Quote from: joshua neff
Citing a point Ron made by starting a sentence with "Ron said..." is not slavish & cultish devotion, but merely citation. Also, agreeing with something someone (for example, Ron) has said is not cultish devotion but merely agreement.
I'm sick of the "Cult of Ron" crap. It would almost be insulting if it weren't so infantile.
There is however a tendancy to the Cult of GNS here. It's difficult to talk about anything without immediate reference to GNS, of which Ron, with good reason given that he wrote it, is held to be the chief proponent.
After all, when people, such as I perhaps, misunderstand what Ron means by GNS, he is always there to lead them away from the Valley of Evil (that is a joke btw).
I always get the feeling that it is I who am wrong and GNS that is writ in stone. As has been explained to me by various Forgers, this is really just down to personal perception so I'll try to leave such things aside.
Still as a theory, GNS needs people to defend it and, even if I think the theory doesn't work, I'm glad to see there are people to make sure the debate doesn't go cold.
What I'm less sure about is how much GNS changes on it's side. I haven't got time to read everything said on this site and Ron's two articles don't necessarily paint the whole picture. Perhaps some other disciple (of GNS not Ron) would like to take up the torch?
If it isn't too cheeky, and to encourage a wider audience, I'd be more than happy to have it hosted on http://ptgptb.org.
While were at it, has anyone read Robin's Laws?
All the best,
GB Steve
I have split this topic, as GB Steve's post was less about the "Seven Misconceptions" and more about the "Cult of Ron" comment made by Joshua Neff. Also, I'm going to comment below this, and it gets more off-topic, so splitting it made sense.
Quote from: GB Steve
There is however a tendancy to the Cult of GNS here. It's difficult to talk about anything without immediate reference to GNS, of which Ron, with good reason given that he wrote it, is held to be the chief proponent.
I don't get this. I see it all the time, so I know it's a common perception, but you're the first person that actually posts here to have said it. I think people talk about games all the time here without speaking about GNS.
I'm not arguing with you. You may well be right, and I blinded. I'd just like a little more elucidation, as I don't get it.
Quote
I always get the feeling that it is I who am wrong and GNS that is writ in stone. As has been explained to me by various Forgers, this is really just down to personal perception so I'll try to leave such things aside. ... What I'm less sure about is how much GNS changes on it's side. I haven't got time to read everything said on this site and Ron's two articles don't necessarily paint the whole picture.
Anyway - this is my big beef with GNS opponents. I've said this on other sites, and I will publicly here now. I think GNS is a moderately useful tool, that when combined with other tools, can make a better gaming experience. I don't think it's the end-all-be-all Way of RPGs, and I think people spend entirely too much time debating it instead of playing games.
Back to my big beef: Ron's article
is the whole of GNS. There's not some secret lore, or anything else. GNS is birthed from his forehead, mythically speaking, so the source of information on it is him. Honestly, I think almost everyone else has it so screwed up that you'll get no decent information from anywhere but him.
Quote
While were at it, has anyone read Robin's Laws?
Read it. Loved it. Found it immensely useful, even three hours later when running a convention game. E-mail or PM me if you want to talk about it.
Quote
Back to my big beef: Ron's article is the whole of GNS.
Actually, I somewhat agree with his position -- for an outside observer, GNS proponents appear very cult-like.
1> Ron's essay is the GNS bible, so-to-speak. Problem is, although it's comprehensive, it's also very dense. So, you can read it once, twice, three times and still have people point out passages to you that you missed or misinterpreted. Just like any good theological text. Furthermore, to fully understand it, I needed to re-read the majority of the posts on the Forge so I could give it context.
2> It doesn't help that when people refer to the essay, that don't say, "The GNS essay says..." but instead, "Ron says..." Ron has become defacto the keeper of GNS. It's Ron's word over everyone else's. Not saying that he meant it to be that way, but that's how it comes. Cue cult of personality.
3> The level of jargon here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. For example, in the post in RPG theory started by wfreitag ("Looking Deeper into Intuitive Continuity") he re-states something he stated once already at rpg.net. But here, people assign his play style labels (even me) that he wouldn't remotely understand unless he fully comprehends Ron's essay. It took me a month to swallow, and sometimes I wonder if I still have it down pat.
4> GNS proponents can appear fanatical. Because of its "self-help" origins, many people find it so profound into changing their dysfunctional gaming, that they want to help everyone who has dysfunctional gaming. In short, they want to be enablers. I'd go so far as saying that Ron is the "uber-enabler." Some people appreciate enablers' help, other just want to go tell them to fuck themselves.
Now you could just say those ignorant of GNS theory that they "don't understand and they need to look at it deeper." But then any cult would say that, wouldn't it?
