The Forge Archives

I just posted a thread relating to this in a different light over at RPGnet. See, I haven't witnessed any more negativity at The Forge over the last few years than I have at any other online community. The amount of ire that The Forge draws very much confuses and (to a lesser extent) rattles me. What concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

Quote from: jdrakehI just posted a thread relating to this in a different light over at RPGnet. See, I haven't witnessed any more negativity at The Forge over the last few years than I have at any other online community. The amount of ire that The Forge draws very much confuses and (to a lesser extent) rattles me. What concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

I think you'll find a lot of reasons throughout this thread and the other threads on this subject, which really amount to people unfairly misinterpreting elements of Forge culture.

However, this thread is dead. Ron or Clinton, could you split this off please?

Hiya,

All split.

I'm not really seeing a thread topic, jdrakeh. It's pretty clear that people are going to react to whatever in whatever way, depending on the people and the two whatevers. I'm not sure there's much else to be said about it.

But I could be wrong, so if you can identify a specific topic that we can discuss, which isn't limited to speculating about what's going on in others' heads, then go for it.

And folks? C'mon: no speculating about what's going on in others' heads, please.

Best,
Ron

Hi folks,

People like or dislike things for whatever reasons, sometimes good, sometimes not.  But ultimately the hostility has very little to do with the Forge itself, and more to do with folks vying for ego dominance by showing how much "better" they are than someone else by parading their opinion and throwing out personal attacks.

And this happens on both sides, whether for or against the Forge.  

You'll find that this happens also for D20, Savage Worlds, White Wolf, metaplot, or anything else that happens to be in vogue as the hot button opinion topic of the day.

Chris

Quote from: Ron Edwards
C'mon: no speculating about what's going on in others' heads, please.

Sorry, Ron, that's not at all what I intended - I was more interested in what other Forge members saw as possible flaws in themselves that might inspire the kind of vitriol that The Forge frequently draws from people outside the community. A self-inventory, so to speak, not a mind-reading session ;)

Also, I meant to add to the thread that already existed (as it specifically addressed the issue of anger directed at The Forge by outsiders and what Forge members thought of it and could do to remedy it). Really, despite no recent posts being made to that thread, I don't think that my reply needed to be split off.

Anyhow, that's about it right now. I've had some really good, fair, feedback over at RPGnet and have drawn several conclusions thus far:

A. The negative feedback that The Forge generates isn't as widespread as I previously thought. It's very apparent that only a select few individuals actively crusade against The Forge (they merely do so quite loudly and frequently, projecting the illusion of being a large group of people).

B. Several of the behaviors that the more rational detractors complain of are tendencies that I've seen on any given number of message boards, not behaviors confined only to Forge members.

C. Several of the behaviors that the more rational detractors complain of
Forge posters exhibiting are, in fact, behaviors that I've noticed myself exhibitng to one degree or another (lately, I've been making an effort to curb those behaviors).

And... uhm... for now that's about all that I have to offer :)

Quote from: jdrakehSeveral of the behaviors that the more rational detractors complain of Forge posters exhibiting are, in fact, behaviors that I've noticed myself exhibitng to one degree or another (lately, I've been making an effort to curb those behaviors).

Such as?  I would read the original thread a bit more closely, but at 17 pages, it was a bit much to take in one sitting.

Quote from: Mark Johnson
Such as?  I would read the original thread a bit more closely, but at 17 pages, it was a bit much to take in one sitting.

Oh, where to start...

Well, first and foremost, I can be very arrogant without realizing it sometimes. In the recent past, I've made a concerted effort to think about what I post before I post it, choosing the most appropriate response to a given situation (as opposed to the response that first comes to mind). This arrogance has a lot to do with my upbringing, but upbringing is no excuse for unnecessary snootiness. That's something that I can change, and so have set about changing it.

Second, I tend to intellectualize a lot without good reason. While I'd like to consider myself an intellectual, the fact is that I have relatively little schooling past High School (due to some bad decisions on my part). I've tried to step that down a bit, as I think that it that it might be a coping mechanism that I use to deal with a deep-seeded sense of inferiority when surrounded by those whose schooling obviously exceeds my own.

And, of course, there are several other flaws that have been touched upon by posters in the thread (I still don't subscribe to the assertion that The Forge - or any single member of it - has a "cult-like" attitude, though).

The point is that there are some reasons that The Forge draws a lot of fire (as nice as it would be to say that these reasons were simply delusions cooked up by our detractors, it wouldn't be honest). The good news is that these flaws seem to belong to individuals, rather than The Forge as a whole, which means that they can be addressed by the individual (and with a little bit of effort, toned down a bit).

Of course, I could be way off-base here. I've had a fairly emotional past several months, and the mental wear and tear could just be taking its toll. I openly concede that this could be the case, though it wouldn't explain other people noticing these same thing ;)

Hi folks,

Some major things to think about when posting anything(anywhere, not just rpg.net) are:

-Are you providing NEW(not previously posted in this thread) information to the discussion?
-Are you repeating yourself?
-Are you defending the Forge(or anything)?  If so, why?  Against whom?  What can they really do?

Where people usually get caught up is the folks who I call chameleon trolls.  They ask questions that are reasonable enough, or polite enough, but they never seem to acknowledge anything you've posted.  In fact, the pattern is that you stretch further and further to meet them halfway, and before you know it, you're way off balance and arguing about something that has nothing to do with the point of the thread.  

Eventually, frustration builds, because you keep thinking that the person is open or aware enough to actually have a discussion, when in fact, they have already made up their minds and no discussion is occuring.  After some point, someone, gets angry, and gets personal.  Then it goes to all hell.

Regarding these particular people, it is both true that they "don't get it" and are "being jerks"... but it has nothing to do with GNS, director stance, or whatever folks happen to be arguing about.  What it is that they don't get is the rules for reasonable conversation, that you have to acknowledge and respond to points, not simply moving the target or setting up strawmen arguments.

And of course, though those statements are true, each one posted adds up to a case of "evidence" that you(now collectively the Forge) believe that they(actually these couple of persons, but perceived as all of everyone who isn't the Forge) are stupid ignorant fools.  

So, the answer?  Confucious said, "If I show you one corner to a square and you can't find the other three, then I can't talk to you."   Say what you have to say, and do not argue.  Do not bother even acknowledging anyone who isn't giving reasonable discussion.  This isn't elitism, the goal isn't to win converts, but instead to provide clear information so that people can make educated decisions for themselves as to what they like, dislike, agree or disagree with.  

And if anyone says the message, "Look for yourself, decide for yourself, think for yourself" is elitist, then they're telling you something about themselves.

Chris

Quote from: jdrakehOf course, I could be way off-base here. I've had a fairly emotional past several months, and the mental wear and tear could just be taking its toll. I openly concede that this could be the case, though it wouldn't explain other people noticing these same thing ;)

James, I have never, ever seen anything that you posted that seemed either arrogant or faux intellectual.  I am really surprised that you would think that of yourself.

Alas, the biggest problem that these misconceptions about the Forge has is that it could be depriving designers of a great resource and tool.

Quote from: Mark Johnson
James, I have never, ever seen anything that you posted that seemed either arrogant or faux intellectual.  I am really surprised that you would think that of yourself.

