intentional creation of narrative, where individual players perform the part of protaganists within that narrative"

Is that important for why you think RPGs are art?  

What do you think about RPGs where the players only act immersively in character versus one where the players sometimes use out-of-character narration - like spending a Fate Point in FATE to describe an accidental event, for example?  

For my part, I think the terms "narration" and "narrative" are used in different senses, so I tend to avoid them.  That is, "I attack him with my axe" might be narration in some sense - but people among both traditional and story games often use "narration" to mean only out-of-character narration.  i.e. If I tell a bunch of story gamers that I want to run a "narrative RPG" and they show up, and I break out an OSR game - then the story gamers are likely to be surprised and possibly disappointed.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840384"A spoken or written account of connected events; a story."

My experience of every roleplaying game I have played from my first exposure to basic, through to the weirdest indie fare has activities which meets that definition.

Every inter-connected human activity done over time can be a narrative. That the not the point. When a author sits down and starts writing his explicit goal is to produce a narrative.

In contrast in RPGs it is about a creating an experience that later could be described later in a narrative. Tabletop RPGs are about the experience of being a particular character in essence pen & paper virtual reality.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840384"In fact, it is the degree to which this occurs (and is a basic aspect of play), that separates RPGs from skirmish war games.

The difference between Skirmish wargames and Tabletop RPGs is one of focus. Tabletop RPGs focus on campaigns where players have individual characters where each session connects to the next. Skirmish Wargames in general focus at a higher level. Both can produce a coherent narrative.

Understand there is no clear black & white line between a wargame and a RPG, every element of tabletop roleplaying was in use prior to Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and D&D. However until Dave Arneson and Blackmoor they were never combined into the form we recognize as a Tabletop RPG.

Even afterward it wasn't 100% focused on the individual character. From what I read players had individual characters but the focus was in fighting out the fantasy miniature battles that resulted from their actions.

When the Blackmoor Dungeons, then Arneson's saw players who sole focus was advancing their characters by adventuring. In fact he must of gotten annoyed at the popularity of the dungeon over the battles as he "banished" Good PCs to Loch Glommen after they got caught with their pants down and lost Castle Blackmoor. The good guys were so busy with the castle dungeons the bad guy players were able to get the jump and smash up the town and castle of Blackmoor.

And yes many of the major bad guys of Blackmoor were player run.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743If the DM says "the orc has blue hair" or "the room is filled light and the scent of lavender", then that is description. If the player says "Tobias swings his sword at the orc." Then that is narration.
Narrative is formed by various combinations of narration and description being stitched together at the table.

That is description as well. Tabletop RPG are pen & paper virtual realities where the actions of the characters are described verbally (or typed as the case may be) by the referee and players. It is not a narration of an observer of the action.

In CRPGS/MMORPS you use the keyboard/mouse to acts are your character.

In Live Action RPGs you do it yourself as your character.

The goal of all the differenct types of RPGs is to create a setting to be experienced. Hopefully something interesting and fun. The reason there are different types of RPGs is that there are different methods of accomplishing this.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840752Mmm... Thanks for deciding what my argument is for me...

State a straightforward argument listing assumptions that lead to conclusions like I did and we won't have to guess what you are trying to argue for and why. Until you do, speculating about what you are trying to accomplish is natural. Even jhkim isn't sure what you are trying to argue and you see jhkim as someone who gets what you are saying. Try being straightforward. It's more likely to accomplish an exchange of viewpoints and less likely to annoy people by all your dancing around your actual point of view.

Estar, wise he is. Understands the meaning of narration he does. Listen to him, you should.

Quote from: Daztur;840649As one of the people excusing away the brain damage statement at the time (mmmmm, Kool-Aid) here I what I thought he meant:
-Really old games didn't really try to foster stories and thus pretty much sucked at it since it wasn't really a goal.
-Then games like Vampire came along that made generating a narrative a priority but they sucked at it too because despite a lot of verbiage the rules didn't really do much of anything to generate stories than really old games did. It was all smoke and mirrors.
-Because the rules by themselves didn't do a very good job of producing stories  GMs had to step into the gap and lead players by the nose into the story that the GM wanted to tell to them leading to lots of railroading and the rest of failed novelist as GM style crap.
-That kind of crappy GMing engendered crappy behavior among players. Most notably being passive and waiting for the story to come to them instead of going out and doing stuff and the idea that the narrative of a game was something cooked up ahead of time that you then followed along.
-In some players those bad habits (especially passivity and not engaging with stuff and rather just looking for bread crumbs to follow) rise to the level that they could be hyperbolically called "brain damage."
-Therefore we have to make game that can be used to engage GOOD narratives that flow naturally from the rules and encourage those narratives to be generated by players engaging in stuff how they want rather than being yanked around by the GM.

