|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 17, 2016 18:29:19 GMT -5
Call - and remember that by the time you read this, it may be Tuesday.. In which case, the reverse application applies. I cry "Fowl" (a duck) as you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too (or twice, which would be two ducks). This is no time to quack up, especially as I am holding a possible Royal Fiszbiz in my virtual hand. :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 17, 2016 18:37:38 GMT -5
I cry "Fowl" (a duck) as you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too (or twice, which would be two ducks). This is no time to quack up, especially as I am holding a possible Royal Fiszbiz in my virtual hand. :rolleyes: I thought it was Royal "Fizbin"? Totally confused both me and Spock... |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 17, 2016 19:05:28 GMT -5
Not when I misspell it. (I shall never learn to thumb type!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 17, 2016 21:26:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 21:46:08 GMT -5
From part 3:
"But I'd really, really like to see that our hobby, with it's millions and millions of players all over the world should be recognized as socially relevant."
Well, there you go. I simply don't care, and I suspect only a tiny fraction of one percent even pretend to care. It's a silly hobby about playing dumbass elfgames and it's no more "socially relevant" than model trains.
To quote one E. Gary Gygax, "It's just a stupid game."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 17, 2016 21:49:58 GMT -5
From part 3: "But I'd really, really like to see that our hobby, with it's millions and millions of players all over the world should be recognized as socially relevant." Well, there you go. I simply don't care, and I suspect only a tiny fraction of one percent even pretend to care. It's a silly hobby about playing dumbass elfgames and it's no more "socially relevant" than model trains. To quote one E. Gary Gygax, "It's just a stupid game." I don't understand or see the need for "social relevance", I am not sure what " social relevance" would look like or accomplish. Sell me on the value of "social relevance", how does it make any of our lives better and how does it get more people to my table? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 23:21:03 GMT -5
The mention of model trains was not specious.
I've had the good fortune, thanks to Mr. Bowman who ran the Paint Spot in Lake Geneva, of reading Model Railroader magazine from 1947 to 1970, when I started to subscribe.
For many, many years there was a definite sense of embarrassment about the hobby; letters about being scorned or ridiculed by spouse, friends, or relatives, articles about "how to talk about the hobby," etc. It eventually went away in the mid 80s when, I suspect, a lot of model railroaders finally reached the magical age of "not giving a crap what other people think." Also by the mid 80s was greater tolerance for "outside the norm."
I suspect the whole "social relevance" thing, which I've seen a fair amount online, is related to being embarrassed to play RPGs. I suspect that's where the whole "Roleplaying IS A NARTFORM! A SERIOUS NARTFORM!" thing that I've observed comes from too.
q.v. the story about Robert Louis Stevenson being embarrassed about being discovered playing wargames with his nephew in "Playing at the World."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 1:35:43 GMT -5
From part 3: "But I'd really, really like to see that our hobby, with it's millions and millions of players all over the world should be recognized as socially relevant." Well, there you go. I simply don't care, and I suspect only a tiny fraction of one percent even pretend to care. It's a silly hobby about playing dumbass elfgames and it's no more "socially relevant" than model trains. To quote one E. Gary Gygax, "It's just a stupid game." I don't understand or see the need for "social relevance", I am not sure what " social relevance" would look like or accomplish. Sell me on the value of "social relevance", how does it make any of our lives better and how does it get more people to my table? This is why: D&D as TherapyA quote from the comments: "More specifically, have been developing and using RPG-based programs since 2004, from a Therapeutic Recreation perspective to help populations such as the Deaf community, Autism spectrum (ASD/PDD), at-risk youth & troubled youth, drug abuse rehabilitation, brain injury (TBI, stroke, etc.), spinal cord injury, Cerebral Palsy (CP), and other groups, in various ways. Using Tabletop RPG, Live-action (LARP), choose your own adventures, and computer-based RPGs to help meet a variety of needs, targeted for specific clients needs. Also in recent years working on PTSD programs too. Each population gets some core benefits in general from RPGs, plus specific benefits needed for their specific challenges, and specific program plans can be further targeted to enhance the process. Combined with various disciplines (psychology, therapeutic recreation, education, etc. ) RPGs provide highly flexible intervention modalities able to achieve many individual & group goals." This means it's also very relevant in education in general and in human resource management. To compare this with model trains is just plain ignorant and intentionally polemic. In other words: just irrelevant noise. You want more players? think about offering D&D in a hospice, for instance ... You need more research: go here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 1:50:58 GMT -5
