D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Aldarc]

This hardly feels like a (+) thread anymore.

 

[Malmuria]

So, yes, my point is proven out.

??

The Forge essays were completely raw. People are dismissing them because they are insensitive and/or insulting. Okay, let's look at the revised version of the ideas for Creative agenda, in short an sweet forms:

The “raw” essays display his positionality, which gets backgrounded for the sake of articulating a more ‘universal’ rpg theory. Personally, far from disliking the earlier essays, I think Edwards is never more clear then when he is in “vampire sux” mode. It’s just that he’s not going to win over vampire enthusiasts that way, not that the later essays do that either

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

??

The “raw” essays display his positionality, which gets backgrounded for the sake of articulating a more ‘universal’ rpg theory. Personally, far from disliking the earlier essays, I think Edwards is never more clear then when he is in “vampire sux” mode. It’s just that he’s not going to win over vampire enthusiasts that way, not that the later essays do that either

I think the point that you (and many others) keep trying to say is that it is totally fine to have strong opinions as to what constitutes a good game or a bad game. It's just disheartening that people keep trying to tell us that Edwards was impartial in his assessments.

As for the problematic comments, I am tired of people defending them. Both of the cited comments, but especially his "clarifying" comment that compared players of traditional games to not just people with literal brain damage, but sexual assault survivors, is beyond the pale. If his defenders can't understand why people find that deeply offensive ... well, I'm not sure what to say. It doesn't mean that everything he ever wrote is wrong, but for crying out loud- the problem is not with the people who found that offensive. That's not the playbook you want to be associated with.

Now, if Edwards has made subsequent remarks apologizing for those comments, I'd love to know. That would do a lot to putting that issue to rest- certainly more than saying the real problem is the people that are offended by those statements.

 

[Ovinomancer]

??

I pointed out that incoherency does not mean dysfunction, and pointed out praise for managing it well. You pointed to the specific terminology coined for this. My point was confirmed. Unless you're moving into a splitting hairs argument about specific terminology?

The “raw” essays display his positionality, which gets backgrounded for the sake of articulating a more ‘universal’ rpg theory. Personally, far from disliking the earlier essays, I think Edwards is never more clear then when he is in “vampire sux” mode. It’s just that he’s not going to win over vampire enthusiasts that way, not that the later essays do that either

I'm still not okay with the concept that ideas are better if you're speaking about them the right way. I'm also concerned that the term "positionality" is closely associated with social justice, and might get moderated.

 

[iserith]

Setting aside whatever off-putting things the author said in these essays, I think the bigger question is whether bringing up these theories is actually helpful in fostering understanding for the majority of people who visit these forums to talk about their D&D game. The evidence suggests to me that it isn't, both from my efforts in recommending it years ago (before I stopped) and watching others do it now. It's effectively asking the poster to learn a whole new vocabulary and theory just to solve some relatively minor issue they may be reporting at their table. Some people will give it a shot, but for others it's going to be confusing and divisive and lead to bad outcomes. So rather than judge the theory on its coherence or what games sprung from it, I would suggest judging it on its practical effects on discussions in this forum. By that measure, I think the conclusion can only be that it is an impediment to understanding and it's best in most cases to not bring it up.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is this thread basically dead? I mean…it looked successfully salvaged from the most hostile initial orientation possible of the first 2 pages. Now it’s basically ALLLLLLLLL THE HOSTILITY…and I don’t really see what new information happened to make that so?

I think it took this turn when someone quoted edwards on incoherence and dysfunction. It’s a lot easier to discuss the ideas of GNS abstractly, because there are some interesting ideas in there. Seeing his actual words makes it harder to ignore the fact that he really was just trash talking the games we like.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it took this turn when someone quoted edwards on incoherence and dysfunction. It’s a lot easier to discuss the ideas of GNS abstractly, because there are some interesting ideas in there. Seeing his actual words makes it harder to ignore the fact that he really was just trash talking the games we like.

Except that he wasn't, as he liked many of the games he's supposedly trashing. Goodness, this canard just will not die.

 

[Malmuria]

I think it took this turn when someone quoted edwards on incoherence and dysfunction. It’s a lot easier to discuss the ideas of GNS abstractly, because there are some interesting ideas in there. Seeing his actual words makes it harder to ignore the fact that he really was just trash talking the games we like.

My bad! Honestly, I thought going back and engaging with the original texts was the respectful thing to do, if we were going to talk about these terms at all. But apparently I choose the wrong essay? (Thanks google).

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying that his words aren't sometimes problematic. I'm saying I just don't worry about it. I think what he had to say is more important than how he said it. That doesn't mean that how he said it isn't an issue to some degree, but I have to say that I disagree with you that people are not using it to entirely dismiss anything he has to say. It's absolutely a choice to either discuss his ideas on gaming, or to get hung up on his brain damage comment. I choose to do the former. Many seem to prefer the latter, which leads us nowhere.

But, again, it’s not just that he said something problematic, therefore his ideas aren’t worth listening to. It’s that his ideas seem to be a Trojan horse for the same elitism that he put on full display when he said the problematic thing. It all expresses the same sentiment, it’s just that in the one case he didn’t bother hiding it.

I'm not even a huge jargon guy, or that big a proponent of GNS theory. I've read several of his essays from the Forge, though, and they're absolutely insightful. Do I agree with everything he says? No. Is he sometimes needlessly contentious? Sure. Do I care? No. If I am actually interested in understanding something, I want to hear different opinions on it. I want criticism to be harsh at times.

I don't like the general push for wearing kid gloves about this stuff, and about calls to ignore his thoughts because he sometimes was harsh, or made some mildly insulting comments at times. Are we all so fragile? If this was film or literature criticism, none of us would be so pearl-clutchy about it being harsh because criticism is harsh, and those fields have known that for nearly as long as they've existed.

It’s not just that he’s harsh. It’s that his ideas seem to stem directly from disdain for a huge portion of the RPG playing community and the things they like.

So, in the spirit of the thread, I'll repeat what I already posted earlier: Brain Damage is jargon for Cognitive Bias.

I disagree. I think it’s revealing of what he actually thinks of fans of certain games.

If we think cognitive bias is a thing, which I expect most of us would, then we can just accept that and move on, however distastefully Edwards phrased it. If someone doesn't think cognitive bias is a thing, then I'd like to hear their thoughts on why.

Bringing it up again and again is absolutely an attempt to shut down discussion and to play some kind of "I win" card. Two or three pages back, the conversation was going well. Since the brain damage stuff got invoked....that's been the bulk of the comments, and moderation has happened and so on.

Wasn't the conversation a few pages back better?

The conversation was better a few pages back. Can we stop trying to defend the deplorable man who wrote the theory and get back to trying to figure out what value can be extracted from what he said?

 

[Campbell]

The main thing Ron is guilty of bias-wise is not liking GM as Storyteller play being the default frame of discussion. That's the bias at play. I don't think it's a bias that either him or the rest of The Forge ever tried to hide. As a member of that community I think we wore that bias on our sleeve. I don't think not really valuing that play experience diminishes the discussion of other forms of play, including much of The Right To Dream stuff.