tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post4680963368211867805..comments2024-03-19T16:24:23.777-07:00Comments on Playing D&D With Porn Stars: Why There's No Tabletop RPG TheoryZak Sabbathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-18398886426190202202017-07-31T15:16:17.123-07:002017-07-31T15:16:17.123-07:00A psychotic person can't address his own psych...A psychotic person can't address his own psychosis; a Psychoanalyst can (without being psychotic.) Some areas of knowledge need distance, some areas don't (and maybe some areas are equally theorized about from within than from outside, and maybe some are equally impossible to grasp from within as from outside.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-25960677993075171122016-11-01T00:45:27.205-07:002016-11-01T00:45:27.205-07:00No need for an apology, Tor.
What you did was (mo...No need for an apology, Tor.<br /><br />What you did was (mostly) what a person should do:<br /><br />When you see something you disagree with, you ask for clarification, then respond to the answer with why you think your own ideas are right instead. Then evaluate everything and make sure you're right.<br /><br />There's no shame in proving yourself capable of understanding something you didn't before.<br /><br />Unless we assume a world where nothing ever needs to be said because all is clear to begin with, this is to be expected. this is what a healthy conversation about games looks likeZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-24560776410330905402016-10-31T23:45:59.249-07:002016-10-31T23:45:59.249-07:00Ah, fuck me. So I went back and started at the top...Ah, fuck me. So I went back and started at the top and re-read the entire damn article, word for word, and I'll be damned if not only do I agree with it pretty much word for word, but you managed to predict pretty much everything I would offer as a counter before I even wrote it, from smarm to playing the Vincent Baker card. <br /><br />Fuck. Will you accept an apology?<br /><br />There is one thing I will double down on, though: if 'all' the Forge did was develop the idea of narrativism (which is more than making RPGs like 3-act dramas) and lead to the creation of a number of games and a play style that supported this, that's still a lot.<br /><br />But yes, to everything else. And yes, when I wrote my previous posts I was unclear on most of what you were saying.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />TorAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-5566570163789247022016-10-31T22:40:53.454-07:002016-10-31T22:40:53.454-07:00tl;dr Flat earth theory makes some people happy. I...tl;dr Flat earth theory makes some people happy. It doesn't mean it's a good theory.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-23835374676231584502016-10-31T22:38:33.878-07:002016-10-31T22:38:33.878-07:00Ron Edwards was right when he took the pre-existin...Ron Edwards was right when he took the pre-existing threefold model and said "hey there's nowhere in here for people who want to use RPGs to make stories like 3 act dramas in other media"<br /><br />And Stalin was right when he said "sometimes quantity has a quality all its own".<br /><br />It doesn't mean Stalin "Did governing right" any more than the Forge "did theory right". Because you're ignoring ALLLLLL the other things that they did wrong attached to that which I wrote about in my OP which you seem to weirdly assure me you've read, yet somehow seem to have skipped.<br /><br />Neither the anecdote that you played some indie games nor that you received the one sentence Ron Edwards started with before talking gaming into a churning morass of increasingly inane implications of that sentence address anything I've said directly.<br />-<br />-<br />-<br />The idea that there are a lot of confused people who say "I found Forge theory (or astrology, or objectivism, or phrenology)" personally helpful is not in doubt.<br /><br />When you say that, I believe you. It doesn't mean it's good science.<br /><br /><br />And Vincent Will indeed personally point out how much he owes to the many people who form his customer base. He does it over and over and over.<br /><br />I still maintain (like many SG vets) AW is the most Trad design he's made.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-36778102712308586242016-10-31T22:26:04.783-07:002016-10-31T22:26:04.783-07:00Ah, shoot. I keep posting these things in the wron...Ah, shoot. I keep posting these things in the wrong place. If you want I can delete and repost as a reply to your post.<br /><br />TorAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-82858880446411585422016-10-31T22:24:26.201-07:002016-10-31T22:24:26.201-07:00Hey Zak,