Nothing is that simple as I really don't see you giving this speech to 13 year old me, for instance. Or not to any beneficial effect, at least. I know that grognard attitude and it's cute and all (sorry), but it doesn't answer my questions or the problems I describe by a long shot. Balderdash. One of my GaryCon players was 12 the first time he played and has been back twice. 13 year olds keep their commitments to Boy Scouts. And though I may not use the F word to a 13 year old, I certainly would tell him that "stab the princess in the face" is not acceptable. I repeat, and continue to maintain, it has f***all to do with gaming. Everything you've described as a "problem" comes under common courtesy and acceptable behavior in a group setting. I was in Boy Scouts and am currently assisting a local troop so I know very well what is and isn't possible to expect of 13 year old boys. You obviously don't want to be told that "common courtesy" is the cure for your problems. That doesn't alter the fact that it's true. Well, here is it about the two of us (and you might not even care): All I got from you so far is noise and attitude. You obviously didn't read what I proposed to begin with or did so and ignore it entirely to spew things out there like how stupid our hobby is or asking who cares really. I'm not in the habit of feeding trolls and since that's how I have to interpret your behavior towards me, I will give your comments from now on the same consideration you gave mine. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 1:59:38 GMT -5
"I mean, an argument like yours above is contrary to everything we believe to be true in an academic discourse. Going by that logic, the earth would still be flat." This is pretty non-sequitor as I explained and qualified my statements. Academic thought has nothing to do with this, this is a creative medium. The best academia can do for art is to create countless critics who say they know what the artist was implying, usually after said artist is dead. "it's that kind of individualism that negates progress." So said the individual, yourself, arguing for progress; but on the obverse we have the Bells, the Galileos, the Steve Jobs, the Fords, the Da Vincis, and the list continues onward, endless. Note that each individual moved intellectual progress and thus allowed for "societal progress". They did this, as did many others, against the grain, the establishment, including in most every case, prevailing political, religious and academic thought. Now we can go back to Arneson, besides Gygax, for some more insights: 1) “Rules lawyers... I regard them as the enemy”; and 2) “I like loose so you can change things that are not working" --Kobold Quarterly #9 The cultural significance of our hobby has not been ignored, it has in fact been expanded upon since day one and is now at many stages of departure both pecuniary-wise and historical. It had some rough times, for sure, what with the pure monetization of it; but that cycle is short term and will likely self implode as it has been doing if the cycle is not refreshed or changed--that change will not occur due to standardization of any sort but through realization, learning rather than organizing. Outside of that play will never become insignificant as it is an intrinsic part of human nature. Organizing play--as a "game" is perforce in each and every case a generalization for a specific type of play--has always been forwarded by individuals or small groups on the main. For instance, the vast majority of play that takes place on this earth, to this day, has been, and still is, propagated by the open play of children; and they, like bowlers, bridge players, bingo meet ups, seem to have been doing just fine as far as cultural significance is concerned. I will close with a remark by Gygax and then I wish you well with your endeavors: "I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a "variant", and there is no "official interpretation" from me or anyone else." -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. With all due respect, I have to say I'm rather disappointed by your answer. Since you already dismissed me, I don't think there is more to add but that I completely disagree with your answer and think it's misrepresenting what I said. Or you simply completely misunderstood, as nothing what you wrote applies to anything I offered here for discussion, neither per verbatim nor in it's spirit. That's a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 2:15:31 GMT -5
I feel that our current politically correct society, both here and abroad, is damaging in lots of ways. It has now tended to rank intellectualism as "elitist" and more often sides in the wishy-washy middle where standards are rejected and no concerted base is established. In other words, it has created the very ground of mud that we all must now wallow in. YMMV, of course. The sources of this are up for debate (or at least I have some ideas but am not at all certain), but about the fact of it -- completely agree here. I also agree 100 % with robkuntz here (especially with: " the wishy-washy middle where standards are rejected and no concerted base is established", btw). That's actually one of my reasons to write part 2. I think this article here sums it up pretty good: The Coddling of the American Mind. It's also why I think academic discourse is so important and should not be dismissed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 2:35:46 GMT -5
The Disoriented Ranger , thanks for being a good sport and joining up and talking with us. I looked back over my posts and found that I did indeed make the mistake of assuming this was about you rather than hypothetical. Sorry about that. I meant no offense. That said, it seems you are speaking both hypothetically and in hyperbole about something that you expect us also to have experience or encountered. I think what most folks here are trying to say is that we simply haven't had an experience like you are describing, hyperbole or no. I agree with the folks who make the point that most of what seems to be bothering your hypothetical referee are human relationship issues. No RPG rules or tips can help people set mature boundaries and expectations. From your post and the other one that you link out to, it seems there may be one other area of lack of overlap between the place you are coming from and where many of us on this board find ourselves. And that is the approach to RPGs as if they were primarily about telling a story or collaborating on a narrative. I love narrative. But for me and many OS folks