I think the GNS theory is great, but if the Forge doesn't want GNS to be seen as some kind of heretical RPG cult, something needs to happen here to change perceptions. I propose:
-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means. I suspect that's what he wants, but he's spending so much time just trying to clarify his views that no one is moving the theory forward, and thus appears to be the all pervasive Leader of the Cult
-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.
Of course, this is only matters so far as people care if they're perceived as part of a cult.
Steve
Clinton,
As my "Side Issues" post (which I would have posted here, if this thread had existed when I wrote it) indicates, I entirely understand the claim that the Forge is GNS-focused ("Cult" is, of course, absurd, but what the hell). Even those folks who have issues with parts of GNS use the language in at least some of their discussions - that's just (IMO) the way these things work, you develop a vocabulary that includes various concepts/assumptions and then it becomes almost transparent to you - but not to others, who either just don't understand your approach or who have an entirely different vocabulary.
Someone with NO understanding of GNS will have a hard time in many (NOT all) threads here. That parenthetical is important - otherwise *I'd* be worried about the cult-thing, with a CONSTANT intrusion of GNS into everything - but substantially, I can't say the point from GB Steve is absurd.
Gordon
Quote
Back to my big beef: Ron's article is the whole of GNS.
Actually, I somewhat agree with his position -- for an outside observer, GNS proponents appear very cult-like.
1> Ron's essay is the GNS bible, so-to-speak. Problem is, although it's comprehensive, it's also very dense. So, you can read it once, twice, three times and still have people point out passages to you that you missed or misinterpreted. Just like any good theological text. Furthermore, to fully understand it, I needed to re-read the majority of the posts on the Forge so I could give it context.
2> It doesn't help that when people refer to the essay, that don't say, "The GNS essay says..." but instead, "Ron says..." Ron has become defacto the keeper of GNS. It's Ron's word over everyone else's. Not saying that he meant it to be that way, but that's how it comes. Cue cult of personality.
3> The level of jargon here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. For example, in the post in RPG theory started by wfreitag ("Looking Deeper into Intuitive Continuity") he re-states something he stated once already at rpg.net. But here, people assign his play style labels (even me) that he wouldn't remotely understand unless he fully comprehends Ron's essay. It took me a month to swallow, and sometimes I wonder if I still have it down pat.
4> GNS proponents can appear fanatical. Because of its "self-help" origins, many people find it so profound into changing their dysfunctional gaming, that they want to help everyone who has dysfunctional gaming. In short, they want to be enablers. I'd go so far as saying that Ron is the "uber-enabler." Some people appreciate enablers' help, other just want to go tell them to fuck themselves.
Now you could just say those ignorant of GNS theory that they "don't understand and they need to look at it deeper." But then any cult would say that, wouldn't it?
I think the GNS theory is great, but if the Forge doesn't want GNS to be seen as some kind of heretical RPG cult, something needs to happen here to change perceptions. I propose:
-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means. I suspect that's what he wants, but he's spending so much time just trying to clarify his views that no one is moving the theory forward, and thus appears to be the all pervasive Leader of the Cult
-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.
Of course, this is only matters so far as people care if they're perceived as part of a cult.
Steve
Steve,
I see and understand your points. They do make sense. I have issue with just one part:
Quote from: Steve Dustin
-->Ron needs to let his theory go free to be mutated by everyone else. This means not just Ron changing his mind about what GNS means.
I can't see this as either happening or productive. It's not something that's mutable. Either I've studied too much logic or my own thinking is flawed but:
- The three terms of GNS are defined. Re-defining them produces a new theory.
- Any new theories are not the same as the GNS theory as outlined in Ron's essay.
- Arguing the definition is much like arguing the definition of irony: you can "feel" that it's whatever you think it is, but you are wrong. The term is defined, and means a specific thing. (This is apt, as most people know fuck-all about what irony is. I'd have it stricken from the common English language if I could, just because the confusion irritates me so much.)
As far as other people seeing GNS proponents as a cult, I'll be blunt here, even though I've tried my hardest until now not to:
Most of the arguments I see are nothing more than unbridled anti-intellectual claptrap of the worst sort, and therefore have little to no relevance to me.
- Clinton
P.S. Steve - you're in Portland? You missed a hell of a good con this weekend.
Steve/Tquid,
I think a lot of what you cite is simply the consequences of attempting to think rigorously about a topic. You can try and mitigate the "bible" effect by making the text as accessible as possible, you can fight the cult of personality by threatening to send out baseball-bat wielding deprogrammers (smile), you can attempt to establish clear rather than obfuscatory jargon . . . but ultimately, if folks want to see a cult, they'll see one. At some level, I *don't* care if people think there's a Cult of GNS/Ron - 'cause I know I'm not a member. On the other hand, I'm in favor of good communication/relations, so I've got nothing against working against that perception - but I am under no illusions that "the Forge" can force folks to stop thinking the way they want to think.
