What is "The Forge?"

LostSoul · Dec 16, 2005

Teflon Billy said:
Yes, you are stretching it alright, by using an patently false example to "prove" that your claim is true.

What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory. I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it." Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it." Which is what I think that you got out of it.

edit: possibly too hostile.

d20Dwarf · Dec 16, 2005

Paka said:
The games with the best sales, in a sub-culture that eyebeams says is inept at its own gaming process, are the best games, says d20 Dwarf.

Forge aside, that's interesting.

Why doesn't anybody read what I wrote? I'm not even using arcane jargon to make my point. :\

jdrakeh · Dec 16, 2005

d20Dwarf said:
Why doesn't anybody read what I wrote? I'm not even using arcane jargon to make my point. :\

Translating plain language to Forgese and vice-versa is like translating a web page written in one langauge to another using Babelfish - only about 60% of your original content gets through the filter uncorrupted.

fusangite · Dec 16, 2005

LostSoul said:
As I was recently told about Mage (this may or may not be true about Mage, but it's what I was told): I wanted to deal with issues about responsibility, to myself and others. My idea was to come up with a playboy-type who got in all sorts of trouble because of his self-destructive patterns, and who continually alienated other people he cared about in order to satisfy his desires.

One of the other players, who is interested in collaborative story-telling, told me I couldn't do that. "That's not what Mage is about. You can't make a character like that."

I think I see the conflict there as "This is my story" vs. "This is a Mage story".

Obviously, simulationists can also disagree. I can still be a simulationist and tell another player that her play style isn't welcome because she uses her time to play out busking and romantic conversations with NPCs. But both she and I still have a simulationist creative agenda. The fact that this guy doesn't want you to generate the kind of story you want to generate doesn't make your disagreement a disagreement over creative agenda, at least as I understand the term to be defined.

I could have misunderstood what you're getting at though. ("Aestheic criteria" has me confused.)

I simply mean "does this seem like a cool thing to happen/imagine?"

I don't think you can classify a game using any of the creative agendas. You can say that half your players are about "Story Now" and the others are about "story now". Will they come into conflict? It's possible.

It's also possible if 100% are about "Story Now." You're just not disagreeing over creative agenda.

Jim Hague · Dec 16, 2005

jdrakeh said:
This is true, but the most vocal authority figures at the Forge - their 'public face' so to speak - are guilty of exhibiting all of the negative traits that the public has come to associate with the Forge community. Just dig that thread on RPGnet - the public need look no further than that to see The Forge at its worst. Sure, the Forge has grounded members, but they aren't the ones making public appearances, thus the fact that they exist does little to sway public opinion where the Forge is concerned.

[Note: It is also my informed opinion that the same individuals responsible for defining the Forge's negative public image are not a minority, but a majority, on the Forge forums. That is, I find that Softspoken Reason and its standard bearers regularly get trampled by the legions of Crazy, Self-Obsessed, Propaganda at the Forge.]

Sure, and once again I find myself agreeing with you for the most part, though I wonder at the majority. I'll even admit that my current feelings only represent my dealings with a few folks and some extremely negative experiences I had as a first-time poster on their boards - I got told that they 'weren't going to do the work for me' (implication - 'you're a lazy bastard'), and that my game was 'yet another pretentious wannabe'. Please note, this is the opposite of what another Forge contributor said when I spoke with him off the boards.

Perhaps, perhaps it's the mob culture on the boards themselves, the atmosphere of the forum proper, that perpetuates the oft-derided 'Forge attitude'?

Jim Hague · Dec 16, 2005

LostSoul said:
What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory. I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it." Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it." Which is what I think that you got out of it.

edit: possibly too hostile.

And I'm saying he's dead wrong, it's been proven repeatedly, and now he's sinking to PAs, effectively. I see other posts where people are (in some cases tongue in cheek) bandying about and discussing, yet many of them do disagree with some of the default Forge assumptions 100%. Having seen these posters talk elsewhere, saying they don't 'get it' because they vehemently disagree is disingenious at best, and insulting at worst.

LostSoul · Dec 16, 2005

fusangite said:
The fact that this guy doesn't want you to generate the kind of story you want to generate doesn't make your disagreement a disagreement over creative agenda, at least as I understand the term to be defined.

Right, good point. I think I see where you are coming from now.

Let me try to put it in my own words: We are arguing not about my desire to make moral and ethical choices, but the aesthetics of the story; and that has nothing to do with our Creative Agenda. (She might not like that character for Mage, but for another system/setting it would be fine - even though she doesn't want to address those issues in the same way that I do.)

I'm not sure if or how this invalidates the theory (is that your point?)... except to say that not all conflicts about play style are ones about Creative Agenda.

Teflon Billy · Dec 16, 2005

LostSoul said:
What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory. I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it." Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it." Which is what I think that you got out of it...

The difference in content there is minimal (both are: "There is no way for you to entirely disagree with me unless you are incapable of understanding the patently obvious--that the theory I am espousing is right.)

The difference is in the "Attitude", as mentioned earlier.

LostSoul · Dec 16, 2005

Jim Hague said:
And I'm saying he's dead wrong, it's been proven repeatedly, and now he's sinking to PAs, effectively. I see other posts where people are (in some cases tongue in cheek) bandying about and discussing, yet many of them do disagree with some of the default Forge assumptions 100%. Having seen these posters talk elsewhere, saying they don't 'get it' because they vehemently disagree is disingenious at best, and insulting at worst.

I just don't think he was trying to make personal attacks, even if his statements were read that way. I think it's more of "How could they not agree with anything about the theory it if they get it?" instead of "If you don't agree with everything then yuo = teh suck."

edit: cut a line that could have been interpreted the wrong way.

Bastoche, feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting your position incorrectly.

LostSoul · Dec 16, 2005

Teflon Billy said:
The difference in content there is minimal (both are: "There is no way for you to entirely disagree with me unless you are incapable of understanding the patently obvious--that the theory I am espousing is right.)

What do we mean by "entirely disagree"? Let me talk about myself instead of Bastoche, because I think our viewpoints are similar.

When someone says that they disagree with 100% of the theory, to me that means that they see absolutely nothing of value in the theory whatsoever (or that it's all wrong). I don't understand that viewpoint, although I wouldn't make the jump to "You must not get it then". (I'm more the other way, "What I am I not getting?")

I think Bastoche is looking at it the same way, although he might be making that jump. I don't think that's because he believes people are dumb, but rather because he can't see how you could hold that view. "Inconcievable!" to quote the Princess Bride.

What is "The Forge?"

LostSoul

Adventurer

d20Dwarf

Explorer

jdrakeh

Front Range Warlock

fusangite

First Post

Jim Hague

First Post

Jim Hague

First Post

LostSoul

Adventurer

Teflon Billy

Explorer

LostSoul

Adventurer

LostSoul

Adventurer

Similar Threads