around here narrative is post-facto. I can narrate a football game I have seen, after the fact. If I told the players they had to follow my script, they would probably object. I can narrate a game of Monopoly: John wound up with Park Ave. Phil hit Park Ave. by chance way too many times. John won. I can narrate a game of Monopoly within its "skin," within its completely optional conceit: Mr. Shoe, that famous entrepreneur managed through luck, skill and a few shady deals to get ahold of old Park Ave. for himself and there he made a killing. Before long his skillful trading left poor Mr. Automobile with nothing but dust in his wallet. If the ref lets go of the idea that you are trying to tell a story about a fragile princess and instead focus on an interesting world full of lots of opportunities for adventure -- oh, and by the way, over here is a fragile princess . . . does that sound interesting to y'all today? No? Okay, how about these haunted ruins? Yes? Cool -- then the ref is also going to have more fun because it is not about the ref achieving the story he or she hopes to achieve in advance. Writing fiction is a better way to satisfy the urge to tell a story someone has invented. So that is a fast and loose way for me to describe the difference between the more "sandbox" (objectors to the term not withstanding) approach of OS folks and the more "collaborative narration expectation" I've noticed that some other folks have. My point is this. I think this fundamental difference in approach may have something to do with why many of us cannot identify with the problems of your hypothetical ref. I hope my post here helps to clarify the conversation a little bit. Again, welcome aboard! PS -- I really like the points you make in part 2 and 3 and I can identify more easily with those as an OS kind of guy. I wish the conversation would start to go that way! Unfortunately, I am heading into an "off the grid week" and probably won't be able to post much again until next Monday. And who knows where things will be then! Good luck! Thanks tetramorph! I'm still having a hard time to see where the disagreement really is, as I am, as a matter of fact, pretty much what you describe (I completely DM from a sandbox, with literally everything being procedural, from the weather to the story). But I found that when you design a game, you get a chance to color a game with what mechanics you use and what they are named, for instance (like using French vocabulary for a game with Musketeers, to give one example). So there's not only a narrative after the fact (with which I totally agree), but also a choice how the narrative emerges within the rules before the game even starts (going with your example: there is a shoe in Monopoly, so a shoe will be part of the story). So it's not that different, I believe. That princess again  It's quoting The Neverending Story, a book by Michael Ende, maybe better known from the movie they made in 1984 (I think). The story is (for those not knowing) that a "Nothing" is destroying the world, coming from the fringes, going towards the center. Said princess is dying because of the Nothing destroying the world and a hero emerges to confront the Nothing and save the princess ... I think that's a totally valid setting with a fragile princess in the center. Going with that, stabbing her in the face would effectively end the game (and that's why I chose The Neverending Story, among other reasons). Well, thanks for the welcome, we'll see how it goes and if I'm still there in a week, or "destroyed", as the bets are already on and people seem to like the idea ... |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 2:46:43 GMT -5
"I mean, an argument like yours above is contrary to everything we believe to be true in an academic discourse. Going by that logic, the earth would still be flat." This is pretty non-sequitor as I explained and qualified my statements. Academic thought has nothing to do with this, this is a creative medium. The best academia can do for art is to create countless critics who say they know what the artist was implying, usually after said artist is dead. "it's that kind of individualism that negates progress." So said the individual, yourself, arguing for progress; but on the obverse we have the Bells, the Galileos, the Steve Jobs, the Fords, the Da Vincis, and the list continues onward, endless. Note that each individual moved intellectual progress and thus allowed for "societal progress". They did this, as did many others, against the grain, the establishment, including in most every case, prevailing political, religious and academic thought. Now we can go back to Arneson, besides Gygax, for some more insights: 1) “Rules lawyers... I regard them as the enemy”; and 2) “I like loose so you can change things that are not working" --Kobold Quarterly #9 The cultural significance of our hobby has not been ignored, it has in fact been expanded upon since day one and is now at many stages of departure both pecuniary-wise and historical. It had some rough times, for sure, what with the pure monetization of it; but that cycle is short term and will likely self implode as it has been doing if the cycle is not refreshed or changed--that change will not occur due to standardization of any sort but through realization, learning rather than organizing. Outside of that play will never become insignificant as it is an intrinsic part of human nature. Organizing play--as a "game" is perforce in each and every case a generalization for a specific type of play--has always been forwarded by individuals or small groups on the main. For instance, the vast majority of play that takes place on this earth, to this day, has been, and still is, propagated by the open play of children; and they, like bowlers, bridge players, bingo meet ups, seem to have been doing just fine as far as cultural significance is concerned. I will close with a remark by Gygax and then I wish you well with your endeavors: "I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a "variant", and there is no "official interpretation" from