Okay, fair enough. Here's what I got...Hey Zak,<br /><br />Okay, fair enough. Here's what I got, then.<br /><br />- you say the Forge did the theory wrong. I disagree. Concretely, the Forge put into words the thing that I and a lot of other folks had been searching for for a long time and had not been finding: namely, the idea that the creation of meaningful narrative during the course of actual play as the point of play was a valid and possible play style. In the 11 years of gaming I did prior to 2000, I never saw this idea pop up, not once, not like that. And I haven't seen it expressed as succinctly anywhere else since. <br /><br />- The Forge put this idea into words, and then created a roadmap for how to make it happen. For me and a lot of others, if the reason you wanted to play RPGs in 2000 was what I said above (create narrative through the course of play), then this was A Very Big Deal. Like, I can't express how big of a deal it was. It was like handing a man lost in a desert a drink of water.<br /><br />- You don't get to write off the Vincent Baker/Forge connection that easily. In the Apocalypse World "Immediate Game Influences" he's explicit about what games and what rules led to the creation of AW. Other than a nod to Ars Magica, it reads like a Forge honor roll an ends with "The entire game design follows from "Narrativism: Story Now" by Ron Edwards. And, I've played AW, and I've played a number of the games on his list, and I can confirm the connection personally.<br /><br />- There IS still a vibrant culture of people playing games built on Forge theory. I attended the packed Big Bad Con in Walnut Creek a few weeks ago and most of the games on the roster could trace their lineage straight back to Forge designs. I played 8 games over the weekend, and with the exception of a FATE variation, every one was just one or two steps removed from it's Forge forebears.<br /><br />- And finally, reassuring you about my intentions in my earlier emails was my way of coming forward with my hands up saying I wanted to engage civilly: I intended to be polite, you assured me it was not being received as such, I got the message, and am ready to move on.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Tor<br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-38814235859020838032016-10-31T19:51:27.376-07:002016-10-31T19:51:27.376-07:00"
I don't know what I said, but I didn..."<br />I don't know what I said, but I didn't deserve that response.<br />"<br />You are not responding to any words I posted but rather some perceived tone.<br /><br />Never do that, it wastes time.<br /><br />I didn't personally attack you, I didn't call you names, I didn't libel you, I didn't harass you, I just pointed out you made mistakes, which I am duty-bound to do if I want to claim to want to have a conversation: tell you when you misread the text.<br /><br />If you respond to imagined tone rather than actual statements made that you can quote, you will never be able to have a discussion with people who disagree with you and will wind up with untested ideas that probably make no sense.<br /><br />So no more of that, please.<br />-<br />-<br />-<br />Also reassuring me about intentions i irrelevant and wastes time. Regardless of your intentions I must always respond fully to your questions and clarify what I say.<br /><br />Whether its' a "conversation" or a <br />"fight" is irrelevant. I must always give the same responses and must address all your concerns or else I have no business saying what I think in public. <br /><br />If you want to be polite and be nice and caring and thoughtful, the most polite thing you can do is only talk about your concerns about the substance of the discussion, not worry about social niceties. I'm busy and so it is as _impolite_ to hide your real concerns (which I must address) inside them.<br /><br />The nicest, most polite, most respectful most ingratiating, most friendly thing to do is just say what your ideas and questions are without apologies or rhetoric. You will get an answer. <br /><br />As to substance:<br /><br />"<br />I don't think it's a leap to read in the word<br />"<br />It is a tremendous and terrible leap.<br /><br />I only said <br />the<br />things<br />I <br />typed<br /><br />...not anything you assumed. That's why I typed the words I did, not other, dumber, worse words.<br /><br />As to "fun to play" or "achieves the goals they set out to achieve" there's a number of complexities there/<br /><br />"Fun to play" includes all games, unless you mean "fun to play for everyone" in which case it includes no games.