First, thank you. That said, I don't think that I've had that problem so much here. I feel pretty at home when I visit The Forge, and haven't had anything but pleasant exchanges with other Forge posters. In short, it's a pretty low-stress environment for me, so I don't tend to snap into overly agressive posts here.

Now that said, not every place is as comfortable for me as The Forge is (take RPGnet for instance). It's in these less focused, more diverse arenas of public debate that I tend to slip into arrogance and intellectualism (particularly with certain individuals). But because I'm also a Forge member (and people at these other forums know as much), it ends up reflecting poorly on The Forge.

This is something that I regret, thus I've been trying to curb those tendencies (and hey, it can only make me a better person in general, anyhow).

QuoteAlas, the biggest problem that these misconceptions about the Forge has is that it could be depriving designers of a great resource and tool.

Well, and that bothers me to some extent, as well. I've just gone a few rounds over at RPGnet with somebody who refuses to look at The Window because he's heard that the author is a "dickhead". That is to say, whether or not the author actually is a dickhead doesn't matter to this individual, merely that this individual perceives the author as being such. And that's the bottom line.

Something that I learned while working for the Deaprtment of Defense in a physical security capacity is that, where the public is concerned, what is actually going on in a given situation does not matter - it's what the public perceives that ultimately shapes their opinion, thus it's the action that they perceive to be taking place which you have to take careful steps to control. ;)

Quote from: jdrakehAlso, I meant to add to the thread that already existed (as it specifically addressed the issue of anger directed at The Forge by outsiders and what Forge members thought of it and could do to remedy it). Really, despite no recent posts being made to that thread, I don't think that my reply needed to be split off.

Just wanted to point out that such splits are standard Forge procedure when the rule against posting to old threads is inadvertently broken. If a thread has "no recent posts" (has fallen off the first page) and you wish to resume discussion on that topic, start a new thread and include a link to the old one. For more details see the Forge Etiquette thread. The splitting had nothing to do with the old thread's or the new thread's subject matter.

Perhaps having and enforcing such rules contribute to some people's perception of the Forge being hostile or elitist. But I don't know why it should. The rules at the Forge are applied and enforced more consistently than any other site I know. It appears to me (though based on limited information; I could be completely wrong) that those most vocal in denouncing the Forge as elitist have historically been those most likely to be treated and regarded as "elite" in other venues. It makes sense that if one were used to receiving preferential treatment due to ability to disguise one's jabs with clever wording, the  credentials and/or vocabulary to persuade without valid arguments, or deference to one's real-world fan following, the Forge could come as a bit of a shock.

- Walt

Quote from: Walt Freitag
Just wanted to point out that such splits are standard Forge procedure when the rule against posting to old threads is inadvertently broken. If a thread has "no recent posts" (has fallen off the first page) and you wish to resume discussion on that topic, start a new thread and include a link to the old one. For more details see the Forge Etiquette thread. The splitting had nothing to do with the old thread's or the new thread's subject matter.

Sorry, as I don't often post on the forums anymore, that must have escaped my attention. Thanks for the heads up.

Quote from: Chris a.k.a. BankueiConfucious said, "If I show you one corner to a square and you can't find the other three, then I can't talk to you."

Forgive my ignorance, but did Confucious really say that, or is that one of those witticisms that people like to attribute to him because they sound like clever eastern philosophy? (I'm not saying that he didn't say it; I'm genuinely asking, because I've heard probably a hundred jokes that begin, "Confucious says" and a fair number of other proverbs which I'm sure he didn't say.)

The thread is supposed to be about taking stock of ourselves as individuals at the Forge, trying to determine whether we have faults that contribute to the perception of others that we are elitist or exclusionary. I'll name one.

I have been in conversations after which word reached me that the people with whom I was talking were completely lost, with no idea what I was saying at all. In fairness to me, I also get notes and comments from people who say they appreciate how clear I was able to express some idea, so I'm not always talking (or writing) over the heads of others. Yet since I sometimes talk over people's heads, I'm sure that when I am that much more focused on my words as I am when I write I must sometimes write over the heads of others as well.

That's not surprising, I suppose. After all, I do have a Juris Doctore, I have taught undergraduate theology, I often write about difficult subjects like time travel, and I've a stack of test scores which strongly suggest that I'm smarter than the average bear. One think I appreciate about the Forge is that there are people here who challenge me, and who not only understand what I say but expand upon it in meaningful ways.

At the same time, there are sometimes posts here that are boggling to me. Part of that is that it's usually the end of the day for me by the time I get here, so I'm not always sharp; but certainly part of it is that we have a number of college professors and others with advanced degrees in numerous fields--as someone once said over at Gaming Outpost, some of the sharpest knives in the drawer. The discussion here does not slow down; it does not step down, or draw back from difficulty, even when it moves through materials unfamiliar to many of us. It's a place where even the best and the brightest are learning something. That means it's not always on the level of the ordinary board game rules set. You have to work to keep up with a lot of what's said here, even if you've been involved in the discussions for years and have a strong academic or intellectual background. For those who come later, or who are not accustomed to conversation being work, it must be daunting at times. That means that all of us have to believe participation here is worth an effort.

If you don't believe that it's worth any effort to participate here, then of course you're going to perceive the rest of us as elitist--because we're really not going to rapidly embrace the ideas and suggestions of someone who wanders in off the web and starts presenting "new" ideas which we discussed years ago, but if we say, "Oh, yeah, we talked about that back in '98, and this is what we learned," at least some of them are going to be offended that we're not impressed with their deep insights into gaming.

So maybe it is elitist to expect people to do a bit of work if they want to participate; but maybe it's only elitist to those who don't want to do the work.

--M. J. Young

QuoteWhat concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

Well, first, we're human, and make mistakes. At least, I do, in spades. This means that not every interaction is going to go well. That's just not possible. I'm an ass sometimes - whatchagonnadoaboudit? Just about everybody makes a jackass out of themselves once in a while.

Now, does that mean that the signal to noise ratio is low here? Quite the contrary. But it does mean that we don't make friends with everyone who comes here. For whatever reason. Since the community standards are high, then the person who feels that they've been rejected by our community will retaliate with claims of elitism.

Worse, if a person has been hurt by similar groups before, any groups that have high standards, then they don't even have to be hurt by us to dislike us. We just have to seem like those other groups that hurt them. Which we no doubt do in some ways. Further, there will be some with agendas that don't match ours, and who don't want to play nice to make their points as well. And other reasons no doubt.

So there's going to be some folks who don't like us. Like you say, however, they're actually not that numerous. Consider that far more numerous are the people who say, "The Forge who?" And a couple of thousand folks who are registered who seem to think that there are good things going on here.

Soooo....is there actually a problem that needs to be addressed? I mean, here'e Mike again to play ostritch, I suppose, but I'd rather see everyone in this post out there actually playing nice and getting things done, than wondering why it is that people think we don't play nice. Since, for the most part, we play nice.

Mike

One very likely reason why this site is perceived as elitist is that it sets itself up to be elitist. A lot of the discussions here, especially when delving into theory, sound like the sort of twaddle that you hear college professors spouting. In case anybody missed it, that was intended to be offensive, because I'm trying to get your attention.