Or tl:dr "railroading and crappy metaplot bullshit bad, makes players stupid."

Maybe that's not what he meant but that was how I spun it.

It wasn't what he meant.  He was asked to clarify and he doubled down on it being LITERAL brain damage, in his opinion as a biologist, and comparable to the kind of brain damage that pre-adolescent child abuse victims suffer.

Those were HIS words.

Quote from: jhkim;840650GNS is thankfully mostly dead - but the main output of The Forge was the games, and the descendants of those games are still going strong.  

The community around more exotic games like Microscope or Universalis is still small, but it's bigger than it ever was.  Indie Games on Demand is a hit at Gen Con, and other story game gatherings slowly grow. Forge-inspired games clearly have had a major influence on FATE and other now-mainstream systems.  It seems to me that Apocalypse World and FATE are among the leading systems of new games today. Meanwhile, True20 seems mostly in the scrap heap - while the Blue Rose setting (with a different system) has made over $40k on Kickstarter.

Yeah, sure, there's still a lot of bullshit out there.

QuoteIt seems to me that rather than it being your victory, story gamers have largely dropped the pretense of this war between styles - and moved on to just having fun playing their games.  

Their giving up their quest to destroy regular RPGs IS a victory. The fact that a lot of them have sold out and are now trying to make money from presenting their games as close to regular RPGs as possible is a sure sign of defeat.

Likewise, the fact that 5e, based not on failed Forge theories like the previous edition but on solid Old-School concepts, has become a huge success, and that the intellectual vanguard of RPGs is not Fate or apocalypse world or any of that other shit that only storygamers give a fuck about, but rather the OSR, where the best creativity in RPGs has flourished in ages, is also a sign of victory.


RPGPundit

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743Your confusing in part, the terms Narration and description.

No, I am not confusing the terms.  I am disagreeing with you and attempting to explain, in terms that there is some small chance you might be able to grasp, that I do not experience RPGs as narrative storytelling.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743If the player says "Tobias swings his sword at the orc." Then that is narration.

I disagree.  The player is describing an action his character is taking, not narrating a story.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743It is narrative that we experience at the table.

It's nice for you that you experience participation in RPG as narrative, but I do not.  I have told stories.  I have played RPGs.  The two experiences are, for me, utterly different and completely unrelated to one another.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743Ofcause we do, you do not see the sword in your hand, you do not life it, swing it, and feel it connect.

You know what?  I've got this awesome superpower called imagination.  I use it when I play RPGs.  You're right, I don't feel the sword in my hand, but that doesn't stop me from imagining that I do.

And, before you assert that imagination = narration, let me assure you that I am imagining the experience of holding a sword, not imagining a story about holding a sword.

Quote from: jhkim;840742Sure - like a jam session with other musicians, or improv games with other actors, there is no expectation of sharing with an external audience.  As I mentioned, I don't particularly care about word definitions, but I want to at least make sure we understand each other.

Obviously, there are creative activities where a few persons create for a passive audience - and alternately there are participatory creative activities where everyone joins in and contributes / takes part.  

I think participatory creative activities are extremely important. Because of mass media, people today experience a lot of creativity only as passive audience.  Whereas kids past ages often experienced music mainly through participating in lessons at home, singing in church choir, and so forth - now many experience music mainly through headphones. Too often, playing pretend has been replaced by watching television.

It seems strange to me to define art as depending on a set of people being a passive, uninvolved audience.  For me, the important part is the creative expression, not the passive consumption.  

Fair enough. Over thepast day Ive thought about this and come to the following conclusions.

I have a very complex and long-winded personal definition of art. This came from my time at art school, where of course strictly defining "what is art?" made sense and I've carried those assumptions with me since. But in doing so I've rather dogmatically applied and defended that definition since (even if I've rarely taken the time to specifically lay it out online - maybe in a blog post some day it would just be too much work for a quickly-lost and forgotten forum post) without stopping to question why its important for me to maintain that definition.

When someone asks online "are RPGs art?" I inevitably chime in with a PoV based on that rather strict definition, and argue it in the same way as a religious belief. And in the last 24 hours , after a bit of introspection, I honestly cannot see the point of doing so; specifically, I can't see that I actually accomplish anything besides coming across as an elitist snob.