me or anyone else." -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. With all due respect, I have to say I'm rather disappointed by your answer. Since you already dismissed me, I don't think there is more to add but that I completely disagree with your answer and think it's misrepresenting what I said. Or you simply completely misunderstood, as nothing what you wrote applies to anything I offered here for discussion, neither per verbatim nor in it's spirit. That's a shame. You make emphatic statements that are totally dismissive, i.e., "an argument like yours above is contrary to everything we believe to be true in an academic discourse. Going by that logic, the earth would still be flat," to which I respond and now you say that it is misrepresenting what you said? You said that and now are dismissing me for having misrepresented it??? Ha! You would have been a good student of Saul Alinsky. Unfortunately the truth is in the facts and the posts. I cannot misrepresent you, of course, but I am refuting the basis for your argument from two points as flawed which was done so when you attempted to diffuse my course by saying it was illogical, equating same logic to a "Flat earthers"; now with no substance left after I punched a hole in your own blanket dismissal of me you project on the same thing that you attempted to do to me. Yep. Very liberal Illogic there. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 2:53:27 GMT -5
There is no sport that isn't a game and role playing games being all about collaborative story telling makes it very possible to apply, for instance, literary theory for it. That and some aspects of theater, the fact that writing a good role playing game or module or setting is very well an art in it's own right, make both arguments at least debatable. I can see that we disagree about the very nature of the hobby, and that being the case, how can possibly agree on standards for it, let alone try to get others to follow them? There are sports that aren't games: hunting, for instance. RPGs aren't all about collaborative storytelling; stories are simply told about your exploits after the game is over. Literary theory works very badly for RPGs: players stubbornly refuse to do what the GM has plotted for them, as you yourself have illustrated. Aspects of theater can be applied to RPGs, but talking in affected voices and accents is not required. Perhaps writing rules or adventures can be called art, but I thought we were talking about playing and refereeing? You'd have to START by finding some common ground here before expecting to grow a useful organization. Yeah, I agree, we come from very different angles in this, but I believe we might agree more than you think. Of course are scripted games not ideal (and not my cup of tea, either), but I don't believe that all players reject the idea (or how, then, would you explain the popularity of totally scripted games like Dungeon World, for instance?). Railroading modules are still written and used all over the place. Actually, I found that people are sometimes happy for the lower investment of just tagging along for the ride (again, not my thing, but I understand the appeal). Another argument I'd make would be that we really don't need to start anything, as the hobby is already 40 years old and we are not the first to face those challenges. Just look around! The benefits of having this recognized as sport or art, by the way, have nothing to do with how we play the game or the creative variety that makes our hobby worthwhile, the benefits are (as already established above) that our hobby can be of use in several very important social areas (therapy, education, human resources). You might play D&D and never encounter any of that, but you might have a child with autism and be glad that someone took the time ... I also think we misunderstood about standards. I really don't mean a standard set of rules (never wrote anything like that anywhere, it's actually the opposite of what I believe). It's more a community thing, not reducing the DM to a "service provider" and stuff like that. I'm also not the one starting an organisation here or recruiting (what I will do, though, is testing what is possible locally). The art aspect is another area a regular gamer might never encounter in his gaming life, but I came through the hobby because of reading novels where the publisher actually came to those conclusions (connected to what I write about Magira in Part 3). I'm also just saying, it is debatable and I'd really like to find out what's possible/thinkable there. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 2:59:56 GMT -5
With all due respect, I have to say I'm rather disappointed by your answer. Since you already dismissed me, I don't think there is more to add but that I completely disagree with your answer and think it's misrepresenting what I said. Or you simply completely misunderstood, as nothing what you wrote applies to anything I offered here for discussion, neither per verbatim nor in it's spirit. That's a shame. You make emphatic statements that are totally dismissive, i.e., "an argument like yours above is contrary to everything we believe to be true in an academic discourse. Going by that logic, the earth would still be flat," to which I respond and now you say that it is misrepresenting what you said? You said that and now are dismissing me for having misrepresented it??? Ha! You would have been a good student of Saul Alinsky. Unfortunately the truth is in the facts and the posts. I cannot misrepresent you, of course, but I am refuting the basis for your argument from two points as flawed which was done so when you attempted to diffuse my course by saying it was illogical, equating same logic to a "Flat earthers"; now with no substance left after I punched a hole in your own blanket dismissal of me you project on the same thing that you attempted to do to me. Yep. Very liberal Illogic there. Alright, I think we started off on the wrong foot here. And me being defensive might be very well the reason here. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive, I merely tried to produce a counter argument. Sorry about that robkuntz. I'm not here to start a fight and would rather agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 3:31:42 GMT -5
