"Realism" and "GM" threads in RPG Theory

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I call everyone's attention to these threads: Realism in RPGs and There is only players in RPG. We have a community issue to discuss which hasn't come up for a while, and back then, the active Forge community numbered in the double digits.

In each thread, a newcomer to the Forge posted. In each thread, the topic was perfectly appropriate for the forum and backed up by a lot of thought and preparation. I don't think either poster did a lot of lurking at the Forge first, but could be wrong about that. In each thread, responders really wanted to enter into discussing the issue and, in my view, did so with a lot of good points. But in each case, the posting person got mad and ended with insults, defiance, and resentment.

Why?

Because, my friends, the Forge community did let them down. The people who responded to these threads in the first page of posts made a mistake based on what you're used to here in terms of raw volume of response. Here at the Forge, quick multiple participation is like a spontaneous symposium. It's a statement of support for the thread-initiator and an attempt to seed the discussion with as much fertile material as possible. We know that an initial post is, however assertive, ultimately a suggestion or starting point, and a call for comparative views. We know that a "conclusion" isn't really going to happen for a while.

The mistake is thinking that a person who arrives will be in the same mind-set. Across most of the internet, discussions about ideas are handled like bear-pits, in which the bear enters voluntarily. "Here's my idea - and see who can shoot it down." Whatever gets posted in response, unless it is complete agreement phrased in no uncertain terms, is a shot. Bat away the shot. Here comes another one! Bat it away.Two at once? Ha! Bat-bat!

When possible, break the shots into mini-shots (line-by-line response). Beware partial agreement as like a knuckle ball; fall for it, and it'll whack you, and the pitcher will win. Ignore partial agreement and bat even harder. When more people participate, post faster - they're trying to gang up on you. If someone tries to end-run you with some kind of discussion of the way you're interacting, it just means they can't take you down and are trying to cheat. Call them on it, and keep swinging. Protest interference by the moderator, who almost certainly is merely the biggest bully, and all bullies need defying. Don't get pushed around, or maneuvered to do so by what looks like an agreement.

No one can be criticized for arriving at the Forge with such an approach - it's too well entrenched into internet interactions at this point. When this person posts, and when a flood of responses hits, it's bear-time in their mind. There is no negotiating. We can't expect people to be "different" a priori, so the problem lies with the flood of response in the first place. Or rather, it's the stimulus that we can prevent.

I recognize that the multiple responses were intended as the best kind of Forge-like participation, which as I said above, represents at its base a support for the thread-initiator. But in many cases, it is startling and stimulates the bear-pit response.

I suggest that we all take a moment to evaluate a new poster, especially one opening with a strong point in RPG Theory. First of all, is there some passion and possibly anger in what they've presented? It's easy to see when it's there - and even easier to understand. People who have strong points to make about "realism" or "what is a GM" have almost certainly faced social censure and aggrieved in-game disruptions for years. They're already scarred. They almost certainly do not have a clear idea of what they want from the audience, except to be heard. A nuance must be a disagreement; disagreement must mean I'm not being heard. Second, are you interested in responding in terms of point or presentation? The poster is not going to like hearing, "I agree, but here's another way to say it." That is tantamount to stealing away his ownership of the topic, which as I say, I expect that in most cases was hard-hewn in the teeth of bitter and abusive responses in the first place.

When the answers to these evaluations seem problematic, then treat the post like a fly ball. Let someone take it, or maybe a couple of someones. Yield in favor of people who've shown the ability to handle potentially-explosive topics before, which may mean writing your response in a word-processing file and saving it for revision and posting later. Let the discussion go for a page or so, and see whether the person's goals can be met at all. They won't feel ganged up on by one or two people, and with any luck, won't get into bear-pit mode, and then the Forge-ish discussion can begin.

Best,
Ron

[Drifter Bob]

I apologize for posting after you had closed the thread, but I didn't realise that you were the moderator.  

I read your description of what you felt was happening in that thread, but I didn't see it the same way.  I admit I didn't lurk for long before posting, I actually just came to the forge to post a link to that article on the Riddle of Steel forum, (where I got a slightly less hostile response) and noticed an rpg theory forum, which I thought might also be appropriate. Maybe things would have gone smoother if I had lurked first.

I was surprised by the volume of posters, but I did not necessarily assume that all would be attacks.  Initially, I think it was about 50 -50 either supportive or partially supportive, versus what seemed to be very hostile rejections.  As the discussion went on all the posters seemed to get more and more openly hostile.

My irritation level went up because I honestly felt, and still feel, that as the discussion went on, the majority of people who were responding to my post, to the link to my article, were missing the point.  I tried to explain what the article was about carefully (albiet, perhaps not in the most diplomatic of language, never my forte) but nobody seemed to get it.  

Several respondants were blatantly hostile and many repeated questions that had already been posted by others and carefully addressed by myself(like the Tolkein thing, over and over, or the comlexity versus realism straw dog).   I'm unfamiliar with this forum but I'm not a stupid  person, and I read the responses carefully.  Some of them said "your tone was bad but the point has some value", which I took to heart, I admitted a few times that my tone was too sarcastic.  

But a lot of them were just off on a tangent.  "Realism is irrelevent to rpg's"  or "Realism is complexity".   I never wanted to argue the point of whether realism, or especially complexity, needed to be part of role playing games.  As far as I'm concerned some basis in realism simply IS part of most role playing games, at least those which are not strongly based in some literary or other genre... the question is whether the basis is fairly clear and true to life, or it's muddled and derivative of earlier games.  

