There is a very strong "our way or the highway" vibe at the Forge, and I don't like it particularly, mostly because I think it alienates new people. I've had a couple of friends who are articulate and have a lot to offer on RPG theory (some of whom dart in and out of particular game forums), say that they do not post because they don't feel that anyone will listen to them.
The below quote, to me, really sums this up.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7158&highlight=

I don't mean any offence to the two gentlemen quoted below, it was just something that happened to catch my eye.

Andrew Martin wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I'd suspect that something is like non-physical sadism and masochism or dominance and submission games.

This is your world, and you really can interact with it how you want (barring restrictions from the system and other participants.)

Cadriel wrote:
What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting. In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it. I used to be a major fan of RPG settings; there was a time when, indeed, Exploration of Setting jazzed me as much as it seems to do for you.

Hi Ben,

Thanks for bringing up an excellent point regarding dealing with dysfunction in play. For the Forge, or any other form of discusssion to work, we can't shut down willingness to talk about the issues in order to work them out.

I agree with you that no one should have to learn any form of theory to enjoy roleplaying, although I find that much of the theory here is a result of trying to identify that which is blocking fun or hindering enjoyment, develop a vocabulary to analyze it, and then go from there.

What I think some folks are confusing, to a great degree, is that people can play with differing GNS goals, and have no idea about what GNS is, and still have functional play. The key point to making this work, is that the folks with their different goals can't step on each others' toes, and must not fight over power on "where to take the game". This sort of stuff pans out through luck, trial and error, more than conscious decision, especially since so many folks are ill-equipped to understand what's going on or to verbalize it.

GNS basically says, "Let's lay these cards on the table, so we don't have to learn a new dance in the dark and hope it works out...".

The reason so many folks come to the point of "take it or leave it" is that its usually assumed that the person with issues will at least try to communicate to the group what they want, have problems with, etc. If this has been done, and the group(or problem people) refuse to listen, or dialogue, then there's not really much more to be done. Of course, if anyone figures out a tried and true method of communicating to those who cannot or will not listen, then they need to get a job as a peace negotiator ASAP.

Of course, you can play with groups with minor communication issues, etc. I think the question is at what level problems are cropping up, and how big of an issue they represent. Obviously, small things that everyone can let slide means, "We can all play". Stuff like where folks throw fits, emotional manipulation, bullying, ego posturing, etc., that's where the fun stops...

Chris

I agree with the last idea - I have ONE 'Prime Directive' for 'fun' - if what you're doing is no longer fun, then there's no point to do it, for a hobby or entertainment. I played Magic the Gathering for YEARS, with friends (we all play at once, in battle royals, like 4-6 people) but the last year or so, just more editions come out, we play, everyone does the same thing, people get upset (half jokingly), counter each other's spells, I use pestilence on all of us until someone kills me or I kill everyone... it just got old and I don't want to use the other decks, etc so I basically retired from Magic. I play when my friends come over, 2-4 games usually, then put my stuff up; I fulfill my obligation and enjoy their company but then I'm done and ready to go on to something else, talking to them, etc.

Same for rpgs, especially where dysfunction is concerned. We've had varying levels of dysfunction, from party 'tension' to two members of the group who would take every opportunity, regardless of game or character types, to kill the other player's character. THAT was irritating. Eventually we all just sort of stopped, adventures weren't going anywhere, players were still a bit tense, players decided they had better things to do...

The bad thing is, you can TELL players are unhappy, but you can't even ASK them, outright, WHY or whats wrong. Because, like other things in life, they may NOT KNOW. The referee and me both took one player aside, who is also our best friend, and talked to him, numerous times, more than one day in a week, and it was like pulling horse teeth - getting HIM to realize WHY he played the way he did, AND to be able to TELL US - sometimes, you don't have that luxury and closeness with players - thats where hard decisions have to be made.

And about the GNS stuff, I look at it most akin to astrology - I think there's validity in it and it DOES account for or classify things pretty well overall, but you don't HAVE to use it; common sense works just as well, but its funny to apply it and see how much it DOES still coincide with your own judgment. Heh.

Cadriel wrote:

This is your world, and you really can interact with it how you want (barring restrictions from the system and other participants.)

What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting. In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it.

he wrote:
But we need to draw a distinction between socially dysfunctional and theoretically dysfunctional. The first is a mess, but the second can often be quite fun, and just means that we don't know how fun it is, or how the fun is achieved, until a more detailed analysis.