RPGs are a creative endeavour, certainly. If a person wants to define playing RPGs as art, then what difference should that possibly make to me?

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840743Ofcause we do, you do not see the sword in your hand, you do not life it, swing it, and feel it connect.

Of course I do. If you don't, you are apparently missing out on what it's like to actually be immersed in a game. The human imagination is a wondrous thing. It allows us to experience, directly, the impossible, and RPGs provide a framework to facilitate that. Otherwise, one is stuck with the passive entertainment of listening to a story or watching a film. If that were the case, I'd only ever play videogames.

That's exactly it--the best answer to the "art" question is, if you think it's art, what conclusions or prescriptions do you draw from that?

Quote from: Arminius;840945That's exactly it--the best answer to the "art" question is, if you think it's art, what conclusions or prescriptions do you draw from that?

Please let's all move past the 'is it art?' question to the 'so what?' question. The 'RPGs are art' claim always seems like a prelude to that, so let's get right to, 'So what?'

So what?

Quote from: Arminius;840945That's exactly it--the best answer to the "art" question is, if you think it's art, what conclusions or prescriptions do you draw from that?

Well, it's not like I first came up with an answer to "is it art" - and then drew conclusions from that.  Rather, I had other opinions on what role-playing is, and derived from that what I thought about it as art.  I don't much care about the word definition, but I care about valuation.

1) Being creative - and encouraging creativity in your friends - is generally more important than passively consuming the creativity of strangers.

2) Based on this, for me the real "swine" are those who derive self-worth from what they consume.  There are the sort of people who attend the ballet, read Proust and other literature, and listen to Beethoven to feel that they are bettering themselves - while sneering down on someone who instead plays in a garage band, or someone who breakdances with his buddies, or someone who runs RPGs - saying that they are just having empty fun and not bettering themselves.  

3) Among the many things to base one's self-worth on, one's creative endeavors are a pretty good option.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840198Just so you know, troll doesn't mean "anyone you don't agree with."

It does around here unfortunately.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840888Likewise, the fact that 5e, based not on failed Forge theories like the previous edition but on solid Old-School concepts, has become a huge success, and that the intellectual vanguard of RPGs is not Fate or apocalypse world or any of that other shit that only storygamers give a fuck about, but rather the OSR, where the best creativity in RPGs has flourished in ages, is also a sign of victory.

Drinking your own koolaid.

Who woulda thunk.

Quote from: Eris_Shrugged;840198Just so you know, troll doesn't mean "anyone you don't agree with."

Quote from: Sommerjon;840975It does around here unfortunately.

Says the other troll.

It strikes me that all the people I ever see desperate to prove that RPGs are "art" are the people who desperately want to think of themselves as "artists", or at least as being engaged in "serious business".

Quote from: RPGPundit;841055It strikes me that all the people I ever see desperate to prove that RPGs are "art" are the people who desperately want to think of themselves as "artists", or at least as being engaged in "serious business".

I probably fall in that category, but I'd put my perspective more like this:

It seems to me that in the USA, particularly during the period the annoying story/art RPGs fad (or at least, the annoying assertions that something like Vampire: The Masquerade was a superior more meaningful replacement for the original type of RPG), there was a strong stigma in US culture against its rather primitive mis-conception of what RPG's were (as seen in films such 80's films as E.T. or Mazes and Monsters (!!)). I'd say that although that has vastly improved since then, there is still a set of ideas/conversations that devalues and belittles all games as a waste of time, not worthwhile, "merely" fun, fantasy versus reality, escapism, something not to be serious about, etc.

To me, that's an unfortunate and misguided way of thinking.  I much prefer how most of my gamer friends relate to games with some respect, interest, and talent, creativity, craftsmanship, and yes in many cases, some form of seriousness. I also much prefer how Europeans in my experience have related to games: that is, with interest, acceptance, and no sign of social stigma. I was rather surprised when in the 90's I was talking with various urban young European women in completely non-game social contexts, and when the subject of games came up, they were recommending to me local game stores and even RPG night clubs (which were also listed in mainstream attraction guidebooks alongside concerts and all other events and venues), and were even keen to have conversations with me about games.

