This is my first post on www.indie-rpgs.com in a long time, and likely my last post on PnP rpgs in any forum for the foreseeable future.

I had wanted to see this article for years, and hung around long enough to do.

There are some excellent things in this essay. The concept of ‘Step On Up’ nearly perfectly captures the core of a long misunderstood and often attacked play style. Many of the breakdowns that follow this (such as types of Gamist designs) are insightful and useful. Gamble and Crunch are important concepts as they represent a notable split in Gamist approaches that need to be recognized. The part on dysfunction hits the mark as well.

This article has been a long time in coming, and there is a great deal indeed to admire here.

There are still old ghosts. There’s the lame defense of the Competition term. The article starts off admitting all the negative views of Gamists, and still insists on defending the same word choice that has caused those now derided views for years. The wonderful concept of ‘Step Up” is left as an unintuitive extension to highly negative core image.

For those of a objective mindset, I suppose that it must be pleasant to note that Ron himself, like all people, cling to the same type of inconsistent viewpoints that he criticizes others of (such Michael S. Zody in this article). Not truly understanding their language or goals, he must assume that they are error. And then expresses surprise and outrage when people make the same mistake with him.

Over the years Ron has called so many authors of what he has called Gamist Designs deluded as he did in this article. Over the same years I’ve learn that people generally actually mean what they say- that the fault is normally one of word choice or interpretation by someone. Perhaps more than anything else, this represents the hardest break between us.

It’s a pity that GNS will still enflame the old gamist slams, and that people here will be constantly forced to point this article out to people who have already lost what little patience they have with the old digs and insults. Having lost such patience, it will be a rare one indeed who would bother with such cries for further understanding.

The bitterest game section shows a complete miss in understanding that style, or perhaps an inability on my part to grasp what he is speaking of. Meaning that it is either a misrepresentation of a common and highly successful approach I’ve seen time and time again, or it’s speaking of something I’ve never encounter.



All in all, the positives far outweigh the negatives even if I spent more time on the latter. Perhaps a few more years down the road, it will evolve further.


A note for whoever is interested.

I will not be posting further to this thread. The admins may delete my user account immediately. I’m not looking for a debate, but rather closure.

I’ve exited the online rpg hobby. My website has already been deleted. It would be best to remove all the references to my work found in this article as they point to nothing nor or will shortly. Age of Heroes no longer exists as anything but a set of house rules.

It’s not fun anymore, and the personal attacks are just not worth putting up with. Acts of censorship brought against me wherever I go are unbearable. It’s time to leave.

In this I’m in good company over the years. I was the last of the old guard who spoke against some of the GNS concepts; the field now belongs to the Forge.

I ask that you make the best of an uncontested field, not in expanding what you already own- but in exploring that which you’ve never accepted. A failed request from the start I think, but one I make anyway.


Brian Gleichman
7-3-2003

Brian,

While I can't say I agree with your entire post, thanks for the well-thought-out comments. Posting, and refusing to enter into discourse, though, is against the spirit of the Forge, which is - of course - discussion. It'd be highly appreciated if you'd join in any discussion this thread creates.

H'm. My response? "Thanks for playing."

Best,
Ron

If we're not going to hear from Brian again, I suppose that's his call. However, I know little if anything about Age of Heroes, and now the option to learn more has been removed. I find this irritating but ultimately it's Brian's choice, so whatever. Also, I have no idea what Brian is talking about when he mentions censorship and personal attacks. Somebody wanna clue me in?

Hello,

I am very, very tempted merely to close this thread. Brian's goal was to state his piece, and he did that. Goal done = thread over.

In fact, that's what I'll do.

Ethan, let's skip it over to Site Discussion.

Best,
Ron