<br /><br />"Fun to play" requires the identification of an audience for whom it is probably not only "fun to play" but _more fun than them just hanging out with each other_ or at least more fun in an interestingl;y different way.<br /><br />"Achieves goals it sets out to achieve" is again fraught for many reasons, the first of which being it's often unrelated to "fun to play".<br /><br />It also is the axis by which a lot of bad-faith criticism is made, where the _advertising_ of the game is evaluated in terms of user experience rather than what the game actually offers and what the designer wants.<br />-<br />-<br />-<br />More to the point here, when discussing whether someone's _theory of games_ is accurate or good, the obviously most important data is the ability of the person with the theory to create games that match their intentions.<br /><br />We can assume in the case of the Forge indies these usually include being played willingly by people other than the designer and people in their game group and even by people other than volunteer playtesters.<br />Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-41973533810659087652016-10-31T19:29:01.771-07:002016-10-31T19:29:01.771-07:00(reposting this so it shows up as a reply in the r...(reposting this so it shows up as a reply in the right place)<br /><br />Hey Zak,<br /><br />Whoa. I don't know what I said, but I didn't deserve that response.<br /><br />Okay, let me try again. I did read your article. I read it twice. I read it because it was interesting and made me think. I also read your reply several times. My response was an honest, good faith attempt to understand what you were saying.<br /><br />I don't think it's a leap to read in the words, "That scene wildly disproportionately produces games that nobody plays (even the people who write them) which reproduce the same flaws over and over and don't ever lead to any greater development even on the part of hte designer" as a commentary on the badness of those games. <br /><br />And you're right: "successful" is a loose term. What I meant with "successful" was "fun to play," or, possibly, "achieves the goals it sets out to achieve."<br /><br />Ah, man, I thought this was a conversation and now it feels like fight.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />TorAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-45745914385791163982016-10-31T19:27:25.959-07:002016-10-31T19:27:25.959-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-18504581100450828442016-10-31T18:52:33.050-07:002016-10-31T18:52:33.050-07:00No Tor, you've completely misunderstood and sh...No Tor, you've completely misunderstood and should read both the article and my response to you more carefully.<br /><br />Please release yourself from any weird baggage you're carrying around and read the words I typed and only respond to statements I made that you can actually quote--not some assumed context.<br />-<br />-<br />-<br />"<br />what you're saying is that yes, Forge theory did lead to the development of Forge games and their descendants, but the point is essentially moot because nobody plays those games much anyway, largely because they're not any good.<br />"<br /><br />NO.<br /><br />I am not 3. I said something intelligent, not something stupid.<br /><br />What I am saying is that:<br />-It got in the way of some useful games being created.<br />-It lead to the creation of a large number of games whose "goodness" or "badness" I am not at all about evaluating but which objectively, have failed to find an audience _even within the cohort of people who would like those games_ . That is, whether or not they are "good"--they are not serving the purpose their creators wanted them to, and thus point to a defect in their theory.<br />-It has lead to a WHOLE SEPARATE group of games which are popular and _have_ found an audience but whose appeal appears to be ceilinged and to not have produced useful innovation that goes outside that cohort's concerns.<br />-<br />-<br />-<br />As for trad games being "successful"--I would never make that claim without defining "success".<br /><br />Are we talking popular? Popular as RPGs go? (totally different thing) Fun for me personally? Achieving the designers goals?<br /><br />D&D and other trad games are not necessarily "successful" on any of these scales without qualification.<br /><br />And if they _are_ it isn't because actual play adjustments are (in the abstract) better than theory.<br /><br />Theory can be great and helpful, its just the Forge did it wrong and failedZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-26720111042878911982016-10-31T18:39:30.347-07:002016-10-31T18:39:30.347-07:00Hey Zak,
Thanks for the reply.