So yeah I'd like games to be taken seriously as a valid thing to be interested in in the US, too, and not have to encounter the social stigmas from attitudes rooted in Puritan work ethics culture or in "what's cool or not" 7th grade coming-of-age passive-aggressive shaming behavior. Because I think playing interesting games is actually more worthwhile than what many of those people tend to think is more socially acceptable, such as watching TV or going to a bar or party and wasting time with drunk posers while deafening music prevents people from noticing that nothing really interesting is being done or said.

And yeah I've chosen to design and create games as a major way to be creative in this life. I don't see any value in saying games are not art, or only for fun, or that it's wrong to be serious about them. Particularly because I tend to like and be interested in games that are pretty involved and serious in many aspects. I also find those games more fun for me. I also think that there is a lot of room for development of games, which can make them interesting and engaging in new and interesting ways. I _don't_ think that that invalidates the earlier games, or anyone finding fun in anything. And I personally find many attempts to try new game concepts and be more artsy actually seem like I'd really hate to play them, but I see that as my personal taste and preference. If there are people taking such games and saying it's more artful and better than traditional RPGs, I'd say they're wrong and being annoying, but I don't think that means games aren't an art form.

I don't see how games can not be an art form, if story-telling and acting and improvisation are. Clearly not everyone relates to it that way, particularly if you focus on playing the rules of a game as a player, or even as a GM creating a game world. So too do some people who participate in other activities relate to them as crafts or things to do. Some people also like to form strict definitions of what a "(fine) art" is, and insist that some forms aren't art for whatever reason. Ok fine if they find that a worthwhile way to think about it.

Really though I think most of the disagreement around the topic "are games art?" is about definitions and perspective validation. The "games aren't art" views here seem to be more about rejecting certain types of attitudes and assertions. There are also painters and dancers and photographers and sculptors and authors and musicians who don't care for people with annoying attitudes about how their forms should be related to as "serious art" and not done mainly for fun. I don't think anyone would disagree that there is skill and talent and creativity involved in making and playing games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840888Likewise, the fact that 5e, based not on failed Forge theories like the previous edition

  Is there any evidence for '4E was based on Forge theories' besides your paranoid megalomania? :)

He was a consultant for the game.  And then there was a series of articles talking about how things have been done in previous editions of D&D.  And how the first barrage of play testing was about a game system that worked for playing Keep on the Borderlands.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;841254Is there any evidence for '4E was based on Forge theories' besides your paranoid megalomania? :)

That it specifically aimed to be one-third of the game 3e was so as not to be 'incoherent', and then lost two-thirds of its fan base as a result, specifically as I predicted it would?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;841254Is there any evidence for '4E was based on Forge theories' besides your paranoid megalomania? :)

Well there is the fact that all of the initial D&D 4e adventures were presented as interlinked miniature wargame scenarios. As well as the conventions adventures in the first year or so. It was pretty predictable how an adventure was structure for a 4 hour block. Initial roleplaying, a combat taking up a hour and a half, a second combat taking up another hour and a half, and the concluding roleplaying.

It was obvious that D&D 4e was viewed as a miniature wargame first and formost. Now in its defense the three corebooks didn't come off of this way. Yes it used the grid and miniatures but it was very much a tabletop RPG. (although not D&D but a different game using the name). However the followup products Wizards opted to focus on the miniature wargame, fantasy superhero 24/7.

And from interviews given by Rick Baker and the design team it was obvious they were heavily influenced by GNS and opted to make D&D 4e a GAME for GAMISTS. (all caps intended).

Quote from: estar;841412It was obvious that D&D 4e was viewed as a miniature wargame first and formost. Now in its defense the three corebooks didn't come off of this way. Yes it used the grid and miniatures but it was very much a tabletop RPG. (although not D&D but a different game using the name). However the followup products Wizards opted to focus on the miniature wargame, fantasy superhero 24/7.

And from interviews given by Rick Baker and the design team it was obvious they were heavily influenced by GNS and opted to make D&D 4e a GAME for GAMISTS. (all caps intended).

People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Did Rick Baker actually say anything about GNS?

I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview (http://www.castaliahouse.com/a-conversation-with-ron-edwards/). Relevant quote:

Quote've also noticed that modern purported old-school ideology disdains D&D 4E which was a full callback to that tourney D&D, itself practically synonymous with the word "D&D" around 1980, and therefore 4E was more old-school than most of what's called old-school today.