One point on GNS "ownership" - sure, Ron *could* "let his theory go free". Some might think that's a good thing, others see it as the end of any coherency to the theory. For now, the way it works (by my understanding) is this: Ron owns GNS. He listens to folks - if they say things that make sense, he takes them into account. If someone wants to take bits of GNS and build their own theory . . . well, it'd be nice to acknowledge GNS, but that's about it.
This seems like an entirely coherent way to mange things to me, and it would only support the "Cult Leader" perception in those who are determine to think that way anyway.
My thoughts,
Gordon
What I think we have here is not so much a cult as a culture (I wonder about the etymology of those two words). Just as you have corporate cultures, and the like. It has one of the defining attributes of a culture, it's own language. And, yes, to understand it thoroughly, you'd have to learn the language. Fortunately, it's a dialect that's not all that different from that of other gamers. And the culture itself is (in my extremely biased opinion) very worthwhile.
This will tend to cause all the same frictions that you see between other cultures. Say la v.
Mike
Quote from: Steve Dustin
-->We need short simple ways (to the point essays, examples, a glossary) to access the terminology written by someone else, not Ron. I'd even venture that using Ron as a filter to see if these ways conform to his interpretation of GNS would be a bad idea.
Well, I don't know how short it is, by I tried to be very direct and to the point in a post I made farther down in this forum called somewhat cryptically "submitted for discussion". It is IMO (and I'm not Ron so that fulfills the "someone else" requirement above) the core concepts of GNS that are a) absolutely essential to being able to discuss GNS with any degree of accuracy, and b) most often gotten completely wrong by people who encounter GNS for the first time.
I don't attempt to summarize Ron's entire essay (IMO the shear number of intertwined topics he covers in that essay is both an asset and a weakness to it). But I do make every effort to cut through the theory and come out with some pretty definitive "this is what this means" "this is not what this means" stuff.
Its generated a lot of views but no responses so far, which I can only hope means I didn't make any glaring mistakes in it.
Quote from: Valamir
Its generated a lot of views but no responses so far, which I can only hope means I didn't make any glaring mistakes in it.
I think it was a good essay, but, posted as it is, it will soon be relegated to the dark recesses of the forum that are not being currently discussed. Which means that it will essentially be lost and forgotten. Articles of this nature need to be posted in a more permenant position. This is why I liked the idea of the glossary, or the idea (Gordon's?) of an article section.
Mike
Mike,
You'll see my reply to Ralph's post just popped it up to the top again, and you'll also see that I'd like to put it into the Forge articles archive. As a more general note, I'd very much like to see other people's articles there, like Jesse's. That's going to be a push of mine here at the Forge over the next couple of months.
Best,
Ron
Quote
I can't see this as either happening or productive. It's not something that's mutable.
Yes but, GNS theory is more than just G, N, and S. It's got it's own Stances, emphasis on Exploration, and definitions for all kinds of stuff. I think there's plenty of stuff to tinker with.
I could be wrong about this (horribly wrong, but hey, has that stopped me before?) but scientific theories over time change to better fit the facts. The theory of Evolution today is not the theory of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin. The theory of plate tectonics is not the theory of continental drift. Still, each are essentially grounded on the same idea proposed by its predecessor. I'd say, GNS theory can undergo the same kind of transformation.
And if it wasn't meant to be mutable, why a whole forum dedicated to its discussion?
Still, the point underlying the "set it free, Ron!" statement is that people would stop perceiving GNS as "the word of Ron from on high," and more a working theory of roleplaying games.
Ironically (whoops, wait, what does irony mean?), I'm not really interested in changing the roleplaying community at large, and therefore, actually perscribe more to Mike's view that the Forge isn't so much a cult as a culture, and it ceases to be my problem to convince the critics. But remember, cultures can be seen as exclusive, and the more exclusive people find them ("a bunch of intellectual snobs in love with ridiculous jargon," for instance) the worse people can react.
And hey, Gordon, I'm not Tquid, I just use his quote in my sig.
Steve
Back to the topic at hand ... (there I go, making a big stink about staying on topic and then veering)
Here's my deal on the Cult thing.
"Huh?"
And that's all I can say, pretty much. Leadership does not constitute cult leadership; I freely admit to, and somewhat pointedly hang onto, the former. How "cult" comes into it boggles me.
Cult leadership requires that the "followers" agree with the leader in every way. I cannot imagine how that can be applied to this forum, in which the views of Fang, Gareth (contracycle), Mike Holmes, Mike Sullivan (Epoch), and Gareth (mytholder), just to name a few in addition to myself, continually meet and chew over multiple topics. The fact that we often come to an accord (not always in the same combination of personalities) is significant - even when we disagree. This is not cult behavior.