Discussions here tend to use a lot of jargon.  Jargon is useful for lending precision to discussions among people who are well versed in a field.  It also creates a gigantic wall that separates those on the inside from those on the outside.  Every time you use the forge specific jargon in your discussions you are sending a message to newcomers that you're in insider and they aren't.  It says that they really aren't ready to participate in the discussion.  

Taking that into account, it's hardly suprising that people look at this board as a hive of elitist snobs.  With some of our discussions we're letting them know that we most definitely are.  It isn't necessarily bad.  One of the common threads around this site is that it's a good idea to read for a while before asking questions that have already been answered, and to get an idea of how to go about asking the question.  But that is definitely setting this site apart from most of the rest of the net, which is pretty much the definition of elitist.

If you want to tone it down, stop using jargon.  Smash your thumb with a hammer every time the phrase "Director Stance" comes out of your keyboard. Pull out a lock of hair every time the word "Gamism" comes up. If you can't do that, accept that fact that this place is elitist, and do your best to usher the newcomer into our midst as gracefully as possible.

I have to say Clay...phooey.  I don't disagree that there are those who would agree with your statement...in fact, you are probably quite accurate in saying that they do.  But IMO thats a bunch of nonsense.

Jargon does not elitism make.  

If I make a concious effort to avoid ever saying "Director Stance"...what should I say?  Should I have to write 3 paragraphs of stuff to convey the same meaning that simply saying "Director Stance" would convey?

And if someone wanted to discuss the point with me would they have to keep saying "that thing you were talking about up above" because there wouldn't be a word to refer to it by?

Ridiculous, IMO.


Jargon only appears elitist to those individuals who are bound and determined to believe that roleplaying is just a form of pure entertainment for which there is no need and no advantage to analysing it.  The "its just a silly game we're playing.  Quit trying to intellectualize it" crowd.

How would people discuss literature without words like Theme, Plot, Protagonist, Antagonist, Foil, Stream of Conciousness, Sub Text, Dialog, Moral, etc etc?  Are these not all "jargon".  Sure they are.  They just happen to be jargon most of us were familiarized with in various Lit classes.  

Does not the world of painting have its jargon?  Do not folks converse about Opera and Chamber Music using loads of esoteric jargon...most of it in a wierd combination of French and Italian with some Latin thrown in for good measure?

If painting, and music, and literature all have their jargons used to discuss, dissect, critique, and appreciate them...why not RPGs?  Because RPG's are just a silly game and not art?  Hogwash says I.

Is our Jargon on the Forge as nice, neat, structured, and understood as the Jargon of painting, music, and literature?  Of course not.  Why?  Because we've been working on it for all of 3 years here and a few years more from other sources and the other arts have had centuries to develop standard terminology.

Given that, I personally find it ridiculous for people to complain about the uncertain and shifting nature of the jargon.  From a certain perspective its flattering that they assume that we few folks here should be able to invent a perfect lexicon to explore an understudied art form nearly instantaneously...we'd have to all be geniuses to pull that off.  But mostly its just flat out annoying.  It demonstrates how little thought most folks put into their roleplaying if they can think for a minute that creating a language to discuss it is a quick and easy task.

So no, using Jargon is not a mark of elitism.   Unless elitism is somehow misconstrued to include any effort to understand any subject at a level deeper than the superficial.

Quote from: ValamirUnless elitism is somehow misconstrued to include any effort to understand any subject at a level deeper than the superficial.

Actually, considering pop culture plus the shifting nature of language and the meanings of words, I'd say that description is right on the money.

So, there ya go.

-Chris

Actually, the cry of elitism in regards to the jargon comes from a misunderstanding that some discussion here is still about RPGs.

RPGs have their own jargon, too. Character sheet, d10, module, system, etc. Some people come here well versed in the jargon of this subculture/activity and expect to fit in immediate. But We don't discuss RPGs here. Not always. We discuss RPG theory, which is a related but not congruant subculture/activity. It is a different thing with a different set of jargon which must be learned. Some people just don't get it.

Quote from: Clay
If you want to tone it down, stop using jargon.

Just throwing in my 2 lunars on this one, I think that there is or should be a distinction made between using a piece of Jargon properly, and using it as a .50 word to try and impress people.  Possibly even to confuse people. Someone uses "Director Stance", "Gamism", and "Story Now" in the same sentence with no real concept of how to properly use the terms, and in such a meaningless jumble that it makes no sense.

Though I would think any reasonably intelligent non-Forger might recognize the illusion for what it is.

Incidently I think there are a fair number of people (myself included) who stick with ten cent words and phrases to explain themselves, are easily understood, and often make contributiuons to the discussions. So anyone who claims that the Forge "Jargon" makes us sound Elitist is just being intellectually lazy.

I like RPG.net very much, I wrote some articles there and occasionally go back but frankly, and this is just my opinion, the discussions have broken down into mean spirited attempts to count coup.  I would not care what people who do that sort of thing thought of myself or the Forge.  Very few of them are making money or worthwhile contributions to the Hobby. So let them be.


Sean

I think I found a raw spot for a few people.  Good, it worked.

Sean, "sticking to ten cent words" is exactly the approach that I would recommend for avoiding the elitist label, if its one you don't like.  You'll note though that I didn't say it was necessarily bad.  It does set this site apart from other gaming sites.  That's good, it needs to be a place that's different.  If it wasn't, RPG.net would be sufficient for everybody's needs.

Your statement about people being able to see through posters who throw a lot of excess jargon into their writing is dead on.  It's what I called twaddle.  Those of you who are college professors can probably recognize that look of confusion that your students get when you let slip a piece of jargon in the classroom that might be more appropriate to a scholarly journal.  "Virtual Table" was the word that did it for me; I had a class full of glazed faces, and I'll bet most of you here who don't write in C++ were a little lost too.  You certainly don't know revision control or build systems from Adam.

If you're having this discussion at all, it's a sign that you're a little insecure about the language we use.  I personally don't care about the jargon, I just tend to step around the conversation since the jargon usually indicates a subject I'm not interested in discussing.  But if I managed to hit a sore point, maybe you should ask yourself why you were bothered.  I can't answer it for you; the answer is very personal and all about you.

I understand you guys are jointly creating a GNS glossary.  That would actually help immensely.  As someone who posts primarily on rpg.net I can say that personally I find it immensely frustrating to have those advocating GNS using frequently wholly inconsistent definitions of the most basic terms.

That sounds aggressive, but is genuinely not meant that way.  The typical GNS thread on rpg.net in my experience goes as follows:

Someone raises a GNS related query
A GNS interested (advocate is too strong here) person replies
A anti-GNS person replies, often aggressively and in a trollish fashion
More pro and anti-GNS people join the thread.

And here's where it breaks down.  The pro-GNS people aren't remotely consistent in how they apply the terminology.  I recently asked on rpg.net if it was still true that GNS was considered only to be useful to a group if they were having problems in actual play, which I remember was a thought once voiced.  I got several conflicting answers each from self-described Forge posters who were into GNS.  I have no idea what the actual current view is, my strong impression was that there is in fact no agreement on something that basic.

Someone else queried the effect of Force on Narrativist play.  In the space of the same thread we got multiple different explanations from self-described Forge posters who apparently found GNS a useful communicative tool, but who profoundly disagreed with each other.  In some cases the most ardent seemed to be disagreeing with the actual text of Ron's essays.  Is Force relevant to or conflicting with narrativist play?  Again, I have no idea after that thread.