If you put that in context with this (http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=208.0) post regarding the OSR , I think that it's reasonable to conclude Ron Edwards thought at one point  that 4e fits the Gamist definition. Relevant part of the quote is the reference to tourney play as in the quote above:

QuoteAs far as I can tell, both Gamism and Narrativism are alive and well in vibrant, often strange colors, but always within the strange presumption that Agenda magically emerges from "simulatory" mechanics. The Gamism may draw upon the legacy from tourney play, especially the idea of the DM as referee; the Narrativism seems to be greatly valued in some cases as long as no one ever says they want it or, gag and spit, plan it.

I was sort of jesting with the truism, but you are right.

Quote from: tenbones;840584It's ephemeral, when the players are committed and the GM is totally committed, something happens. Like a "peak moment" that keeps rolling along. That's how I know there's some art to it. If you've never had that experience, then I can't bother to explain it to you over text on the screen.

Quote from: jhkim;841428People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Did Rick Baker actually say anything about GNS?

How about this from his blog.

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/10/greetings-all-time-for-another-exciting.html

QuoteWe had a good discussion of which edition of D&D we wanted to run, and I settled on 3.5 with some small tweaks. (I like running 4e, but we've spent the last few years pushing minis around on the map and using encounter powers, and I wanted something that felt a little more sim-driven than gamist.)

or

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/01/5e-announcement-more-on-game-vs-sim.html

Quotewhile 4e made a conscious decision to NOT model the wizard-housecat battle, because part of the core philosophy of the system is that heroes should be matched up against appropriate monsters. That's a very gamist view (or, if you like, a sim of heroic fantasy movies/novels, not a complete fantasy world). The simulationist view is that if you go into a place where you might expect to find a cat and attack one, you're now fighting a cat.

Quote from: jhkim;841428People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Yes but the designers of those games weren't trying to do to conform to some grand RPG theory of everything.

Quote from: estar;841467Yes but the designers of those games weren't trying to do to conform to some grand RPG theory of everything.

  And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

Quote from: estar;841466http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/10/greetings-all-time-for-another-exciting.html

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/01/5e-announcement-more-on-game-vs-sim.html

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;841490And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

First of all, thanks, estar for the quotes.  It is suggestive, though not definitive. Has anyone asked him about it?  

I would note that his use of "simulationist" is in keeping with the older Threefold Model usage, not necessarily Ron Edwards' GNS.  Still, GNS was more widely touted at the time among game design circles, and it did push the idea of focused coherence - where the Threefold did not.  So it seems like a plausible theory that he was influenced by GNS.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;841490And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

Sigh, whatever, find some quotes that supports your position.

D&D 4e was designed to be a game first and a roleplaying game second. It wasn't quite so obvious at first but slightly later when the adventures, sourcebooks, and organized play stuff came out it became obvious what the Wizards team had in mind. Then through blogs, interviews, etc we find out the why. Namely one or more of the primary designers liked GNS and the RPG Theory in general and used those ideas by it to make D&D 4e a game focused on gamist play.

I think Estar makes a pretty compelling case guys. It also jibes with my memories of the discussions brewing when 4E launched.

My recollections of the discussions at the time of 4e was the complaint that they were trying to mimic World of Warcraft in a paper-and-pencil role-playing game. Of course that would end up being described as more gamist after the fact, but still no evidence that the decision was made to avoid "incoherence" according to somebody's theory. The success of collectible card games and the popularity of more-game-than-simulation board games would seem enough reason to go more game than simulation.

Occam's Razor says burden of proof still on estar.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841456I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview (http://www.castaliahouse.com/a-conversation-with-ron-edwards/). Relevant quote:

How amusing.  I guess this OSR-disdain was from before he decided he wanted to take credit for inventing the movement, huh?

Quote from: RPGPundit;841580How amusing.  I guess this OSR-disdain was from before he decided he wanted to take credit for inventing the movement, huh?

I like Ron and his stuff, so  take this with a grain of salt. That disdain seems to be rooted in what I can only describe as "hurt feelings" more than anything. At least that is how it looks to me from the outside.

I mean, most of the OR seems to have categorically rejected  his views directly,. The 4e edition is widely disdained in that space, yet he seems to think it's "more OSR than the OSR" Because it leans Gamist. That's another rejection.

Then there was the whole business with Slay w/ Me and the full page add he took addressing old school gamers. If I remember correctly, the reactions were mostly negative.That one in particular had to hurt, as I think he was truly earnest there.