You make emphatic statements that are totally dismissive, i.e., "an argument like yours above is contrary to everything we believe to be true in an academic discourse. Going by that logic, the earth would still be flat," to which I respond and now you say that it is misrepresenting what you said? You said that and now are dismissing me for having misrepresented it??? Ha! You would have been a good student of Saul Alinsky. Unfortunately the truth is in the facts and the posts. I cannot misrepresent you, of course, but I am refuting the basis for your argument from two points as flawed which was done so when you attempted to diffuse my course by saying it was illogical, equating same logic to a "Flat earthers"; now with no substance left after I punched a hole in your own blanket dismissal of me you project on the same thing that you attempted to do to me. Yep. Very liberal Illogic there. Alright, I think we started off on the wrong foot here. And me being defensive might be very well the reason here. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive, I merely tried to produce a counter argument. Sorry about that robkuntz . I'm not here to start a fight and would rather agree to disagree. There is no fight, but only the pursuit, or conclusion, of discourse. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 4:30:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 18, 2016 5:55:10 GMT -5
The mention of model trains was not specious. I've had the good fortune, thanks to Mr. Bowman who ran the Paint Spot in Lake Geneva, of reading Model Railroader magazine from 1947 to 1970, when I started to subscribe. For many, many years there was a definite sense of embarrassment about the hobby; letters about being scorned or ridiculed by spouse, friends, or relatives, articles about "how to talk about the hobby," etc. It eventually went away in the mid 80s when, I suspect, a lot of model railroaders finally reached the magical age of "not giving a crap what other people think." Also by the mid 80s was greater tolerance for "outside the norm." I suspect the whole "social relevance" thing, which I've seen a fair amount online, is related to being embarrassed to play RPGs. I suspect that's where the whole "Roleplaying IS A NARTFORM! A SERIOUS NARTFORM!" thing that I've observed comes from too. q.v. the story about Robert Louis Stevenson being embarrassed about being discovered playing wargames with his nephew in "Playing at the World." I've never been embarrassed about playing D&D and I personally never got any pushback from anyone about playing. so I really don't relate when anyone talks about any of the above. Perhaps the fact that 50% of my circle of friends in college played D&D too had something to do with that. When people that are not even playing come and hang out to watch the games and that is your experience for the first four years, it makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 18, 2016 6:06:18 GMT -5
I don't understand or see the need for "social relevance", I am not sure what " social relevance" would look like or accomplish. Sell me on the value of "social relevance", how does it make any of our lives better and how does it get more people to my table? This is why: D&D as TherapyA quote from the comments: "More specifically, have been developing and using RPG-based programs since 2004, from a Therapeutic Recreation perspective to help populations such as the Deaf community, Autism spectrum (ASD/PDD), at-risk youth & troubled youth, drug abuse rehabilitation, brain injury (TBI, stroke, etc.), spinal cord injury, Cerebral Palsy (CP), and other groups, in various ways. Using Tabletop RPG, Live-action (LARP), choose your own adventures, and computer-based RPGs to help meet a variety of needs, targeted for specific clients needs. Also in recent years working on PTSD programs too. Each population gets some core benefits in general from RPGs, plus specific benefits needed for their specific challenges, and specific program plans can be further targeted to enhance the process. Combined with various disciplines (psychology, therapeutic recreation, education, etc. ) RPGs provide highly flexible intervention modalities able to achieve many individual & group goals." This means it's also very relevant in education in general and in human resource management. To compare this with model trains is just plain ignorant and intentionally polemic. In other words: just irrelevant noise. You want more players? think about offering D&D in a hospice, for instance ... You need more research: go here. That is all great stuff and I am all for those things. FWIW Gary Gygax started many contacts to use it in schools and education and other things and unfortunately that was brought to a complete when the Wicked Witch of the West seized control of TSR and ousted Gary. I still wouldn't use the term "social relevance". IMO that is just a buzz word without real meaning. What you are really talking about is people taking their bigoted blinders off and being willing to try new things which is what you illustrate above. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 6:11:14 GMT -5