And that is a key problem you guys have.  You use these words, but when you collectively try to explain them to outsiders you contradict each other.  Hardly surprising given that almost anyone can describe themselves as a Forge poster and GNS advocate of course, regardless of how current they are with the debate.

A glossary would really help.  My honest impression from those recent rpg.net threads was, to put it bluntly, that as a forum you have no consistent definitions and simply don't know what it is that you're actually talking about.  I doubt that's fair or entirely true, but if simple queries like those can't be answered by experienced Forge posters then it's hardly surprising people dismiss you.

So, back to my notional thread.  We now have three or four conflicting definitions of every term under debate.  Quotes are dragged up by both sides, pro and anti, that seem to support every position taken and all seem to be equally valid.  The poster who isn't already interested not unreasonably looks at the resulting mess and writes of GNS as pseudo-intellectualist jargon for its own sake, devoid of meaning.

Again, this is not a slam.  I'm not saying (not even by inference) that it is jargon for its own sake.  But I'm actually interested and reading only the Forge names I recognised in the thread it was still evident to me that you were not consistent with each other.  A glossary would address that and help show that there is actually a real discussion ocurring, not simply jargon which shifts meaning whenever you need it to in order to rebut an opponent's post.

As for elitism, some of you IMO are, some aren't.  I don't think this is an elitist forum in the derogatory sense.  Posts like MJ's though (sorry MJ) I think could easily be viewed that way, a law degree hardly requires vast brilliance I assure you and the fact one is a qualified lawyer in no way implies anything much other than some ability with language and an aptitude for not falling asleep when reading very dull texts.

Quote from: ValamirGiven that, I personally find it ridiculous for people to complain about the uncertain and shifting nature of the jargon.  From a certain perspective its flattering that they assume that we few folks here should be able to invent a perfect lexicon to explore an understudied art form nearly instantaneously...we'd have to all be geniuses to pull that off.  But mostly its just flat out annoying.  It demonstrates how little thought most folks put into their roleplaying if they can think for a minute that creating a language to discuss it is a quick and easy task.

Valamir, if it shifts so much that multiple posters give flatly contradictory definitions you have a problem.  Sure, it will shift, the ideas are in flux.  But some shifting I've seen goes way beyond that.  Either Force prevents narrativist play or it doesn't or the jury is still out on the point.  Any of those is cool including a statement that opinions differ and it's being thought through.  But if I see one poster tell me that Force is naturally present in narrativist play and another a moment later say that Force flatly prevents narrativist play, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the terminology is moving beyond shifting into the realm of the meaningless.

The lexicon need not be perfect, just not self-contradictory.  I am, in fact, quite confident you guys here can manage that and if you really cannot I think you have greater problems with the theory than outside perceptions.

Quote from: jdrakehOf course, I could be way off-base here. I've had a fairly emotional past several months, and the mental wear and tear could just be taking its toll. I openly concede that this could be the case, though it wouldn't explain other people noticing these same thing ;)

As a minor aside, there are Forge posters who I think don't always put the forum in the best possible light (as there are with every forum of course), but you're not one of them.  I've not noticed a trend to overintellectualisation or arrogance or anything of the sort on your part.  Don't mistake criticism of a forum you participate in as criticism of you.  I saw rpg.net described as a cesspit today, I post there frequently so logically I'm a part of that.  So it goes, the description wasn't aimed at me personally and I don't take it that way.

IMO, for what that's worth, on rpg.net you're a good poster and well liked.  If your posts here are as interesting as your posts there I suspect the forum regulars here value you just as much as most of those at rpg.net do.

Sorry for what I think is likely an off-topic post but sometimes not to comment on self-criticism is to give the impression that it is agreed with.

QuoteValamir, if it shifts so much that multiple posters give flatly contradictory definitions you have a problem.

I don't agree at all.  In fact, I'd say that's one of the strengths of the site.

Alot of detractors of the Forge will make references to "Cult of Ron", or "Group Think", or "only the ideas of a few get to be expressed and any disagreement is squashed".  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Many aspects of the theory have Forge regulars divided into camps argueing with each other over different aspects and applications of concepts and terminology.  If you need proof that the Forge has not fallen into the trap of "group think" led by a few regular posters, the word "Force" is a good bit of evidence.

Officially the term "Force" at this point refers to the GM removing player control over making thematically important decisions for their character...i.e. the GM manipulates such to prevent the player from addressing premise, or limits the manner in which the player can to the GMs preferred choice.  That's the sense in which posters have said Force is antithema to narrativism.

Others have taken a broader approach to the word "Force" using it to refer to the GM exerting any degree of control over player choices (thematically important or not).  Under this broader definition, there are certain applications of Force that are bad for narrativism (like the current "official" definition) and other applications that actually are quite useful and compatable with narrativism (like aggressive scene framing).


Is this confusing...can be, sure.  But Force is one of the newest terms being "tried out".  Its still being put through its paces and there is still disagreement over what the most appropriate way to label the above items are.  Perfectly normal, and perfectly understandable.

A couple of years ago "Simulation" was being trotted around and a lot of different competing definitions were put forth by different "camps".  Some members were adamant about their definition.  Some waffled back and forth.  Others were completely disinterested and wanted to talk about other things.  Also pretty usual.  

Eventually, Ron absorbed all of this discussion and filtered it down with his own thoughts and came out with the Simulation essay.  I understand that you find the Sim essay to be fairly accurate.  Great.  But there are literally 1000s of posts, alot of discussion, some anguish, and not an inconsiderable amount of vehement arguement behind it to get it to that point.  

Force is no different.  Since its not a "core" concept like Simulationism, the discussions have been a good bit less vitriolic, but as it is a concept closely tied to ideas of Railroading (quite a hot button) there have been moments of intensity.


So I guess that's a long winded way of saying that I don't really see a problem with the idea that Forge members don't all currently agree on the definition.  I think instead that its a feature of what we do here and evidence that the Forge is not a "World According to Ron" site.

Perhaps certain members should be less eager to practice the more work-in-progress concepts on unsuspecting RPG.netters...but then every new concept needs to be taken for a spin; so to the extent that some thoughtful RPG.netters have added their thoughts to the discussion who aren't otherwise engaged in discourse over here, some good can even come from that.

Ralph,

My problem with changing terminologies is that they are used all too often to argue that the user doesn't understand the issue. If you don't believe me, I can point to a case of this like last week (RPG.net) wherein the person who told me I was misuisng a word had used the word the same way I did (and in a perfectly understandable way too, I think) a few weeks earlier. That's a problem.

Now, it may be that the person using the term doesn't understand it--but when I can use 'deprotagonized' for a month with Mike Holems and can be told by the guy who coined the term that I'm using it wrong that's a problem.

The Force issue came up on RPG.net by someone who's very well versed in GNS and posts here a lot.

Look--I don't think there's any kind of *conspiracy* to dodge around terms. But I think it happens all too often and because there is no self policing when someone who is a long-time poster bends a term or makes what might be a shaky argument, one can read these threads and come away with the idea that terms mean things substantially different than what they "do."