It's like when you desperately want to join a club and bring in your ideas but the members dismiss them out of hand.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841596Then there was the whole business with Slay w/ Me and the full page add he took addressing old school gamers. If I remember correctly, the reactions were mostly negative.That one in particular had to hurt, as I think he was truly earnest there.

It's like when you desperately want to join a club and bring in your ideas but the members dismiss them out of hand.

It sucks when that happens.

People miss the point of the OSR is to play D&D or something similar. It is not about playing Sorcery & Sorcery, Dungeon crawling, or whatever people thought OD&D was about. Stuff like Stars without Number, White Star, Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, my Majestic Wilderlands, Starships & Spaceman, Mutant Future, etc succeed because they tie back to classic D&D in terms of mechanics although each of them have very different take on genre and theme.

With that being said there is a path where a non-D&D game can be successfully promoted to the OSR as exemplified by Dungeon Crawl Classic. The secret sauce is to publicize heavily and use the OSR social network to help DEVELOP the game. Because as much as the OSR is about D&D it also about doing it yourself projects and collaborative efforts. ("Hey I will edit your book if you draw me some maps").  

The game would have to have something of interest of course. Slay w/ Me qualified on that point. The author would have to be able to listen to criticism and feedback. What doesn't work  is to sit in isolation writing and then come down like Moses with your latest and greatest.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841596I mean, most of the OR seems to have categorically rejected  his views directly,. The 4e edition is widely disdained in that space, yet he seems to think it's "more OSR than the OSR" Because it leans Gamist. That's another rejection.

On my part it is because they are simplistic. Despite the thousands of words nothing predicted matches what gamers actually do nor it describes anything accurately. They just sound logical.

Ron's problem is similar to what a lot of people think about RPGs. That if we only had the right set of rules it would fix everything.

The reality what makes RPGs are not the rules. The rules are important but what makes Roleplaying games , roleplaying games is the fact they are about a bunch of players acting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a referee (in the case of tabletop a human referee) often interacting with a setting over a series of sessions linked into a campaign.

The campaign (even if it just one session) is what makes a RPG, a RPG.

If you want to develop a theory of RPGs than that where you need to start. The Campaign is what literally what came first i.e. Blackmoor and later Greyhawk. The rules are just the tools to help with all this. A campaign can endure over major changes in the rules.

OSR is only special in all this not because it tries to reach back to the earliest editions, but because from the starts it was a cacophony of multiple efforts, attitudes and approaches. From the very beginning of the movement, the norm was kitbashing whatever rules you liked for the campaign you were about to run. Yeah there were purists but they were dwarfed by the kitbashers like myself.

With this situation it is hard to sell a pure rules products. If you are not trying to sell a clone, then you can find success in selling a CAMPAIGN. Which is what my Majestic Wilderlands does, which Mutant Future does, Arrows of Indra, Dungeon Crawl Classic, and now Dark Albion.

In short you try to craft an experience that is exciting and interesting using the mechanics of classic D&D as your tools. Blackmoor and Greyhawk ignited tabletop roleplaying not because of their rules but because Arneson and Gygax created compelling, addictive, and above all fun experiences.

Forge Theory completely misses the boat on this by only focusing on the rules. Which is why Ron Edwards efforts to appealto the OSR crashed and burned.

Quote from: estar;841603Forge Theory completely misses the boat on this by only focusing on the rules. Which is why Ron Edwards efforts to appealto the OSR crashed and burned.

Yeah, most RPGers are not anywhere near as interested in mechanics as Forge theorists like to think. Learning and analysing game systems and mechanics for their mathematical design value is what boardgames are for.

Furthermore, Forge theory focuses on the rules to support a very narrow premise. Aging Victorian explorers uncovering vampires. Or mercenary bands competing at committing atrocities in a steampunk civil war. Most people want broader and more accessible settings and premises.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841456I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview (http://www.castaliahouse.com/a-conversation-with-ron-edwards/).

Well, that interview explains why Edwards had such a hate-on for D&D. Sounds like he played with a bunch of dickheads, and assumed that was the norm.

For my two cents,

1) I dislike Ron Edwards' GNS theory and I think it is mostly wrong-headed. Actually, I'm still arguing against it currently in another forum.

2) However, that is far from the whole of the story games movement, especially after the shutdown of The Forge. There are lots of people who enjoy playing story games and story-game-influenced systems - including the popular FATE-derived and Apocalypse-World-derived games as I mentioned.