Dogmatism is the quality that some have indicated - the inability to think beyond one's own parameters, or to change views in the face of valid counterargument. This cannot be applied to me in any way - the instances of changes in my views are legion, most especially and importantly the concept of Exploration in my thinking about role-playing. What matters is that I acknowledge these influences and changes, which I do, in writing. To ignore my acknowledgments' existence, and then to use that "absence" as evidence that I am resist being influenced by counter-argument, is an astonishing act of self-delusion.
The last issue seems to be a matter of condescension, to which I can only shrug. No one makes anyone arrive at the Forge, and no one makes anyone stay. Mutual respect is a staple of our behavior toward one another, especially mutual respect for ideas. If anyone sees an instance or has experienced treatment that they don't think is consistent with this ideal, I have yet to hear about it from them directly.
That's an important point. If person X reports that "They treated me like shit at the Forge!" then I have to ask, "Why didn't you address that issue with me personally?" In some cases, the person is leaving out the personal exchange we did have, in which my views toward their behavior were expressed clearly (funny, they never mention that in their complaints). In other cases, the only indication I have that someone was unhappy is their discussion elsewhere, months later, or a tearful "fuck you!" as they slam the door on the way out. If they don't or can't bring it up to me, there's nothing I can do about it. More shrug.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Clinton R Nixon
As far as other people seeing GNS proponents as a cult, I'll be blunt here, even though I've tried my hardest until now not to:
Most of the arguments I see are nothing more than unbridled anti-intellectual claptrap of the worst sort, and therefore have little to no relevance to me.
I've seen this. One such comment is that those who dabble in RPG theory don't actually game.
This hits home for me since I don't get to game because of my work schedule. But then, I'm in no hurry to join up with my old group since I am simply not excited about playing D&D anymore. Add to that my own cowardace in trying to find a new group, and there you go. I should remedy that.
BTW, where are these Robin's Laws?
Quote
Here's my deal on the Cult thing.
Hey, just to re-interate, I'm not saying the Forge is a Cult, or blasting anyone here. I'm just saying, for an outside observer with neither the time or inclination (sp?) to look deeper, GNS has many cult-like elements.
With that said, I think the barrier for entry to the Forge would be cut significantly by either a glossary or a set of examples to get people up to speed. I know better examples in the essay would have helped me immensely, but I think mini-essays from others (like say, on one or two topics to give them better clarity, instead of attacking the whole enchilada at once) would be better than making the GNS essay longer and denser.
And maybe essays on what makes a rule G, N or S; or how to apply G, N or S thinking to rules design.
Steve
"One such comment is that those who dabble in RPG theory don't actually game."
That's the only argument I've seen that has any validity - if reworded to "Those that don't game and dabble in RPG theory are only engaging in intellectual exercise and not actually testing their thoughts."
I've seen this argument quite a few times, and I have to say: I don't get it either. Maybe these people are talking to misguided GNS numb-skulls that don't game. As for here - Ron games 2-3 times a week, I game 1-2 times a week, Dav games, Mike Holmes and Ralph Mazza game - I don't know many people here that don't game.
You should find a group, Jack. I don't see a location in your profile. Put one up - there might be some Forgers around.
(Off-topic: Robin's Laws refers to Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, a 32-page booklet printed by Steve Jackson Games (yeah, I know) that I personally feel is mostly stuff we've covered here, with a few nuggets of pure, unadulterated genius that were well worth the $8 I paid for it.)
QuoteAnyway - this is my big beef with GNS opponents. I've said this on other sites, and I will publicly here now. I think GNS is a moderately useful tool, that when combined with other tools, can make a better gaming experience. I don't think it's the end-all-be-all Way of RPGs, and I think people spend entirely too much time debating it instead of playing games.
I second that.
I don't debate GNS, I occassionally show up, say my bit, and bow out. I come, see what's worth using in my next game/design, and leave. I don't care about the terminology, its useful as a means of communication, and not a holy writ to me in any way. I don't think it needs defending in any fashion, Ron is far more the scholar and can put down his views as he sees fit.
The only thing Ron has said that I hold up is,"Story Now!"... that's it. And that's not GNS, its just a good goal.
To clarify what I said on a different thread, we're here to talk about gaming, or design for gaming. Theory, terminology, etc, are just tools for those two activities. Let's not forget that.
