Do you believe everything they tell you?

[joe_llama]

Hi,

Em, Paganini, I have a hard time understanding your reply.

I was writing about prejudices in game design, so all of my examples are supposed to be bad examples. Maybe I miseld you to believe they are good examples, or maybe you were just giving your personal opinion in spite of the thread topic.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Paganini]

Jared, are you suggesting that exploration of character and setting are invalid goals?

Yes, he is. Or at the very least that the simple assumption that this sort of play is valid should be examined.

He's just thrown an actual bomb as opposed to my dud. Let's see if it goes off. I personally will do so from a distant bunker, as I am realtively sure that this is just representative of Jared's predelictions in play. But others may begin with the napalm, soon, as this might prove a sensitive topic.

Mike

What the heck are you talking about? Exploration of charcter in setting is why I play! Other than maybe exloration of story or pure gaming is there.

A thread discussing this if there was one would be good.

I could be wrong, but I think what he's talking about is the general assumption by the masses that exploration of character and setting is the only way to role-play. It leads to one-true-wayism. It's why a lot of people dis the arty narrative type games that deal with other things.

[Mike Holmes]

I could be wrong, but I think what he's talking about is the general assumption by the masses that exploration of character and setting is the only way to role-play. It leads to one-true-wayism. It's why a lot of people dis the arty narrative type games that deal with other things.

Interesting theory, but I think you are wrong. That would be too politically correct for Jared. I think he's saying that the assumption that this form of gaming is valid is something that can be challenged. This wouldn't be the first time that he's said things to that effect.

Note, if someone wants to discuss this (and I kinda hope they don't) the right thing to do (IMO) would be to start another thread. This thread is about listing assumptions that people think need to be challenged, not actually challenging them. Any such challenges (or supports for that matter) should probably start new threads. This one would be a mess otherwise.

Mike

[Paganini]

Hi,

Em, Paganini, I have a hard time understanding your reply.

I was writing about prejudices in game design, so all of my examples are supposed to be bad examples. Maybe I miseld you to believe they are good examples, or maybe you were just giving your personal opinion in spite of the thread topic.

Sorry about that. Looking back I see that I was really unclear. Let me reiterate:

In my first post I was explaining why I think that some of the preconceptions you listed actually are valid. In the second post I was offering up my own pet peeve.

Anyway, I think that RPG's are unique and not like other games.
I don't think that RPG's must have a GM.
I think RPG's do need goals.
I think that Collaborative Storytelling is not a game.

Does that help?

[joe_llama]

In my first post I was explaining why I think that some of the preconceptions you listed actually are valid. In the second post I was offering up my own pet peeve.

Anyway, I think that RPG's are unique and not like other games.
I don't think that RPG's must have a GM.
I think RPG's do need goals.
I think that Collaborative Storytelling is not a game.

Does that help?

Thanks, it does help. Now I see that we have different opinions on several subjects. Good, it makes things more interesting :) Sorry, I wish I could elaborate but I'm holding any responses to a bigger thread I'm about to start very soon.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Paganini]

In my first post I was explaining why I think that some of the preconceptions you listed actually are valid. In the second post I was offering up my own pet peeve.

<snippage>

Does that help?

Thanks, it does help. Now I see that we have different opinions on several subjects. Good, it makes things more interesting :) Sorry, I wish I could elaborate but I'm holding any responses to a bigger thread I'm about to start very soon.

Cool! I'll keep an eye out for it. :)

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

I'm actually having a conversation with a guy on the LiveJournal roleplayers community, about this assumption:

"They wouldn't be role-playing games if the purpose of them weren't to play a role."

Joe.

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

With respect, was the purpose of this thread just to _list_ some common truisms and assumptions in gaming?

That feels somewhat pointless. We could group some assumptions together, see how they fit into GNS and so on, but as it is, this thread doesn't feel very productive. It doesn't feel like part of the 'body of work' at The Forge.