3) I don't particularly care about D&D edition wars, and I don't think they are at all central to the story games movement.  Even if Rick Baker was influenced by GNS theory, I don't think that 4th ed being commercially unsuccessful somehow proves that story games are wrong.  People should be able to play whatever D&D edition they like.

Quote from: Haffrung;841632Yeah, most RPGers are not anywhere near as interested in mechanics as Forge theorists like to think. Learning and analysing game systems and mechanics for their mathematical design value is what boardgames are for.

It seems to me that the popularity of Pathfinder and other systems runs counter to this.  Personally, I'm mostly into rules-light games these days - but there are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  I don't personally play Pathfinder, but for those who enjoy it, more power to them.

Quote from: jhkim;841667I don't think that 4th ed being commercially unsuccessful somehow proves that story games are wrong.  

I'm not sure how you mean "wrong" in this context, but I certainly don't think they're crap. Some very interesting games have come out of that space such as Remember Tomorrow and Shock.

Quotethere are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  

Yeah, the whole preference for "crunch" comes to mind.

Quote from: jhkim;841667It seems to me that the popularity of Pathfinder and other systems runs counter to this.  Personally, I'm mostly into rules-light games these days - but there are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  I don't personally play Pathfinder, but for those who enjoy it, more power to them.

Sure, there are RPGers out there who enjoy mastering a complex system. But chasing after the new shiny and comparing and analysing a relentless intake of new systems is something I associated more with the boardgame hobby than RPGs. I'd guess most RPGers who have an appetite for the kind of novelty promoted by the storygamer design movement do more reading of RPG books than playing. My sense is there aren't all that many groups out there who enjoying learning multiple new systems a year.

Quote from: Haffrung;841696My sense is there aren't all that many groups out there who enjoying learning multiple new systems a year.

I don't use more than two systems in a year and the only new system I've introduced this century is Honor+Intrigue. My players want to play characters. They aren't particular interested in learning new rules since they don't need new rules to play new characters (or their old characters).

I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).  

But anyway, this seems a tad bombastic.  White Wolf games were and are a ton of fun.  They have a lot of character, were always houseruled to hell and back, and we had a ton of fun with them.  They're the epitome of story games (well, for the 90s, back when we liked to have mechanics to explain how our mechanics worked) but I don't ever remember them being boring, and only occasionally being a vehicle for GM self-inserts.  

What killed RPGs in the 90s was that the newer generation of video games were getting interesting enough to actually in some ways supplant roleplaying, and that the hobby was growing increasingly bogged down under the weight of its own self-importance.  White Wolf was nearing the end cycle of their metaplot bullshit, TSR was producing enough paper for their printing schedule to be an ecological crime, and what else was there?  GURPS?  Shadowrun?  Rifts?  

Fuck, that's a decade before rules-lite story games were a thing.  When old-school WOD is your least rules-complex mainstream system, there's a serious problem.  

As for pretentious bullshit, you're taking your own internet arguments too seriously.  Most people never ever get anywhere near even the biggest of these places.

Quote from: GreyICE;841738I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).

No. I'm certain a few people agree with you. Not me though. I think they both suck.*

QuoteFuck, that's a decade before rules-lite story games were a thing.

We did rules lite in the 90s. We just didn't publish our house rules.

QuoteAs for pretentious bullshit, you're taking your own internet arguments too seriously.

Says the man arguing on the internet. :D


* And by "suck" I mean a game I don't happen to enjoy.

Quote from: Bren;841741We did rules lite in the 90s. We just didn't publish our house rules.

Publishing house rules was a good 50% of TSR's business during the 90s.

I mean hell, Rifts is just a bunch of house rules for D&D that grew into a system.

Quote from: GreyICE;841738I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).  

Nah, I'm with you. While 3E was ostensibly closer to the tradition of D&D I enjoyed, it grew into something grotesque and unmanageable. It was too much of a hassle to run. 4E is a completely distinct game from TSR D&D, but far easier to play at the table than 3E.

3.x led me to take a 4 year break from RPGs out of frustration.  Something that hadn't happened with any game since since I started with B/X.  4E actually got me back in.  I ran it so often it was crazy.  Eventually I tired of it and houseruled it into oblivion and then eventually just started running B/X.  I see know I made a mistake in letting my 3.x frustration colour my experience with RPGs in general, but at the time it was all anyone I knew was willing to play.  For a while my Call of Cthulhu group all started advocating for the d20 version and the Keeper listened :(

Right now I wouldn't play PF/3.x unless someone paid me.  4E... also.  But I'd do it for slightly less.  Though I did run a short miniseries of PF for people the year before last.  It was tolerable but after six sessions I'm glad I didn't make a commitment to anything beyond that.  I gave PF a fair shake.