Chris
Quote from: Ron EdwardsDogmatism is the quality that some have indicated - the inability to think beyond one's own parameters, or to change views in the face of valid counterargument. This cannot be applied to me in any way - the instances of changes in my views are legion, most especially and importantly the concept of Exploration in my thinking about role-playing. What matters is that I acknowledge these influences and changes, which I do, in writing. To ignore my acknowledgments' existence, and then to use that "absence" as evidence that I am resist being influenced by counter-argument, is an astonishing act of self-delusion.
I imagine that some of the problems stem from the fact that your two essays have not been updated. One can't wade through the Forge looking for every Ron post with an update to the theory. In fact any thread elsewhere always brings out the call to read your original articles.
The point which surfaces here is that although the theory may have changed based on what others have said, you always acknowledge your sources, the final arbiter of GNS is still recognised as Ron Edwards.
When GNS is debated elsewhere the rallying cry is always go back to "Ron's essay". One, well me at least, is presented with the mental picture of people going back to "Ron's essay" and being duly converted to GNS. Emerging as little Rons to carry on the good work.
If perhaps they could say "look at Ron's essay here, Valamir's take on it here, then see Fang's objections with his take on simulationism, then the sort of thing that John Kim mentions and finally the state of affairs at rec.gaming.advocacy" then I think GNS would be all the stronger for it. After all, one common view of theories is that they are only to be accepted as such if the means of their possible falsification is also presented.
Finally I don't think anyone has ever been "treated like shit at the Forge" that I can recall in my limited experience. There's perhaps some debate over whether some people at the Forge in one thread looked on others (i.e. RPGnet) with some degree of condescension because they do things differently there. However I don't think that such a debate is useful however galling it may have been to some (primarily me).
[On that kind of recommendation, I'm off to by Robin's Laws tomorrow.]
QuoteFinally I don't think anyone has ever been "treated like shit at the Forge" that I can recall in my limited experience.
Just so this issue is clear - there are people who (wrongly, IMO) do feel that they were treated like shit. I've had personal correspondences with 'em, and they can be VERY insistent and persistent in their claims that the Forge done 'em wrong.
Gordon
Hi there,
I'll back Gordon up on this one - I am aware of a solid dozen individuals, if not more, who are best described as "Forge self-exiles." My comments in my previous post are based on these actual people, not some hypothetical case. My comments about their behavior stand in full.
One final point on this "cult" horse-puckey. I am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."
These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.
Best,
Ron
Send... more... converts.
Seriously, though. A cult? "Cult-like behavior?" Give me a break. That's hyperbole that borders on hysteria IMO. Folks who post here aren't robots. Ron gets respect on the boards here because he's a fuckin' smart guy who happens to have articulated something that resonates with a lot of us. That be it, though. A lot of individuals besides Ron post here, people on whose brain activity you could warm your hands on a chilly night, and that's one thing I love about this site. You want intelligent discussion without flame or pointless OT burbling, you're at the right place. You'll find little tolerance for either of the two behaviors I've just cited, though some people take the firm intervention of the moderators as unfriendly. People here disagree with Ron on a regular basis, disagreements that often lead to interesting debates, and I've witnessed the shift in Ron's thinking on issues as a result. He and Clinton and Mike and Paul and Fang and a bunch of others provide leadership, whether or not they all agree with each other, and it's fun to watch the thinking evolve.
Is there jargon? Sure. How can there not be? The community's been at it for over a year just here at the Forge, not counting the years at GO and elsewhere. Should there be a simple one-page intro to GNS and a glossary to wean people onto the larger essays and the details of model-speak? I think so. I've raised that idea here myself, back in the mists of time. If someone posts with incomplete understanding of GNS, we'll likely steer them to the essays if only because it's easier and less wearying than running through explanations yet again. If someone posts a ton of sweeping generalizations that indicate they haven't read or have misread the model, they'll get comments to that effect. Does all this separately or together constitute cult-like behavior? I hardly think so. I mean, I could throw together a proof for my argument, cite chapter and verse, toss out analogies and examples of real-world cults and cult psychology, dissect the "cult" accusation's logic to death -- but come on, it's ridiculous. Drop this cult thing, 'K? The real issue is that the Forge hosts such highly intellectual and analytical discussion with so much history behind it that newcomers have a lot to catch up on, and thus far, no one has provided the primer to make that orientation less daunting. Ron wrote the essays that are up on the site. Hence it's easy to point to them as "Ron's essays."
Whoops. I'm moving into full attorney-scenting-an-argument mode, which is not where I want to be right now. Mini-rant over. Time to go throw roses at Ron's forty-five gold Rolls Royces or something.
Oh, and welcome to the Forge. ;-)
Best,
Blake
Quote from: Blake Hutchins
A lot of individuals besides Ron post here.
Well, I'm not one of them.