I think this happened in the Virtual Reality Ouja Boards thread with John Kim's post about the Revised Beeg Horseshoe--I hadn't studied the revised version, but the glossary says it's contraversial--the responses he got (which I read) didn't enlighten me as to what the contraversy was.

But I think John was posting in good faith--if he did make a huge glaring error the problem doesn't likely lie with his intelligence (which, I think, is not open to question) or his reading comprehension (which, I should think, is pretty well established by now).

I'd consider that the problem is in the way that concepts are argued and defended here.

-Marco

Ralph,

If anyone had said that the concept was still in development that would have helped.  But think about it from the perspective of an outsider for a moment.

A simple question was asked.  No consistent answer was received.  If that was your first exposure to GNS would your first thought be:

A.  Wow, there is plainly a lot to think about here, I should explore it further; or

B.  Wow, these guys can't even agree with each other.  I'll come back once they make up their minds what they're talking about.

B is not being unintellectual, it is a rational response.  If one starts from the assumption that GNS is valid, as you do, then lack of agreement shows that a dynamic discussion is ongoing.  If one does not start from that assumption then a less kind interpretation suggests itself.  If on that thread you had posted what you have here the whole thing would have been a lot clearer.

The internet is full of all kinds of errant nonsense, a rational viewer screens out stuff that appears to be nonsense unless given reason to the contrary.  If you want to communicate the theory on rpg.net to rational viewers* it would help not to make it appear to be nonsense by posting stuff as absolute fact when it is just opinion.

I would note in passing by the way, that I have never asked for proof of an absence of groupthink or cult of Ron.  Anyone who asks for stuff in those kind of terms will likely not be satisfied with any answer you respond with.

*Viewer actually, I think he still posts there.

Just to add, you may not care that outsiders think that parts of the theory which are works in progress are nonsense, I honestly think that is fine but if that approach is taken you also shouldn't blame people when they do think that.  The answer is not to talk about those bits externally until they are in better shape or to provide big stonking health warnings with any discussion you do enter into.

[quote="Marco"I'd consider that the problem is in the way that concepts are argued and defended here. [/quote]

I'm well aware that you consider it a problem, Marco.  But unless you are prepared to also develop the solution to that problem and outline in some detail the magic formula that will make that problem go away...one that doesn't involve volunteering others to do even more volumes of unpaid work...then your repeating this point ad naseum is decidedly unhelpful.

Pointing out solutions is welcome.  

Harping on problems is just irritating.

Despite our commitment to the Forge and what we're trying to do here we all have lives, jobs, families, and other assorted miscellainy that for many of us includes actually running a game business.  If my full time, fully compensated career, was developing the GNS theory...I'd be alot more sympathetic to complaints about its inadequacies.

If you see something that you think should be a priority for us...like say beating the theory into shape so that the casual reader immediately "gets it" with little effort or frustration...hey great.  Welcome aboard and I look forward to reading the first draft of your attempt.


[quote="Balbinus"]A. Wow, there is plainly a lot to think about here, I should explore it further; or

B. Wow, these guys can't even agree with each other. I'll come back once they make up their minds what they're talking about.

B is not being unintellectual, it is a rational response.[/quote]


I don't have a problem with choice B.  Actually I think there are a heck of alot of people over at RPG.net that simply need to select choice B and leave it alone.

What I do have a problem with is choice C.


C.  Wow, here's something I don't understand at all, aren't willing to put in the effort required to figure it out, and they haven't gone out of their way to make it any easier...so I think I'll just crap all over it for kicks.


To "A" types I say, "Fantastic, welcome, I look forward to sharing ideas and learning from your contributions"

To "B" types I say, "Fantastic, I have no idea when our work will progress to a point where its ready-for-prime-time, but when it does I hope you'll check it out and find it was worth the wait".

To "C" types I say "go fuck yourself, asshole"...or more accurately, I try very hard not to say that...

Ralph,

I did my best--it wasn't successful (Ron had my essay. Contra thought it looked promising, IIRC--but it ultimately didn't make it).

However: I do have a suggestion.

Don't argue that people who've studied the theory "don't understand it"--instead approach those arguments from the perspective that either the material may engender misunderstandings or even legitimate disagreements since, despite a lot of analogies, it isn't Information Technology and it isn't physics.

I would also say that some things that are taken as faith here are more like matters of opinion (or at least presently unprovable due to lack of either a methodology for testing or a sample-size large enough). Taking that approach would help too IMO.

-Marco

QuoteThe Force issue came up on RPG.net by someone who's very well versed in GNS and posts here a lot.

Marco & Max,

The Force issue was not brought up by myself. It was injected into the discussion by E, an RPG.netter. I am personally of the opinion its introduction to the discussion was a red herring, mainly because E went on to argue that since Force is central to Narrativism (ie: defines it), the whole definition of Narrativism is thus wrong, GNS is really all about Force/not-Force so the mode category definitions are all wrong, and that Narrativists don't allow anything to happen to their characters they don't want, etc.

E used "Force" in it's broad and unofficial context to inform his argument. Yet, people from the Forge end up stuck with blame for the arguments made on his part and (mis?)use of a term that helped confused the issue?
In fact, examining the thread right now, Ralph is the only Forger to deal with the Force issue, all other points about it are brought up by CPXB and E -- non-Forgers -- and I pled ignorance as to the claimed dependence of Narrativism upon Force.

Yet you both are saying, "multiple Forgers made different arguments about what Force is to Nar." What I'm seeing is an argument against "what GNS advocates do" based on events skewed from their actuality to back up the criticism. Statements made about that situation in particular seem to stem from a case of selective memory regarding the contents of and participants in the thread in question. Honestly, I tend to believe that this happens quite a bit regarding criticisms of particular events, practices, and behaviors on the Forge.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, here, regarding your criticisms, but that is my perspective on the stated "evidence" in this particular case, and a bit of criticism about the nature of some of the criticism.

Oh, and hey, we now have two critical arguments: either we're a mindless bunch of group-thinking cultists, or a completely fractious group of independent thinkers with no core agreement. Look! It's impossible to win! (Ok, seperate issue, and I'm not accusing you two of the cult-think bit. Just venting.)

Hi Raven,

Well, for what it's worth: I'm glad you don't ascribe cult-speak to me.

On the other hand, I think that "Nar is defined by Force" as a practical matter has a lot of value. In other words, while it may not be the way to conventionally define Narrativist play, I don't necessiarily think it's a red herring at all. For someone trying to get to Nar play or by trying to differentiate between what they're doing now and what might be Nar play it's a very key question.

-Marco

Marco, response to the Nar/Force issue in the appropriately named Narrativism & Force (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=125816) thread over in GNS Model Discussion.

Quote from: ValamirI don't have a problem with choice B.  Actually I think there are a heck of alot of people over at RPG.net that simply need to select choice B and leave it alone.

What I do have a problem with is choice C.


C.  Wow, here's something I don't understand at all, aren't willing to put in the effort required to figure it out, and they haven't gone out of their way to make it any easier...so I think I'll just crap all over it for kicks.


To "A" types I say, "Fantastic, welcome, I look forward to sharing ideas and learning from your contributions"

To "B" types I say, "Fantastic, I have no idea when our work will progress to a point where its ready-for-prime-time, but when it does I hope you'll check it out and find it was worth the wait".