So I'm pretty...Hey Zak,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />So I'm pretty sure that was crystal clear, but just in case: what you're saying is that yes, Forge theory did lead to the development of Forge games and their descendants, but the point is essentially moot because nobody plays those games much anyway, largely because they're not any good.<br /><br />Furthermore (and now I'm referencing your original blog post and not your answer to my question), trad games like D&D are successful because they are developed outside of a theoretical context in an atmosphere of actual play, where the designers make changes to the game in response to real life issues they experience during the course of actually playing the game itself.<br /><br />If that's your position, I think I can speak to it (politely!), but I want to be sure I understand first (and I'm leaving aside the Vincent Baker bits for now as I think they're peripheral, but I do want to get back to them).<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />TorAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-60484935927268070072016-10-31T14:39:28.899-07:002016-10-31T14:39:28.899-07:00tl;dr Yes and Roger Ailes contributed in a meaning...tl;dr Yes and Roger Ailes contributed in a meaningful way to the modern Republican party.<br /><br />Which doesn't make anything about Roger Ailes good.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-46892110003228544122016-10-31T14:36:24.748-07:002016-10-31T14:36:24.748-07:00First, Tor:
No need to a little dance around askin...First, Tor:<br />No need to a little dance around asking a question about what I said.<br />You have a question, I have to answer.<br />If I am going to make pronouncements about what's true and what's false, then I need to be able to answer questions about it. Anything less would be falling into exactly the same trap the Forge et al did: interpreting any response other than "Yes, I agree".<br />-<br />Now: the theorizing at the Forge undoubtedly helped make the games connects to it (and Story Games and the descendants of it on Google+ and in the indie scene) what they are.<br />-<br />However then you have to consider what they are, which is not much.<br />Some things to consider:<br />-That scene wildly disproportionately produces games that nobody plays (even the people who write them) which reproduce the same flaws over and over and don't ever lead to any greater development even on the part of hte designer. Forge theory doesn't just get to take credit that there were apparently thousands of people who wanted to play a very crunchy dragon soap opera novel simulator in Burning Wheel, it also has to take the blame for giving people a map with so many unmarked blind alleys.<br />-Even the more well-known Forge games tend to be simply popular games rewritten for gamers with the Forge crowd's delicate sensibilities, rather than things which are useful to anybody else (whereas like the innovations in Pendragon are something anybody could use for a variety of ends).<br />-AW (the most popular system), may have actually been _delayed_ by several years by Forge theory because it's basically a FATElike plus a degrees-of-success system that succeeded mostly by ignoring postForge orthodoxy and being very Tradlike except in how easy it is to do what you want.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-82886676341198505452016-10-31T13:32:56.569-07:002016-10-31T13:32:56.569-07:00Okay, I've been thinking about this all mornin...Okay, I've been thinking about this all morning and have a question. Zak, in your opinion, did the RPG theorizing that came out of the Forge contribute in a meaningful way to the development of the various games that were connected to that site? Honest question, not trolling.<br /><br />TorAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495382772340743016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-4673287340324985042016-06-06T09:24:08.034-07:002016-06-06T09:24:08.034-07:001. I didn't say that, I said Luke needs psychi...1. I didn't say that, I said Luke needs psychiatric care and his friends should be the ones who help make that happen. And I said possibly other people in his game group need psychiatric care as well.<br /><br />2. I can reach that conclusion easily, there is no other possible conclusion:<br /><br />a) Crane said all game-mastering leads to abuse.--an irrational conclusion. This is an irrational belief, like believing that the government is trying to mind control you using microwaves.<br /><br />and<br /><br />b) Luke said he sits idly by and watches women abused at his game table.<br /><br /><br />So either:<br /><br />-he is lying on the internet about one of these things--which would be an insane and harmful thing to do. Thus: psychiatric care is required.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />-he believes A ( the belief of a delusionally insane person) and permits B (the act of a callous and insane person).<br /><br />If there's some other option, please say what it is.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-35266796604962167092016-06-06T06:27:55.098-07:002016-06-06T06:27:55.098-07:00Luke Crane...