Heh, just proved my non-cult status by breaking one of Ron's cardinal rules about not allowing Monty Python references. I expect that this message will be expunged in the morning by the cult whip, Clinton. Hey, Ron, yer indie site needs a PR man to clean up it's image.
"Irony, it's so...ironic." --William Shattener
Mike
Half my post disappeared, I guess that's some kind of omen. What I was saying is something about a contradiction in this but who cares. I'll get back to RPGnet and not bother you again.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."
These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.
[/i]
Sigh.
And no attempt whatsoever to say, "Ron, you're the content moderator dude at the Forge, and I think I'm being mistreated." No dialogue. No attempt to find common ground. No reflection on point A from you, then point B from others, and then how B relates to A.
Paraphrase: "They disagree with me, so I must not be welcome."
Amazing, isn't it?
Best,
Ron
P.S. Clinton does not delete messages except for double-posts and other glitches. All message-deletions have been performed by their authors, or with the permission of their authors. [Clinton, if I'm over-stating this, then correct me in Site Discussion.]
Quote from: Ron Edwards
One final point on this "cult" horse-puckey. I am seeing a lot of posts that use phrases like, "... this presents to me the mental image," or, "... it makes me feel like ..."
These phrases have no power. To me, they negate any and all other content in the sentences they occupy. Such reactions are construction and projection on the part of the viewer. If a person constructs an image of zombie-like adherents to Ron-ness or GNS-ness, in the defiance of all evidence, and in the absence of any attempt on their part to investigate further, that does not constitute any obligation on my part.
Ron, I think it's a dangerous behavior to dismiss human emotions as you have here.
I see it, rightly or wrongly, like this: you're a smart, logical fellow. Heck, you're the paragon of logic -- you're a professional scientist, and you borrow terminology from the world of science eagerly. You call 'em like you see 'em, and make no bones about it. That's well and good. I generally like that approach; there's no confusion, no bullshit.
However, this approach can obviously be off putting, particularly to Forge newbies, as we've seen folks miss cues and get riled up. They sometimes take offense.
Should they? No. They should take the time to understand what's going on here, just as you've suggested. They're likely to find a lot of very useful, constructive discussion and enough diversity to satify their needs.
Is it a normal, human reaction? "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes."
Now, I know, Ron, that you're a guy that understands the human condition very well. Hell, you're renown in this industry for a friggin' game famous for its
Humanity. You "get it," clearly.
But from my perspective, it appears that sometimes we (we being "the Forge") just don't have time or aren't interested in taking those human conditions into account. If folks new to the Forge don't see the logic and reason for your comments, or if they're blinded by emotion, you have little time or patience for their understanding.
I can't say I blame you or any Forge regulars for that. Who does have time for every schmoe that comes along ranting about the evils of being "labeled" or some such?
However, what I think we do have time for here at the Forge is two things"
1) Acknowledgement that the Forge is not a symposium, it's a community. This is where I may meet some disagreement, particulary from our two fearless administrators/leaders/whatever. I don't mean to say that Ron and Clinton shouldn't be strict custodians of the Forge's content. Staying on topic makes the Forge the best discussion around. What I
do mean to say is that this place is becoming more and more an emotionally valuable place to it's members. Too often, I think we diminish the value of human emotion and comraderie in discussions here, and the result is the occasional lost soul and the denial that we're becoming, for better or worse, an emotional community as well as an intellectual one.
2) Acknowledgement that Forge members need to do a better job of fostering a welcoming environment to fresh faces. It's not just explaning the GNS essay or clarifying what they might see as arcane terminology. It's that we should do a better job overall of what amounts to goodwill and public relations. There
is a reason we should be doing a better job of breaking down the image that the Forge is an insular, fringe element of RPG community at large. It's because if we don't do that, then not only will those folks be missing out, but we'll be missing out on their valuable input.
How do I know? Because as of 5 or 6 months ago, I thought the Forge was indeed an insular, fringe element, and a pox on its house. I couldnn't see the use in coming here until people I respected (who aren't Forge regulars) said it's worth a second look. Obviously, my perception has changed. It took a long time. Too long. I might just have easily said fuck it.
But in the end, I stuck around, and the benefits are legion. This is a
very useful site to me. What's more, it's an emotionally rewarding place to be, too. Nearly every day, I think about how I'm looking forward to GenCon so I can see again in person the folks I respect and admire here. I can only hope my contributions have helped others here as well.
Ron: In the end, I'm really glad I
did stick around. You've never meant me any ill will, and I realize that now. You might have had a hard time convincing me otherwise when we disagreed about things here or on the Target Audience list. It just took me a while to figure out how you communicate. In the end, I think -- hell, I know -- you're above all a decent person who's is interested in what people have to say.
I think it's that communication 'learning curve' that drives some folks to see us in a wrong-headed way.