To "C" types I say "go fuck yourself, asshole"...or more accurately, I try very hard not to say that...

That works for me, though I think with type C a more effective approach is to simply to not respond, generally genuine type Cs will hang themselves pretty quickly.

Sometimes though a type C is just a type B who has hit a lot of internet nonsense and is perhaps a little impatient.  All I would say to Forge advocates is give a little benefit of the doubt, most type Bs will say after a bit "whatever" and move on, if they keep banging away then odds are they're type C but until they've refused to drop the point you should always assume B IMO.

Quote from: greyormMarco, response to the Nar/Force issue in the appropriately named Narrativism & Force (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=125816) thread over in GNS Model Discussion.

Greyorm,

It was the example that sprung to mind.  The bit about whether GNS was only relevant to functional play also came up though and that represented a genuine query on my part.

There are different schools of thought here, and sometimes there are people who explain the theory externally who maybe haven't got all of it yet.  All I am arguing for is expressing doubt more clearly.  Not saying "the theory says X" but "my understanding of the theory is X" or "views differ and the theory on this bit is still being developed, my take is X".

None of that will convince anti-GNS posters, but nothing ever will.  What it may do is persuade lurkers and the uncommitted to give you more of a hearing.  False certainty is your real enemy and admitting doubt doesn't weaken your arguments, it strengthens them with anyone worth arguing with.

Quote from: greyorm

[Snippage]

E used "Force" in it's broad and unofficial context to inform his argument. Yet, people from the Forge end up stuck with blame for the arguments made on his part and (mis?)use of a term that helped confused the issue?
In fact, examining the thread right now, Ralph is the only Forger to deal with the Force issue, all other points about it are brought up by CPXB and E -- non-Forgers -- and I pled ignorance as to the claimed dependence of Narrativism upon Force.

Yet you both are saying, "multiple Forgers made different arguments about what Force is to Nar." What I'm seeing is an argument against "what GNS advocates do" based on events skewed from their actuality to back up the criticism. Statements made about that situation in particular seem to stem from a case of selective memory regarding the contents of and participants in the thread in question. Honestly, I tend to believe that this happens quite a bit regarding criticisms of particular events, practices, and behaviors on the Forge.

[Snippage]

Oh, and hey, we now have two critical arguments: either we're a mindless bunch of group-thinking cultists, or a completely fractious group of independent thinkers with no core agreement. Look! It's impossible to win! (Ok, seperate issue, and I'm not accusing you two of the cult-think bit. Just venting.)

I think E quoted one of Ron's essays actually, and this wasn't the only example I cited Greyorm.  My intent on this thread is not to criticise the Forge, it is to honestly explain why from my personal perspective (and I can speak to no other) the Forge comes across badly.  On a number of threads it has seemed to me, as someone who is not by and large a Forge poster, that simple queries as to GNS concepts lead to a bewildering variety of responses with little or no common theme.

I'm not saying you're a cult or that you have no agreement, you're reading that into my words and my posts are not Marcos and his not mine (though I agree with him on some points).  All I am saying is that when members of the forum represent the theory externally they often do so in inconsistent fashion, and in my view use of this glossary presently being developed would help mitigate that and help the Forge in propagating its message to those who might benefit from it.

If you wish you can think that I'm misrepresenting, fine.  But if you do that whenever anyone from outside tries to explain why the Forge can come across less well than it should then you shouldn't be surprised when you find you don't understand the criticisms.

I miss a day, and things explode.

Quote from: ClayEvery time you use the forge specific jargon in your discussions you are sending a message to newcomers that you're in insider and they aren't.  It says that they really aren't ready to participate in the discussion.

There certainly is a degree to which jargon is exclusionary, to which it says "if you want to participate in our discussion, please learn our language." However, exclusionary and elitist aren't exactly synonymous. If I'm reading a physics text that speaks of strange quarks, or a medical text that addresses symptoms, or pharmacological data that lists contraindications, or astronomical discussions than mention parallax, I don't immediately conclude, "these people think they're better than me". I conclude that these people know what they're talking about and have developed an efficient means of conveying what they want to say to those who care enough about the subject to keep current in the field. If I don't want to take the time to understand their terminology (jargon has become such a judgmental word) then it is not terribly reasonable for me to expect them to take the time to explain it to me.

As it stands, if you don't understand a term here at The Forge, people are willing to attempt to explain it to you, to clarify it, and to point you to places where it has been discussed, defined, and/or explained before. That's hardly elitist; it's barely even exclusionary.

Quote from: MaxPosts like MJ's though (sorry MJ) I think could easily be viewed that way, a law degree hardly requires vast brilliance I assure you and the fact one is a qualified lawyer in no way implies anything much other than some ability with language and an aptitude for not falling asleep when reading very dull texts.

Interestingly, when I was in law school, in the context of electing members to the student bar association I commented that I thought law school students were of above average intelligence in the main, and one of my fellow students objected and by her example persuaded me otherwise. The fact that to be there she had to complete college and take a post-graduate exam, and so persuade someone that she was smart enough to succeed in law school did not seem in her mind to overcome the fact that there are some very smart people in the world who don't get to go to college.

I agree that there are some lawyers with appalling mental abilities. The same is true for medical doctors, and I'm sure there are college professors and rocket scientists and particle physicists and genetic engineers who are less than brilliant. For anyone who cares whether I'm smart, some of my credentials are available.

Ralph has covered the problem regarding "Force". As the definition stands in the provisional glossary, it means the prevention of narrativism by overrriding thematically-related decisions. I find that definition too limiting, and don't believe that the term is used that way outside the glossary very often. However, I would say that in such discussions (whether or not Forge terminology is in use) it is important to define terms.

Thus it would be appropriate to write that if the issue referred to narrativism as defined in Story Now and used the definition of force as found in the current Provisional Glossary at The Forge, the matter is tautologous: force is defined as that which prevents narrativist play; but if you mean something else by one of those words, the answer might be different.

--M. J. Young

Max,

E's quoting the essay has nothing to do with my criticism in this thread -- it was directed specifically at the situation of "this is what happened" when such didn't happen quite that way. However, my intent isn't to is/isn't this specific example, nor is it about your point regarding the inconsistency of usage that does happen. My intent was simply to point out a common flaw I see in much of the criticism directed towards the Forge.

You want us to "deal" -- yeah, we can -- I would expect nothing less than the same from the critics, then, as well. As I said, there are valid points raised, but there are also blind spots in those points, much as you point out there are in our own arguments.

As to the cult/agreement accusation, as I said, I was venting, not accusing you specifically of labeling the Forge either way.

Quote from: M. J. Young...exclusionary and elitist aren't exactly synonymous...If I don't want to take the time to understand their terminology...then it is not terribly reasonable for me to expect them to take the time to explain it to me.

I agree with MJ, here. I'm involved in or have studied so many fields that have exclusive terminology, which requires study just to converse. Frex (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040527.html):

QuoteIf you have a WRT54G, here's what you can use it for after less than an hour's work. You get all the original Linksys functions plus SSH, Wonder Shaper, L7 regexp iptables filtering, frottle, parprouted, the latest Busybox utilities, several custom modifications to DHCP and dnsmasq, a PPTP server, static DHCP address mapping, OSPF routing, external logging, as well as support for client, ad hoc, AP, and WDS wireless modes.