It was during this dark time of d20 saturation that I thought the Forgist had something of value.  Turns out that reasonably fun Story Games are better than RPG play with rules you hate.  Just like I'd have been better off spending my time with board games and miniature games rather than play an RPG I don't like.  Or being by myself reading a book.  Bad gaming really is worse than no gaming.

Quote from: GreyICE;841738I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).

4e is a fun game, even a great game given how it's design neatly makes complex tactical choices manageable. It got that from Magic the Gathering but it great how they implemented it for a RPG.

But it doesn't make that game D&D. Nor does make it interesting when all you present at first are adventures and supplement make fantasy superheroes 24/7. It could have supported other subgenres and flavors of fantasy. But that just never got traction.

Not D&D, and fantasy superheroes is the lion share of why 4e is despised. Which is sad because if it was its own thing it would have a solid niche of its own. Perhaps it does today in the form of 13th age.

now that you say that, it sounds as if the 4E engine would have made a superb mavel super hero skirmish game.

Quote from: estar;8421684e is a fun game, even a great game given how it's design neatly makes complex tactical choices manageable. It got that from Magic the Gathering but it great how they implemented it for a RPG.

But it doesn't make that game D&D. Nor does make it interesting when all you present at first are adventures and supplement make fantasy superheroes 24/7. It could have supported other subgenres and flavors of fantasy. But that just never got traction.

Not D&D, and fantasy superheroes is the lion share of why 4e is despised. Which is sad because if it was its own thing it would have a solid niche of its own. Perhaps it does today in the form of 13th age.

As a big fan of running 13th Age - and I am, it's really designed from the ground up for a sandbox exploration experience, my favorite genre - it doesn't quite scratch the itch of 4E.

4E just gave me so many tools.  The combat was fluid and just gave me a rigidity of form and structure that just worked.  Like, one of the biggest things I hate are modern systems where "you can do anything", but it's all the same.  Fate, Fate is a huge offender.  "Why, if I want to, I can sprint off the balcony, catch the curtains on the way down, and surprise them!"  "What does that do?"  "Creates an advantage, same as every fucking other thing in this system."  Look, love Dresden Files, great city creation rules, but stand and fight combats are just fucking bad.

In a way I don't disagree with the superheroes comment.  I mean it's totally wrong, but there is a certain comic book aesthetic I like.  Spiderman running around the rooftop dodging Pumpkin bombs and taunting Goblin is fun.  Really fucking fun!  And I loath it as an abstract.   As an abstract, what's the difference between that and running around a lake dodging turtle shells?  Fucked if I know (THANKS FATE).  In earlier D&D, how the fuck do you dodge anything?  Most of it has an attack area of "small planetoid".    

I'd agree that it should have had a different line.  They should have launched it as something else, killed a few more sacred cows, given it time to mature.  

But damn if I wouldn't run a game exactly like it in a heartbeat.  There are things I did in 4E that I could only have done in 4E.  I mean I agree part of it was that I would rather have swallowed a gun barrel than read the latest 3E monstrosity character that I had to negotiate with my players about, or try and figure out what the fuck "Challenge Rating" even meant before dropping a monster in combat (hint: nothing.  Was inserted by random number generator to 3E monster blurbs, removing the perfectly adequate AD&D system) .  But 4E was clean and pure in its weird way.

Quote from: GreyICE;841744Publishing house rules was a good 50% of TSR's business during the 90s.

I mean hell, Rifts is just a bunch of house rules for D&D that grew into a system.

As was Rolemaster.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;842337As was Rolemaster.

Rolemaster rocks, though.

Quote from: The Ent;842668Rolemaster rocks, though.

If I was younger and had the entire weekends to kill playing it, I still would play.

Anymore, not so much.  But yeah, it's a fun game.

Quote from: Catelf;740127Well, it is discrimination, but if one wants it to be historically correct, it would be wrong to not include that systematic discrimination.

Essentially, it is wrong to imply that pundit is the discriminating one, just as i don't think what'shisname is a racist for using a certain word several times in his movie "Django". ... Or a few times in Pulp Fiction, for that matter.

A depiction of discrimination isn't discrimination. It isn't an endorsement. Just like a depiction of violence isn't necessarily an endorsement of violence.

This confuses a lot of critics.