Here's to the Forge. Cheers.
Matt
Great post, Matt. I have a big response.
The learning curve you refer to is real. I think it's always going to be there, given the intellectual standards that we all want to maintain (if I'm not mistaken). I also think that by definition, it will be too steep for some, usually on an emotional basis, as you describe.
Now for the next question: by and large, as a general phenomenon, is it too steep? Too steep for Bob or not to steep for Mary is not the issue; I'm talking about the general picture, which is the only thing we can base policy on.
I'm willing to accept that we should all try to keep the curve from becoming unnecessarily steep. I don't see that the general behavior here, mine or others, is pushing in that unnecessary direction.
One nuance: take a look at Brad's posts in Indie Game Design, or Cynthia's when she first joined, or any number of other people who have arrived with concrete issues to discuss. I argue that they have all received far more welcome and instant camaraderie than they might find anywhere else, about the issues they raise. People take the time to say "welcome," and to bring up food for thought, whether it involves my essay or not. No one is dismissed because they are unfamiliar with GNS or because they (for instance) start with a dice mechanics issue instead of, say, Premise.
Now check out those posts which begin with furious disagreement, and you will still find that spirit of welcome - see Mads Jakobsen's Gamism thread, and you will find a variety of responses that take his points seriously. The problem occurred when it became clear that he could or would not acknowledge or deal with valid responses; more properly, I should say "his" problem, not ours.
I appreciate your discussion of how you came to be more comfortable at the Forge, specifically in terms of dealing with me. I'd like to point out that it is, ultimately, a story about you, and to me it has a happy, acceptable, and comfortable ending. I rather like the fact that you had to do some self-reflection and examine your goals and your comfort levels.
I rather like the fact that people who cannot do these things do not remain active at the Forge. I don't see the extremity of their responses as being any indication of a problem.
In conclusion, I don't see any reason to say, "Oh no, we have to change our ways" in any really big way. Simultaneously, I do agree with you that all our efforts should be focused on making the learning curve be about the right things, and on keeping it from being unnecessarily steep.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron Edwards
In conclusion, I don't see any reason to say, "Oh no, we have to change our ways" in any really big way. Simultaneously, I do agree with you that all our efforts should be focused on making the learning curve be about the right things, and on keeping it from being unnecessarily steep.
Best,
Ron
Ron, you've made an absolutely fair and astute reply. You cited good examples of newbies being welcomed. It's funny, because I was just chatting with Cynthia when I posted this and thought of her as an example of someone who found a "happy homecoming."
I think it's a fair assessment to say we don't really need to change our ways as much as keep a watchful eye on the "learnign curve." I guess what I was suggesting is just that. What I suggested is a subtle, , even "touchy-feely" empathy that's hard to quantify. Just recommending that we'd all benefit from
more goodwill here.
So, I guess that makes this a "me too" reply to your reply! I'll leave it at that.
Thanks for responding so quickly and genuinely.
As always, have a good one!
Well, all this cult talk has got me thinking, and it's beginning to make sense.
My renewal membership just arrived for my Cult of Arabic Numerals, and I'm thinking I might not re-up.
Also, at last week's meeting of Cult of the Roman Alphabet, I thought, "Why am I being warped by this convention of writing pushed on me by stranger when I was a youth? To hell with using shared symbols just cause it's convenient, I'm out of here!"
And finally, since a lot of people get confused by terms like RPG, PC, OOC, d20 and don't even get the whole idea of role playing games, I realized, THIS IS A CULT TOO!
For the love of god, I ask you to burn your books, stop speaking with concerns for grammer, do not spell check anymore, and drive on any old darn side of the road you want. Save your souls! Stop using convention as a CRUTCH! The Department of Motor Vehicles is coming for you too! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been almost life-threatening ill for three weeks, and still in recovery but returned to forums and my day job last Monday. So I missed the beginning of the Interesting Times that have happened regarding GNS and RPGNet and the Forge. I'm not going to go back and read it all from the beginning, but just add in a comment regarding what I've skimmed through.
I like GNS. I think its a good tool. I like Ron Edwards; he's been overwhelmingly friendly and helpful to me. So have several other longtime Forgers. There are also other good tools out there. Ultimately, as game designers, GMs, and players, we have to ask ourselves if we are feeling fufilled and successful with our endeavors. If the answer is no, and we look to GNS for some help, and are able to successfully apply it, then its been valuable.
I have always held out that while GNS is enormously useful, it only covers part of the issues on why games break down. Faulty interpersonal dynamics between game-players (including the GM as game-player) is, in my opinion, the #1 reason games fail. Its also the reason why game *communities* break down, or create factions. GNS cannot and does not deal with this kind of issue, which goes beyond stances and goals although they might be part of the conflicts.