and every single one of his friends...Luke Crane...<br /><br />and every single one of his friends (who Luke doesn't and can't ever represent)...<br /><br />need psychiatric care?<br /><br />How did you ever reach that conclusion based on what Luke said in barely a paragraph? Radiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601642281807959837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-44852078356885016292016-06-04T02:29:42.566-07:002016-06-04T02:29:42.566-07:00OK -- I'm glad we agree about this point.OK -- I'm glad we agree about this point.anonimous, emperador en el exiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13204169087393199959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-13286743155583719642016-06-01T00:36:24.260-07:002016-06-01T00:36:24.260-07:00yes, as you say: not the kind i'm looking for....yes, as you say: not the kind i'm looking for.<br /><br />and the mechanics are probably interesting (esp for wargamers b/c of the scale)Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-37652301039310791642016-06-01T00:26:05.055-07:002016-06-01T00:26:05.055-07:00Game theory has been around as a science for decad...Game theory has been around as a science for decades. Role playing theory has as well, just not the kind you are looking for. These government and corporate manuals are designed to predict given a certain algorithm how the other side will react etc. The governments of many nations have been spending billions of dollars on these simulations and exercises for years. <br /><br />Many of them helped them can now be found in print for incredible sums of money but have interesting conflict resolution mechanics.<br />Andrew Frankehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04847344542341681154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-28424211480657550372016-05-28T03:34:17.204-07:002016-05-28T03:34:17.204-07:00That is why i wrote '(more properly, infinite)...That is why i wrote '(more properly, infinite)'Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-6573052810276875382016-05-28T02:44:16.205-07:002016-05-28T02:44:16.205-07:00Sorry for beating again this dead horse of a threa...Sorry for beating again this dead horse of a thread, but...<br /><br />a) "So long as there is at least one RPG with unlimited (or, more properly: infinite) options..." [Zak Sabbath April 19, 2016 at 1:54 AM]<br /><br />I recently realized that "infinite" can't be conflated with "unlimited". If I ask you "let's pick a pair number greater than 2", your valid choices are both INFINITE and LIMITED. V.gr. you can't answer 2, 5, "pyramid", "strawberry" or "green".<br /><br />In an RPG it happens the same: a D&D_Basic cleric can turn a zombie and a D&D_Basic thief can backstab it, but not the other way. Your PC's range of actions can be INFINITE (depending on the whim of the DM) but there's always a limit. <br /><br />If there's at least one RPG with unlimited options out there, please make me know which one. Cause I'd like to try a Tom Bombadil-like dwarf PC who can control undead and talk with animals, plus he can fly, turn invisible, and shoot laser beams from his eyes, plus he pisses beer and poops cakes, plus at level 2 he automatically gets a mecha, at level 3 he gets an starship and at level 5 he evolves into Cthulhu. <br />anonimous, emperador en el exiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13204169087393199959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-67332777411956712162016-05-21T02:43:05.491-07:002016-05-21T02:43:05.491-07:00oh goodoh goodZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-44245425562726147522016-05-21T02:39:25.376-07:002016-05-21T02:39:25.376-07:00"You should apologize."
Holy shit, I be..."You should apologize."<br /><br />Holy shit, I believed I was being subtle! I apologize, then.<br /><br />"Quit thinking about Popper."<br /><br />I was enjoying the discussion thus far, but I assumed you were advocating for some sort of Popperism. Since you are not, then my original objections are pointless and I have no option left but taking them back.<br />anonimous, emperador en el exiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13204169087393199959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-79025161244893267102016-05-07T12:12:55.583-07:002016-05-07T12:12:55.583-07:00" suspicing is not accusing."
Read back..." suspicing is not accusing."<br /><br />Read back through your replies. You specifically accuse me of bullshitting and you should not have. You should apologize.<br /><br />1)Popperism (and its critique) _imply_ 2 things I do not: that the scientists must be able to describe a _technical_ mechanism for carrying out an experiment and that this experiment, if it gets a specific result _one_ time (ie the "exception") time would disprove the hole.<br /><br />I simply say that a scientific theory must be able to _relate an example of a result that would prove it to not be true_ . A different and wider claim.<br /><br />2. If it "strikes you as arbitrary" you haven't really thought about it. Literal question: can you think of a single scientific theory where there's NO event or series of events which would prove that theory was wrong? You can't, because the test of the kind of science we're discussing is to make accurate predictions. Catastrophically repeating wrong predictions disproves theories.<br /><br />It's a simple axiom derived from the definition of science itself. I personally first ran into it in Stephen Jay Gould.<br /><br />Quit thinking about Popper and start thinking how crap a scientific theory is if it is so vague can't describe ANY result which falls outside that theory's predictions. Or, perhaps more specifically in GNS' case: can't describe the borders of which observations would fall inside GNS and which outside GNS.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.com