Joe.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joe,

You started the thread, so you have a certain amount of authority in determining whether it's meetings its goals and what its parameters are.

I suggest, based on how people are using it (including me), that the thread currently does well merely to identify what the pack of us see as brainwashed/unjustified claims and values about role-playing. There's obviously going to be some diversity.

I think that trying to analyze all the input while, at the same time, people continue to contribute raw material, would be very difficult in the same thread. I suggest that we look at this thread as a kind of "fermenting vat" for people to contribute to, perhaps even vent to.

As time goes by, certain patterns or insights about the issues will emerge, to readers of the thread. I suggest that new threads will spawn off based on these.

Does that work for you? As I said, you have some authority about it.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

err...you mean...Joe as in Joe Llama right?

[Ron Edwards]

Damn!

Ralph, thanks. The two Joes messed me all up.

So, Nadav (he of the Llama), what do you think regarding the fate of the thread?

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Personally, I kind of like this thread. I've been thinking along these lines for a little while now. The purpose is to take some aspect that most people, and by this I'm probably including plenty of Forge member and I am not immune either, think "well, what else?" By singling out such aspect, we can then think of a different way of doing things.

Will this lead to good games? Probably not I would say 999 times out of 1000. But it does encourage thinking differently and allowing RPGs to evolve. That one out of 1000 is worth it IMO.

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Jack,

Absolutely, I can see all sorts of value in this thread. There's obviously something to be said for gathering ones thoughts. And I've learned a lot.

I've been a little irritated recently (recently? ha!) by threads on RPGnet, where so-and-so will spawn a thread that *just* creates dozens of responses. There's no debate. There's no sense that people are listening to each other. There's just 47 responses to an initial question.

I'd quite like to avoid that sort of thing, not that I'm saying that's what we're doing. =)

Back on topic, there's a huge mish-mash of preconceptions people have about the history of gaming, and how the various emphases slot together. Everyone knows D&D started it all off... but did it? How important was the early Glorantha work? What games focused on mood and theme before Vampire's 'Renaissance' popped up?

Joe.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I've been a little irritated recently (recently? ha!) by threads on RPGnet, where so-and-so will spawn a thread that *just* creates dozesns of responses. There's no debate. There's no sense that people are listening to each other. There's just 47 responses to an initial question.

Joe,

You're dead wrong, and here's a 2800 word, line-by-line, out-of-context response to your post to show you exactly how wrong you are... ;)

No, of course you're right. But the problem is, people view forums like here (with the whole exchanging of ideas/views thing) as being "debate." That is, I take Position A and you take Position B and we kind ram heads bighorn sheep-style until one of us is to nauseated to continue.

The only saving grace for me here at Da Forge is the fact that I can say something somewhat...impassioned...and not have people cramming red-hot pokers down my throat screaming "PROVE IT! PRRRROOOVE IT!" like I'm some kind of 16th century astronomer...

- J

[joe_llama]

I agree with you, Ron. This thread accumulates a lot of information in a very small space and allows the uncovering of points that have not yet been thoroughly discussed. I think it should stay this way, and if someone wants a deeper discussion on a specific point he could start a new thread about it.

The problem I see is that the average lifespan of a typical thread is around a week or two. This would eventually mean regression to less productive work. Then again, maybe this thread is just the Forge's monthly or seasonal "venting".

All in all, I like this thread as it is. People post their observed preconceptions and occasionally something pops up as a critical junction in gaming theory. I think this is a very productive activity. It is some sort of catalyst to Forge discussions. On its own, it has very little "meat" but it does lead to a more focused deate.

There is also a secret motive behind this thread. I'm developing a new game design theory and I want to hear opinions other than my own about various theoretical issues. I also want to do that without influencing the discussion with my own theory. Think of it as a cheap way avoid quantum theory :)  Eventually I'll let it out, but for now this gives me an opportunity to hear unbiased opinion on gaming.

With respect,

Joe Llama