The mention of model trains was not specious. I've had the good fortune, thanks to Mr. Bowman who ran the Paint Spot in Lake Geneva, of reading Model Railroader magazine from 1947 to 1970, when I started to subscribe. For many, many years there was a definite sense of embarrassment about the hobby; letters about being scorned or ridiculed by spouse, friends, or relatives, articles about "how to talk about the hobby," etc. It eventually went away in the mid 80s when, I suspect, a lot of model railroaders finally reached the magical age of "not giving a crap what other people think." Also by the mid 80s was greater tolerance for "outside the norm." I suspect the whole "social relevance" thing, which I've seen a fair amount online, is related to being embarrassed to play RPGs. I suspect that's where the whole "Roleplaying IS A NARTFORM! A SERIOUS NARTFORM!" thing that I've observed comes from too. q.v. the story about Robert Louis Stevenson being embarrassed about being discovered playing wargames with his nephew in "Playing at the World." I've never been embarrassed about playing D&D and I personally never got any pushback from anyone about playing. so I really don't relate when anyone talks about any of the above. Perhaps the fact that 50% of my circle of friends in college played D&D too had something to do with that. When people that are not even playing come and hang out to watch the games and that is your experience for the first four years, it makes a difference. All of this has to do with the "raw" and "unfettered" and "unruly" and "wasteful" idea that was pushed by adults in that childhood fancy or anything not equatable to "useful production" was seen as low brow use of the imagination. Modern play theory and psychology finally obliterated this but not before the damage was done. I do cover this aspect of play and its history in my upcoming book. BtB, this is also what lead to the divisions in the wargames hobby between "gamers" and "simulationists," this holier than everyone else from the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 18, 2016 7:15:28 GMT -5
Of course are scripted games not ideal (and not my cup of tea, either), but I don't believe that all players reject the idea (or how, then, would you explain the popularity of totally scripted games like Dungeon World, for instance?). Railroading modules are still written and used all over the place. Actually, I found that people are sometimes happy for the lower investment of just tagging along for the ride (again, not my thing, but I understand the appeal). I also think we misunderstood about standards. I really don't mean a standard set of rules (never wrote anything like that anywhere, it's actually the opposite of what I believe). It's more a community thing, not reducing the DM to a "service provider" and stuff like that. I'm also not the one starting an organization here or recruiting (what I will do, though, is testing what is possible locally). Scripted games and railroads are IMO things people play because they have never been given anything else and don't know what open-ended play looks like. If someone only wants to be a spectator, I am always fine with people just hanging out and watching the game. As a player I want the other players to be into it and helping, not sitting there silent and never giving input. Along for the ride but just as a drag on the rest of the party, not someone I want to game with if I am playing. As the ref, you will find yourself involved in the action. I like the idea of a loose federation so that gamers in various locations know about each other and can do things like a big gaming weekend and many other things. But no standard set of rules. Every ref does his own things and players expect that each table will be different. But I don't need anyone else to tell me if I am good as a ref or not. Do the players keep coming back or not. I might also add that all progress comes from very unique individuals who against the inertia of the status quo, go their own way, do their own thing and drag the world kicking and screaming to a better place. The protectors of the status quo, those who want to standardize everything and make everyone a round peg for a round hole never accomplish anything worthwhile, they destroy with their pathological fear of change. Well, thanks for the welcome, we'll see how it goes and if I'm still there in a week, or "destroyed", as the bets are already on and people seem to like the idea ... I see two very longtime friends bantering with one another, perhaps at your expense, but not any wider acceptance of the idea. Certainly not on my part. I like lively discussion and it doesn't happen unless there are different opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 18, 2016 8:29:09 GMT -5
That princess again It's quoting The Neverending Story, a book by Michael Ende, maybe better known from the movie they made in 1984 (I think). The story is (for those not knowing) that a "Nothing" is destroying the world, coming from the fringes, going towards the center. Said princess is dying because of the Nothing destroying the world and a hero emerges to confront the Nothing and save the princess ... I think mentioning The Neverending Story here is appropriate for the reasons given above. It does often feel like a "Nothing" is destroying the world. And it makes sense to me if someone thinks of RPGs as a way to defend against that Nothing. 40+ years ago, this whole thing was a big deal, but apparently generally fit into the culture That said, I too am wary of the term "social relevance" because it so often gets applied to things that are about to be destroyed or perverted in the name of...progress or something. If I translated The Disoriented Ranger's comments into my own terms, it would be something like "D&D, a holdover from a now-lost culture, can act as a seed to regrow much of what has been lost in the West in the last 40 years and especially the last 20." That possibility is relevant to our continued existence as social creatures, so in that sense, I agree that D&D is "socially relevant". I might say the same of Tolkien, whose imaginative works certainly added to the fuel that got the whole fire going. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 18, 2016 9:31:45 GMT -5