Catch all that?

And that's just the tech field. You know how quick I can lose someone talking about networking? Or securing a firewall? Or modifying their router settings? Let's not even talk physics, or theology, or various magickal practices that fall under the category of "the occult" -- particularly modern ceremonial magick.

QuoteAs it stands, if you don't understand a term here at The Forge, people are willing to attempt to explain it to you, to clarify it, and to point you to places where it has been discussed, defined, and/or explained before. That's hardly elitist; it's barely even exclusionary.

I think the real problem here isn't the terminology, though for some reason the use of terminology seems to get the bad rap.

I think the real criticism is perhaps that people believe* they know what the theory is saying, and feel that any "help" they are given upon disagreement is an insult, a way of saying, "You don't understand the theory" and they feel written off. So the blame for this event is placed on the use of a theory-specific vocabulary, because it is perceived that everything would be clearer without all those terms clouding the issue, that it would be immediately accessible to everyone (perhaps based on the belief that it should be).

In other words, the terms are seen as an attempt at obsfucation, and it is really the obsfucation that is at issue, not the terms. The terms end up being an unwitting scape-goat. Now, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, here. This is what I've heard from critics.

(* I say "believe" because whether they do or don't understand is a seperate issue from this, and often quite contestable between the involved parties.)

Quote from: greyormI think the real criticism is perhaps that people believe* they know what the theory is saying, and feel that any "help" they are given upon disagreement is an insult, a way of saying, "You don't understand the theory" and they feel written off. So the blame for this event is placed on the use of a theory-specific vocabulary, because it is perceived that everything would be clearer without all those terms clouding the issue, that it would be immediately accessible to everyone (perhaps based on the belief that it should be).

I don't think anyone has ever criticised the use of jargon per se.  so I suspect that the whole "exclusivist Vs. elitist" dichotomy is a bit of a red herring.  The value of jargon is not at issue.


The central problem lies with the mis-match in the perceived reliability of certain articles of Forgite faith.  Namely the threads and essays that people who don't get it are told to read.

Many people do read these things and think they're wrong so they come forward with a criticism of X.  If they are then told to go and read X because they've misunderstood then you're completely missing the point.  the critic's point is that X is flawed or that YOU don't understand X.  So responding to criticisms of X with "go read X" is equivalent to simply asserting X in response to criticisms of X.  Result: perceived arrogance, closed-mindedness and cultishness.


As I said in a recent RPGnet thread, the problem is that the grounds for which something becomes part of GNS canon are social in nature.  So while Forge members accept the "canonisation" of things like Beeg Horseshoe because they buy into the process of theory confirmation, other people don't buy into your methods of confirmation and they want to say "Um... Beeg horseshoe's a rant... there's no argument for it... why should I accept this?".


So yes, ultimately people who criticise the Forge don't get it but many of them would argue that the process through which one "gets it" isn't a rational or rigorous one.

I suppose sometimes you take a long hard look at your participation in a topic of discussion and you wince.  You wince hard because although what you said was true or at least an honest opinion, you realise that you have missed the point.

The whole thread offends me.  That is not to say that ANY individual who has participated in the thread offends me or the person who started it offends me.  Yet the thread itself does. Now I could and perhaps should just walk away since its still a free Cyber-Space afterall. Unfortunately I never walk away.  I don't want the last word, hell I never had the last word in my life.  What I do want is this thread to end and I am going to try and end it.  Notice I said the thread, not the argument.  You see the argument never really ends.  When people feel that sacred cows have been butchered and eaten they feel threatened and when they feel threatened they lash out.  Its a never ending cycle especially because our Hobby, Industry, Interest is chock full of sacred cows.  The Forge as a whole and individual posters have threatened to butcher and devour those cows.  So people feel threatened.

The Forge is a well moderated gaming Forum, the best moderated forum I have ever personally come across.  Thats strictly one opinion. It does not imply perfection. Yet its not free.  You do have to pay dues to be here, believe it or not.  Two dues in fact:

1. You have to think
2. You have to be polite

People have a very hard time paying those dues sometimes. Nowhere does it say you have to Grok... (thats Jargon for Understand) everything or anything anyone a the Forge says, let alone Agree.  You just have to think and be polite.  Lets face it, we are a My Team society.  Humans are in general. They affiliate themselves with a team or a party or an actor or a music group and they stick hard to it.  Sacred Cows.  Perfectly intelligent and kind individuals (of all faiths, genders, races, and sexual persuasions) become psychotic lunatics or patronizing (matronizing?) and condescending elitists when some one gets too close to their Sacred Cow. Thus we have this thread.

The people at the Forge are jerks and won't let me play.  No one likes you guys so tell me, why.  Why does no one like you?

Why do I have to defend my participation in this forum? Why do I have to defend occasionally agreeing with a man, Ron Edwards, on matters of Role Playing Games and the people who play them? Do you pay my bills? When it comes to some people who bill themselves as Industry insiders, workers, and whatnot, I may have payed your bills by buying your games. Some of them good and some of them not so good. Yet still I have to defend my position of participating in intellectal discourse simply because I am here.  Needless to say I resent that, quite a bit.

No one has to defend why he or she participates in the Forge.  On the other hand, no one has to defend, to me, why he or she doesn't. Evolution takes different paths and it may be that the Forge and G/N/S go the way of the Neanderthal and die out.  It may be that Role Playing, as a hobby or industry or interest, evolves along even more paths that none of us can possibly see.

All this of course ignores that fact that in the case of most people, those who participate in the Forge and those who do not. really only want to see the hobby/industry evolve and do better.  Almost all of us want that. If the hobby grows, we all benefit.  Still even that is not enough for us to look beyond our own Sacred Cows.

So I Ask: What is the point of this thread? How many more times do we have to hear the same argument, which boils down to nothing more then opinion and innuendo of the worst sort.  No one is going to love the Forge less or more.  No one is going to make a better RPG and no one is going to back off from their point of view.  So pointless that it seems to me to be counter-intellectual and counter-productive.

But if you must have an answer I will give you a frank one: There are asswholes here at the Forge just like there are assholes everywhere. If you feel unwelcome here, then if I were you I would take a long hard look
at myself before casting aspersions at the Forge or anyone in it.

If you don't, eh it's all good. Sacred Cows come first sometimes...


Sean

Quote from: M. J. Young
Interestingly, when I was in law school, in the context of electing members to the student bar association I commented that I thought law school students were of above average intelligence in the main, and one of my fellow students objected and by her example persuaded me otherwise. The fact that to be there she had to complete college and take a post-graduate exam, and so persuade someone that she was smart enough to succeed in law school did not seem in her mind to overcome the fact that there are some very smart people in the world who don't get to go to college.

You're missing my point I'm afraid.  In many Western European countries the rate of college graduation is significantly greater than 50%, the current UK target (seen as insufficiently ambitious by some) is to have 50% of all college age kids passing college.  As a matter of simple common sense I struggle to believe that something the majority of people do in many countries requires above average intelligence.