Anyway, I don't mean to re-open the issue, but I just wanted to make the point, I honestly feel that most of the respondants in that thread did not get it, thats why I felt compelled to continue to answer, to try to make it clear.  Maybe the problem was excacerbated by my admittedly sarcastic tone, I don't know what the tone of the usual discussions in here are like.  But it wasn't purely the dynamic you described, at least not from my perspective.

JR

[Ron Edwards]

Hi JR,

I hear ya. The thread was part of a trend, which included some threads that were subtly different from one another. So yes, I don't see you (insofar as you care what I think) as precisely the fellow I described above.

The issue of whether you received a hostile response at all, or to what extent "not being heard" can be parsed from "hostile," isn't really something that can be dissected. Not on-line certainly; the medium really sucks in a lot of ways.

Cut a deal with you, if you're willing. Check out some threads around and about the Forge. Do a search on things that interest you - "realism," maybe, or what-have-you. If you'd like, check out some of the reviews or articles. Then, do a recap on the realism issue as you see it, specifically for combat, specifically for game-experiences that place value on it (as a given). This new thread will definitely be different.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I have no idea why my tone in this post approaches some sort of "American tough guy" western talk. Maybe the username "Drifter Bob" inspired it. Weird.

[Marco]

When the answers to these evaluations seem problematic, then treat the post like a fly ball. Let someone take it, or maybe a couple of someones. Yield in favor of people who've shown the ability to handle potentially-explosive topics before, which may mean writing your response in a word-processing file and saving it for revision and posting later. Let the discussion go for a page or so, and see whether the person's goals can be met at all. They won't feel ganged up on by one or two people, and with any luck, won't get into bear-pit mode, and then the Forge-ish discussion can begin.

Best,
Ron

Hello,

I don't think this is a clear course of action as written. I don't know who these explosive-topic-handlin' people are or if I'm one of them (probably not, I'm guessing--but how do I know?--and honestly, while I hold, what I think are some minority views here, I didn't really have strong disagreement with RJ's article and I felt that the "GM is an empowered player" thread was just a bit too narrow--so while I don't think I'm in anyone's diplomacy club, I didn't think I flamed either of the posters--they might disagree--and again, how do I know).

On the other hand, I do know when I'm posting in one of two modes:

1. Engaged intellectual *debate*--with specific intent to win--vs. simply exploration of a topic (or a post in support of an idea I agree with)*
2. Angry/insulted.

I submit that most people who post here frequently have the requsite introspection to know they're doing that too.

I think those two modes are very unwelcoming (and the first shifts to the second very quickly--if the follow up poster doesn't feel "heard"--which, partly due to the medium happens, oh, say, almost freaking always.)

My suggestion would to lay off either of those two modes with a new poster (which, I hadn't thought of, but would've softened my response in the GM-empowered-player thread) and engage in straight up "exploration/tell us more/here are some threads about it" interaction.

-Marco
* And I think making analogies RPGs is a sign of this--argument by analogy is tricky at best--and since the analogy breaks down somewhere, when I see myself doing it, I usually find it's an attempt to be clever vs. an attempt to be honestly convincing. Which is why I've more or less given up doing it.

Edited: I said it's not a 'working response'--but that's not right--it probably is if everyone's clearer on where they stand than I am.

[Ron Edwards]

Good call, Marco. That's the "internal" side of evaluating the thread and one's participation in it. I tend to think more from the social-dynamic side, by preference, but your phrasing/perspective is perhaps more accessible.

As for "knowing" whether one is a member of the Anointed Few who are Chosen to deal with such posts ... let me clarify my point above to get rid of that notion entirely. To everyone: the real point is when a couple of people have already posted to respond, then wait. But if you're first up (closest to the fly ball, so to speak), just keep the issues in mind. Phrase those issues either as I have, or as Marco has, to suit yourself.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

Is there anything to be gained for those of us who weren't paying attention to either of those threads by looking at it? In terms of this issue...

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Dunno. That's up to you to decide, I guess. None of the points raised by anyone in the threads were, themselves, invalid as topics or issues. It's not as if I locked them, after all.

Best,
Ron

[Merova]

Hi all!

I'd like to thank Ron for posting this thread. I've also noticed the situation described above. A novice shows up with obviously intense concerns, and emotes it with passion. Then the community responds like volleyball players receiving a "set up." Usually, it's full of good intentions and helpful advice, but it still reads like a "spike."

I feel that letting the first person or so "field" the issue is a good idea. If the idea is something of great personal interest, you can still discuss it later, when the new poster has adjusted to Forge-style discussion.

Again, thanks to Ron for encouraging considerate behavior on the site.

Thanks for reading.

---Olivia Woodward

[Drifter Bob]

thanks for all the interesting commentary on the thread, I will revisit the subject when the second half of my article comes out.

Meanwhile, the conversation has continued on the riddle of steel sub-forum and I think I now understand better where some of the confusion was coming from.  One of the problems I think is that I wasn't very aware of the current milieux of independent rpgs (my article was more directed toward mainstream ones) and in particular, some of the currents of thought which have directed the development of a lot of new games, as well as the overall mood in here.  I feel that we (me and y'all) are approaching a similar problem from different directions.  Ultimately we should be able to both inform each other, though it may take a bit of patience.

JR