Of course are scripted games not ideal (and not my cup of tea, either), but I don't believe that all players reject the idea (or how, then, would you explain the popularity of totally scripted games like Dungeon World, for instance?). Railroading modules are still written and used all over the place. Actually, I found that people are sometimes happy for the lower investment of just tagging along for the ride (again, not my thing, but I understand the appeal). I have no problem with the existence of scripted games or railroading adventures. I am a fan of the Rune RPG by Robin Laws, which is explicitly and proudly a railroad, because the point of the game is to bash foes, and any "plot" that gets you to that point is mostly window-dressing. My point is that styles of role-play gaming can be so vastly different that attempting to standardize, for any reason, results in an umbrella so big it doesn't really accomplish anything. I got exactly the opposite impression of your point before, hence my mention of the large organizations that have already been created. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 18, 2016 9:35:42 GMT -5
As for "social relevance," I'll just point out that "nerd culture" has become strongly accepted in today's society, in large part thanks to video games, which owe much of their modern forms to Dungeons & Dragons.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 10:04:52 GMT -5
I like the idea of a loose federation so that gamers in various locations know about each other and can do things like a big gaming weekend and many other things. But no standard set of rules. Every ref does his own things and players expect that each table will be different. But I don't need anyone else to tell me if I am good as a ref or not. Do the players keep coming back or not. I might also add that all progress comes from very unique individuals who against the inertia of the status quo, go their own way, do their own thing and drag the world kicking and screaming to a better place. The protectors of the status quo, those who want to standardize everything and make everyone a round peg for a round hole never accomplish anything worthwhile, they destroy with their pathological fear of change. I'm beginning to see where our disagreement comes from. You guys seem to think that I somehow proposed to standardize the games we play and that I have some sort of liberal agenda!  I'm sorry, but I'm neither a native speaker nor am I an American and most of those concepts (or the assumptions that come with them) actually don't apply to me. So for me "socially relevant" means just that: relevant for society. It's not, by any means, politically loaded. If you guys like to phrase it another way, be my guest. Same difference. I mean something completely different with standardization than you guys mean. It's not about games at all, it's more something of a necessary agreement when many different systems have to work together, like for that weekend you are writing about, @the Perilous Dreamer, you'd need a key to keep this all flowing. I don't know if you guys know FLAILSNAILS on g+? Something like that. Shared world, keyed systems, to allow, for instance, easy player migration. Federation is a good word for that, I think. The evaluation part is a matter of taste, of course, and I get the problem. But there are points where you might offer games in public libraries or schools and having some sort of reference handy for such a thing might not be a bad idea. So, again, this is not to revolutionize gaming or anything, but to help reviving (if you will) those early attempts to have an organized club culture. Something like having a D&D club in schools, for instance, is something that never happened here in Germany and in America it's all but gone (as far as I'm aware). I get a feeling that many of you had been associated (or known of) such clubs in the past. Are they still a thing in America? The famous D&D summer camps? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 10:09:31 GMT -5
To play games is to be socially relevant. To assign a philosophy for some, which has also been done through play theory and game theory, has also added social relevance to games and gamers. By having the military adopt game theory and simulations as learning and thinking tools also points to such. The relevance of games in our culture and society is well rounded, has depth and appears here to stay. Expanding upon that relevance? the best I can sense is that one should state a philosophy first as to why such an organizational standard should exist and make their argument for such from that view alone and in no uncertain terms. Since D&D is so widespread in its philosophical base I sense that this would ultimately, even with good intent, drift towards a consensus POV and what is right and what is to be excluded. Organizations tend to the middle so as to be "inclusive". The same as in business/market, it is the median view that is sought for "maximum yield", just as it is now in education. Organizations with standards tend to, thus, defeat the purpose of individual enlightenment and growth through self-orgnaization, the very thing that Arneson accomplished in designing the RPG concept in 1971. Methinks that that course, which he extolled, is the one that should stay socially relevant as it is a base philosophy that can be organized in many different ways, including, but not limited to, the use of outside agency. I see this as the only socially relevant factor in that not that many open philosophies exist in the way that Arneson organized and forwarded it. Thus, as I stated earlier, it will not be through strict standardization or organization that the philosophy grows and is demonstrated on infinite levels, but by learning how it can be expanded in different ways. The tendency with ground breaking concepts like his is, almost exclusively, to consign it to a strict model to test its robustness, usually for singular reasons related to different dynamics like the market, for academic "studies" etc. It's a linear projection based on reductionism. However, Arneson's base philosophy is not linear, it's evolutionary. At best, and has been proven, then, is that the concept can be constrained or it can remain unconstrained. It's either/or, there is no middle ground with open and closed, especially if one were to lead with standardization on whatever level that the RPG concept attaches to. I for one feel that the game evolves, as do its players, to the limits that are forwarded in each singularly organized circumstance, and that is the true genius of this game and its creators, especially Arneson. And one can't standardize genius, you just have to let it roam and search and experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 10:16:39 GMT -5