Faulty interpersonal dynamics lead to flame wars on forums too :) And I believe that its actually by looking at why game-players have such difficulty communicating in forums and related environments that really gets into the heart of why games fail, more than GNS by itself. The rivalries, name-calling, heated conflicts, incoherent communication, miscommunication, jealousies, bitterness, confusion, competition, different styles of communication, subjective points of view, old players leaving/new players coming, etc., are really the exact same fundamental problems that cause the failure of most game sessions that fail.
Laurel
Jeez, do I feel dopey for being all goofy now.
Quote from: Christopher KubasikJeez, do I feel dopey for being all goofy now.
No way! Goofiness is one of the best ways to release tension and remind people of life's priorities :)
Matt did raise some entirely valid issues, and I have to agree that when I was new to the Forge I witnessed behavior (not directed at me as I recall) that I interpreted in much the same way as he did.
No matter how much we'd like to think otherwise perceptions do matter and are often based on reactions that have little to do with logic. While we may not overly worry about an individual who storms out in a huff, I do somewhat worry about the reputation about the Forge he spreads. Not so much because I care about reputation directly, but more as a concern of how many people who do have valuable contributions to make who don't bother coming here because of that reputation (unfair as it is).
That said, I think the Forge members today make a much greater and more successful effort to welcome people here than 8-10 months ago, so I don't think there is any real need to launch a major "kinder gentler Forge" initiative. As long as we all continue to be aware of that the impression we give while saying something is as important to fashioning perceptions as what we actually say, I think we've done everything we can reasonably do.
After all, to be perfectly blunt about it, I'm not willing to see the quality of discussion at the Forge suffer in order to cater to an open base of posters. RPG.Net is a very public type forum, they welcome all and sundry who care to post. While I appreciate the egalitarian nature of it, it is a set-up guarenteed to to generate alot of noise.
The Forge adhers to higher standards. We expect our posters to actually be contributors. And sometimes that will mean, in the words of the Immortal Henry Higgins, that we need to "Throw the baggage out!". Or more precisely, let the baggage throw themselves out.
I find myself adhering to this idea elsewhere on the internet as well. Where one time I had joined 5 or 6 mailing lists, I am now down to one. And that one is an invitation only list dedicated to Science Fiction Conflict Simulations (aka space games) and is filled with more astrophysicists and Defense Department research gurus than you can shake a stick at. The atmosphere on the list is very similiar to the atmosphere here, and I find its an atmosphere I like.
As I get older I find that I'd rather eat at Mortons than McDonalds.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsSigh.
And no attempt whatsoever to say, "Ron, you're the content moderator dude at the Forge, and I think I'm being mistreated." No dialogue. No attempt to find common ground. No reflection on point A from you, then point B from others, and then how B relates to A.
Paraphrase: "They disagree with me, so I must not be welcome."
Amazing, isn't it?
Best,
Ron
P.S. Clinton does not delete messages except for double-posts and other glitches. All message-deletions have been performed by their authors, or with the permission of their authors. [Clinton, if I'm over-stating this, then correct me in Site Discussion.]
OK, there was perhaps some petulence on my part but half my post had been deleted. I never suggested that it had been done on purpose. Although the syntax was technically correct, the forum software objected to the mixing of HTML and BBCode and deleted everything after the quote. I entered the text at the top in desperation after seeing what a hash it had made of my post.
But, and I think this is a pretty big but, I have been trying to engage you in discussion. You fobbed me off with a pretty poor excuse and I didn't see that I was going to get a better explanation by another means.
I thought I'd better leave it there. If you fancy trying to reach some middle ground send me a private mail. If you don't see that I have any grounds for complaint, then please delete my account from The Forge.
All the best,
GB Steve
Hey,
I have taken my discussion to private mail with Steve, if he desires to continue.
I do have some public observations to make about his last post.
1) Note the contradiction - he is willing to try to reach a middle ground, but only if he is agreed with.
2) Note the ultimatum - I (or whoever) is to agree with him that he is badly treated here, or else.
3) Note the unnecessary quality of the threat - if this issue were strictly about his comfort, all he need do is leave. What matters to him, evidenced by the use of that thread, is to make Forge members "feel bad."
#1-3 cannot be explained except in terms of the emotional need to strike back at a perceived slight (without any double-check to see whether there was indeed a slight). They were phrased grammatically and with decent vocabulary, but their content is precisely equivalent to a tearful "Fuck you!" and a slamming door.
As such, I consider them flames (see the thread in Site Discussion in which I define flaming at the Forge; it ain't the typical definition). I consider flames infantile. My solution to infantile things is to ignore them.
As I said, I've accepted Steve's invite to private discussion.
Best,
Ron[/i]