Is there any controversy here? I don't think so. Ben, we only advocate that designers understand theory to make better (and not neccessarily the best) games than they would otherwise. So that players don't have to know it to fix games that might require it. Given a group that has no problems, then no theory needed, right?

Ben's friends, whoever you are, post freely. If anyone treats you improperly, then see me, and I'll personally club em for you (I'm not a moderator, but I post a lot). Do you have some opinion that might be seen to be unpopular? Well, then please do post. Because we can't learn anything unless we test our own assumptions.

OTOH, Ben, I hope you and your friends don't take disagreement to be unfriendliness. We debate here. That means that if someone thinks that you're wrong, they'll tell you so. That doesn't mean that they don't like you (hey, I like Marco no matter how much I disagree with him), it means that they have something to say on the matter as well.

Do things get heated? Occasionally, but I'd say that the standards here are objectively quite high.

Is there some other standard that we ought to operate under? If I'm doing it wrong, for my part, please folks let me know.

As to the rest of your post, your gaming sounds hardly dysfunctional, Ben. So how can you assume that it has anything to do with the people that Andrew might have been describing? Is there somewhere around here that people have been saying that your style is dysfunctional?

Mike

Hi Ben,

On "Our way or the highway" - it would be my hope (and I've seen it happen) that anyone who tried an "our way" approach about IDEAS here on the Forge would be soundly scolded and told we don't tolerate that kind of thing.

If you refer to an "our way" approach about style of discourse - well, I think that does exist, and is intentional. Discussion about whether the IDEA of an "our way" approach to style of discourse is a good thing *is* allowed over in the Site Discussion forum - and adjustments to the style can and do happen as a result - but at a basic level, there is a way that is actively promoted and defended. In theory, that actually ENCOURAGES people to post contrary ideas and know that they will be treated with respect and consideration, so . . .

Contrary (or otherwise) ideas about RPGs are always welcome.

Now, as far as fun and dysfunction go - I see a couple very interesting points in your post, the first of which which I'd phrase this way: fun and dysfunction are not entirely mutually exclusive, and both are scales rather than on/off switches. My guess is that most folks accept these points implicitly, but it is worth making note of them, as it is possible to forget 'em when (e.g.) examining a particular dysfunctional game session, or whatever.

For example, as I look back over my last 10 years or so of gaming, I'd rate my play in two categories: mildly dysfunctional/mildly fun, and fully functional/quite fun.

The second interesting point I see has something to do with deciding how much fun (and presense/absence of function/dysfunction) is "enough." I don't think there's any right answer to that question, but recognizing that these factors are a matter of degree rather than absolutes is an important part of making an individual analysis. For example, one of the games I'm in right now is definitely, unquestionably, a lot of fun, and not dysfunctional in any apparent way. Yet I'm still trying to increase the fun level - why? Well, just because I want to, mostly. Why not? Well, a why not might be because too much talk about improving things might seem like complaints to some folks and thus creep things towards dysfunction, so I better be careful about that part of things.

So - as Mike said, I doubt there's a lot of controversy about fun & dysfunction (hell, I think there's a thread over in the Sorcerer forum about how even a fully dysfunctional relationship can have a purpose and value), but it is interesting (and valuable, IMO) to remind ourselves of some of the complexities here.

Gordon

Ben Lehman wrote: There is a very strong "our way or the highway" vibe at the Forge, and I don't like it particularly, mostly because I think it alienates new people. I've had a couple of friends who are articulate and have a lot to offer on RPG theory (some of whom dart in and out of particular game forums), say that they do not post because they don't feel that anyone will listen to them.

Mike Holmes wrote: So how can you assume that it has anything to do with the people that Andrew might have been describing? Is there somewhere around here that people have been saying that your style is dysfunctional?

Not to start making this sound like a mutual appreciation society, but I think as someone who's only recently "gone regular" here, and who has issues with some parts of GNS, I think I've got soemthing to say here...

Looking at the early parts of my participation with the Laser Shark thread, I think I can say that a fair few of my ideas were shot down. But, looking at who was doing the shooting, and the manner of the shooting, it was all constructive.

I'm starting from the assumption that I'm wrong, but want to find out all the fascinating ways in which I'm wrong!

The intimidating part wasn't the standard replies of "we covered that in this thread," or even "well, your wide generalisation doesn't cover our groups, which incidentally includes most of the industry figures you respect."

The intimidating posts were Bruce and Ron saying "That sounds interesting... go and try it!"