Does law require more intelligence than most college degrees?  IMO definitely not.  My field of practice (international project finance) has an unusual number of people within it who have practiced outside law before entering the profession.  The single most common comment I hear from them is how easy legal study was compared to their prior studies (most often engineering but not always).  Those who initially studied fields like politics or history generally see law as having been comparable in difficulty.  UK legal education is broadly comparable to US, sufficiently so that on completion of it we can do a simple conversion exam to qualify for say the New York bar.  If college graduates who have studied other professional courses as well as law consider law to be no harder and in many cases easier than alternative courses of study I tend to believe them.  Certainly my personal experience was that law required little that was intellectually exceptional, rather demanding stamina and an ability to memorise large chunks of data.  And before you ask, yes I came top of my class yadda yadda.

So I'm really not saying that because there are some dumb grads that means the average grad isn't smarter.  I'm saying that because empirically it has been demonstrated that most people are capable of successful graduation and because everything in my experience indicates law is not an exceptionally hard course, it is simply factually wrong to assume that law grads are of above average intellect.  It may be so, but the mere fact of graduation in no way implies it is so.

Mensa and IQ tests I view frankly as having all the scientific rigour of astrology.

The reason this is relevant to this thread, and I'm sure some of you by now are wondering, is that any attempt at asserting an elite through intellect is fundamentally misplaced.  It is open to arguments such as mine above, which distract from what you are trying to achieve.  It also impliedly says "hey, maybe you're not smart enough to be in our club" which doesn't warm you to people.

The Forge is an elite, but not an elite of intelligence.  It is an elite of interest, of enthusiasm.  An elite of caring enough to want to give up personal time to improve gaming as a field of endeavour.

Anyone can join that elite, all they need is the interest.  Yet there is no stigma to not being part, it just means that you don't have that level of interest.  You guys do have stuff to be proud of and many of you do happen to be smart bunnies, but the stuff you have to be proud of is not that some of you are smart but that all of you are interested.  

And MJ, I'm not saying you're stupid, your posts demonstrate you're a smart guy.  But your qualifications nice as they are demonstrate nothing that your posts didn't already amply show.

I agree with Max here entirely.  I don't think you can infer supperior intelligence from someone being a law student.  From the lawyers I've spoken to it seems like work-rate and willingness to rote learn have more to do with being a lawyer than analytical abbility.  Indeed, being a university graduate's not that much of an indicator anymore seeing as an MA is worth what a BA was 15 years ago and expert-level is now PhD rather than MA.


I think that inferring that the people at the Forge are smarter than other people is most likely WHY threads such as this exist.

Being a member of the Forge requires a certain level of intellectual commitment to the goals of the forge and that's about it.  I have 2 post-graduate degrees and am working on a doctorate and while I'm sure I'm intelligent enough to understand the GNS writings but as to whether or not I'm willing to sit here and read through all of the threads and articles... well that's another matter entirely.

I'm intelligent enough to read the philosophy of Lacan but that doesn't mean I want to :-)

So in my opinion, all you can infer from someone being a forgite is that they were motivated enough to become one.

Quote from: MR. AnalyticalSo in my opinion, all you can infer from someone being a forgite is that they were motivated enough to become one.

And that I think you can take pride in, because committment to developing ideas and improving gaming as a hobby and industry is a laudable goal.

Now we have come to point where we are discussing how being educated does not make you smart.  Ok what does this have to do with hubris and elitism.

Hubris
Jargon
Elitism
Jargon

and all the rest exist on every single board that I am personally aware of. The Forge is not different in that vein. I don't speak in Jargon and I contribute just fine.  As Ron is fond of saying (well everyone is fond of saying now) its a Red Herring.

Again, take a look at yourself and your agenda. Why are you here? If this forum makes you uncomfortable then why are you here? Why is it necassary to disparage the entire community here because you are making your rightful choice not to participate. Don't like G-N-S? Ignore it. Its easily done.

Again I will say that no one here should have to defend their intelligence or their right to be here and participate to anyone.  Its an open and well moderated Forum and the door swings both ways.  



Sean

ADGBoss,

I'm really not trying to attack people's intelligence, in fact I expressly recognise that I think MJ Young is a smart guy in my post, but I think it was relevant.

I was talking about why the Forge might be perceived as elitist, which is the subject in part of this thread.  MJ's post provided a useful example of one way in which I think that perception may arise, which is why the education/intelligence thing was I think relevant.  Any assertion that this is an elite place because people here is smarter is I think an error which will get in the way of dissemination of your ideas, that is why it matters and is worth discussing.  If you read through the relevant posts I think each is tied to the topic of perceptions of Forge elitism fairly clearly.

I'm not sure if the why are you here is directed generally or to me and Mr Analytical.  If to me, I honestly don't think I have disparaged the community, I said you had much to be proud of and I have recommended more than one person on rpg.net to come here.

As for elitism and jargon being everywhere, obviously true.  But despite that truth not everywhere is accused of elitism or using unnecessary jargon.  The Forge sometimes is and why that is so is the subject of this thread.  If you should care is I think another question, my answer would probably be no but if any of you do exploring how those perceptions may arise does seem to me of some value.

Quote from: ADGBossWhy do I have to defend my participation in this forum? Why do I have to defend occasionally agreeing with a man, Ron Edwards, on matters of Role Playing Games and the people who play them? Do you pay my bills? When it comes to some people who bill themselves as Industry insiders, workers, and whatnot, I may have payed your bills by buying your games. Some of them good and some of them not so good. Yet still I have to defend my position of participating in intellectal discourse simply because I am here.  Needless to say I resent that, quite a bit.

Sean,

I don't think you do have to defend your position, certainly I don't see how you could ever be required to.  But some Forge posters are concerned by external perceptions and do wish to defend their position.  When they do, it is surely useful to them to understand how the criticisms come about.

My personal view, to the extent it is relevant, is that the Forge is justified so long as Forge participants find it useful.  End of story.  Others differ and some Forge participants wish to engage those others, if only to stop them putting potential Forge participants off the place before they ever come here.  That is a laudable goal, Matt Snyder for example has participated in exhaustive defences of the Forge on rpg.net - not because he has to and certainly not IMO because he enjoys it, but because in doing so he demonstrates what is good about the Forge to the undecided and stops those who do view the Forge as a bad thing from being the only voice heard.

Man, it's amazing.  One little wiz in the pool, and look at the trouble I stirred up.

The ferocity of this argument suggests to me that sitting back, drinking a beer, and thinking more about planning your next session or your next product release might be a good idea.  I'm nobody.  I'm an insignificant drop in the pool.  I shouldn't be able to do this to you.

Beer is good.  Beer is your friend.  Drink one and play with the cat/dog, and remember that there are more important things in life than whether or not you're a pretentious git.  Like beer and the dog and your next product release.

Sigh ... everyone has made extra-wonderful points, and it's time, folks, to call it quits.

Yeah, this is a heavy-handed moderator post, a really nasty one in fact. I know that. But c'mon - it really is time. You'll thank me for this later.

Best,
Ron

Apologies, all. Not having posted here in quite a while, I didn't realize how touchy this subject was. My intent wasn't to ruffle feathers, and again, I apologize if that's how I came across. At any rate, despite some heated responses, I don't see a single viewpoint that isn't valid and in someway productive (god, I need to start posting here more often). At any rate, thanks (and again, sorry).

Oh, and Ron, please don't revoke my membership card and make me burn my robes ;)