I like the idea of a loose federation so that gamers in various locations know about each other and can do things like a big gaming weekend and many other things. But no standard set of rules. Every ref does his own things and players expect that each table will be different. But I don't need anyone else to tell me if I am good as a ref or not. Do the players keep coming back or not. I might also add that all progress comes from very unique individuals who against the inertia of the status quo, go their own way, do their own thing and drag the world kicking and screaming to a better place. The protectors of the status quo, those who want to standardize everything and make everyone a round peg for a round hole never accomplish anything worthwhile, they destroy with their pathological fear of change. I'm beginning to see where our disagreement comes from. You guys seem to think that I somehow proposed to standardize the games we play and that I have some sort of liberal agenda! I'm sorry, but I'm neither a native speaker nor am I an American and most of those concepts (or the assumptions that come with them) actually don't apply to me. So for me "socially relevant" means just that: relevant for society. It's not, by any means, politically loaded. If you guys like to phrase it another way, be my guest. Same difference. I mean something completely different with standardization than you guys mean. It's not about games at all, it's more something of a necessary agreement when many different systems have to work together, like for that weekend you are writing about, @the Perilous Dreamer, you'd need a key to keep this all flowing. I don't know if you guys know FLAILSNAILS on g+? Something like that. Shared world, keyed systems, to allow, for instance, easy player migration. Federation is a good word for that, I think. The evaluation part is a matter of taste, of course, and I get the problem. But there are points where you might offer games in public libraries or schools and having some sort of reference handy for such a thing might not be a bad idea. So, again, this is not to revolutionize gaming or anything, but to help reviving (if you will) those early attempts to have an organized club culture. Something like having a D&D club in schools, for instance, is something that never happened here in Germany and in America it's all but gone (as far as I'm aware). I get a feeling that many of you had been associated (or known of) such clubs in the past. Are they still a thing in America? The famous D&D summer camps? Perhaps it would be best for you to bullet point in successive stages, and by way of examples therein, what you are envisioning, for certainly many of us here, at least speaking for myself, are getting extremely mixed messages about your vision. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 10:18:50 GMT -5
As for "social relevance," I'll just point out that "nerd culture" has become strongly accepted in today's society, in large part thanks to video games, which owe much of their modern forms to Dungeons & Dragons. I say something about social relevance in the comment before, Stormcrow. Not sure if I'm ready to share my opinion on today's "nerd culture" just yet (another loaded topic, I'm sure) The process I wrote about in those dreaded 3 posts linked above is, imo, one of regress towards insignificance. As others have pointed out (and I do in the posts), all those things have existed at one point or another and all I did was (a) looking for reasons why it's happening and (b) proposing ways to revitalize the hobby and maybe go a step further (as in determining what the natural development of such a process would be) ... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 18, 2016 10:19:28 GMT -5
I personally have never had any exposure to clubs particularity for young people so I an not able speak to that, I hope someone else can. As for "politically loaded," a lot of terms here in the USA are (very unnecessarily and unfortunately) "politically loaded" and we have to allow for that.  Also thank you for reminding us that English is not your first language, we (I) tend to forget that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 18, 2016 10:26:52 GMT -5
If I translated The Disoriented Ranger 's comments into my own terms, it would be something like "D&D, a holdover from a now-lost culture, can act as a seed to regrow much of what has been lost in the West in the last 40 years and especially the last 20." That possibility is relevant to our continued existence as social creatures, so in that sense, I agree that D&D is "socially relevant". That, @hengest, is the essence of it. Thank you! robkuntz, I don't know if it helps to use another one's words, but that's it, right there. I agree on the genius in the concept of role playing games and their complexity, that's why I wrote what I wrote. |
|
It's quoting The Neverending Story, a book by Michael Ende, maybe better known from the movie they made in 1984 (I think). The story is (for those not knowing) that a "Nothing" is destroying the world, coming from the fringes, going towards the center. Said princess is dying because of the Nothing destroying the world and a hero emerges to confront the Nothing and save the princess ... I think that's a totally valid setting with a fragile princess in the center. Going with that, stabbing her in the face would effectively end the game (and that's why I chose The Neverending Story, among other reasons).
I'm sorry, but I'm neither a native speaker nor am I an American and most of those concepts (or the assumptions that come with them) actually don't apply to me. So for me "socially relevant" means just that: relevant for society. It's not, by any means, politically loaded. If you guys like to phrase it another way, be my guest. Same difference.
Also thank you for reminding us that English is not your first language, we (I) tend to forget that.