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

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

I understand the point he is trying to make just fine. I also quoted the same text 'for the context' than you did. It just happens to contain even more offensive stuff.

People's foundational experiences will shape their understanding and preferences, yes. Characterising that in the context of creativity and entertainment as some sort of 'damage' is absurd.

That wasn't the point. And calling that damage would be absurd.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, that additional context does not make the brain damage comment any better. If anything it just makes it more clear that he meant it exactly the way it looks like he did, that playing Vampire in one’s formative years is a traumatic experience comparable to sexual assault, which is an atrocious claim to make.

This is not the point of that essay. I'd elaborate, but do not wish to run afoul of moderation by continuing the debate.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not a fan of either statement, but I think using 2 statements to dismiss over 2 decades of contributions to our hobby, a whole community and an important creative movement within our hobby is beyond the pale. Why do we keep going back to this statement every time we start to make actual ground in discussion?

Ron and the essays are being held to a ridiculous standard the rest of the hobby just is not. John Wick, Mark Rein-Hagen and Gary Gygax have all said as bad or worse, but we don't dismiss all of their contributions. Not to mention the way this is used to tar the contributions of other designers like Vincent Baker and Paul Czege by association.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not a fan of either statement, but I think using 2 statements to dismiss over 2 decades of contributions to our hobby, a whole community and an important creative movement within our hobby is beyond the pale. Why do we keep going back to this statement every time we start to make actual ground in discussion?

Ron and the essays are being held to a ridiculous standard the rest of the hobby just is not. John Wick, Mark Rein-Hagen and Gary Gygax have all said as bad or worse, but we don't dismiss all of their contributions.

Speaking for myself, I don’t use it to dismiss all of his contributions. I recognize and respect that his theories gave people the tools they needed to develop a totally new kind of RPG, which is great. I still think the theory itself misses the mark on what non-Narrativist players value, and I think the brain damage thing is a particularly mask-off example of the bias underlying the theory. I can and do value the good design work that came out of the Forge while being critical of GNS itself and the man behind it. Once again, my Feud analogy feels pretty fitting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To get it in, the Edwards Brain Damage article describes my journey in thinking very clearly. It clearly points out where I was having difficulty with the concepts, to how I started to accept, and now, when I read that article, I see it explaining something I very much experienced, and have friends who have experienced it as well. Personally, not talking about others.

Expanding it, though, I see my same issues in others all the time -- the same arguments made, the same stated difficulties and disbeliefs. It's absolutely a thing, this cognitive bias that permeates the hobby, mostly with long term players. I don't think less of them at all, because I was one, and remember being there, and remember the difficulty. It's similar to being an ex-smoker, which I also am. I remember both what I enjoyed about smoking and the difficulty in quitting, but I don't think poorly of people that haven't made the same choice. Some ex-smokers do, though, and I regret that Edwards seems to be in the latter category and how it bleeds into his writing. However, that doesn't mean that what he's saying is incorrect, but it's easy as a smoker to dismiss the words of an ex-smoker who uses salty language like "nasty smelling." I recall that, as well.

The concept discussed in that article is a real thing. I'm personal proof. The difference in how I would approach that article and how Edwards did is that I don't think I'm a better person for addressing my cognitive biases. I've made my choices, and I like them. You're welcome to yours. I'll gladly extend a hand and help if you're interested in looking at different ideas, though. I find Edwards to be too dismissive in general. That he wrote those pieces in a particular zeitgeist and they're being examined outside of that zeitgeist amplifies that, but it doesn't create it. I'll argue against the amplification, but I'll agree that Edwards could be a nicer person. That's not sufficient to dismiss his writings, though. I'd prefer if people could look at the ideas, but I also recall being an ex-smoker, and you don't want to talk about quitting until you want to talk about quitting, so I get it. What I don't get is showing up in threads where quitting is being discussed (to continue the analogy) only to derail or attack the concept. Or even to claim that vaping is the same thing as quitting.

Yeah, this is not helping, mate. Now "addicted to harmful substance" certainly technically is less offensive framing than "brain damage" or "sexual abuse" but only because the latter two are insanely offensive.

And casting yourself as some sort of survivor who is just trying to get others to see the light and abandon their harmful ways is massively condescending.

If you don't see this, I don't know what else I can tell you.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not a fan of either statement, but I think using 2 statements to dismiss over 2 decades of contributions to our hobby, a whole community and an important creative movement within our hobby is beyond the pale. Why do we keep going back to this statement every time we start to make actual ground in discussion?

Ron and the essays are being held to a ridiculous standard the rest of the hobby just is not. John Wick, Mark Rein-Hagen and Gary Gygax have all said as bad or worse, but we don't dismiss all of their contributions. Not to mention the way this is used to tar the contributions of other designers like Vincent Baker and Paul Czege by association.

IMO Talking about Ron’s biases his weakly supported points isn’t to outright dismiss his contributions and good points.

The question keeps coming up whether certain negative the terminology in his theory is unfair criticism. That’s important as if it is then it explains peoples issues with that part of the theory. IMO there’s a strong case that the parts describing traditional rpging are unfair criticisms due to bias.

 

[overgeeked]

Speaking for myself, I don’t use it to dismiss all of his contributions. I recognize and respect that his theories gave people the tools they needed to develop a totally new kind of RPG, which is great. I still think the theory itself misses the mark on what non-Narrativist players value, and I think the brain damage thing is a particularly mask-off example of the bias underlying the theory. I can and do value the good design work that came out of the Forge while being critical of GNS itself and the man behind it. Once again, my Feud analogy feels pretty fitting.

I’d go further. Edwards’ “contributions” are not impressive in the slightest. His only “claim to fame” is incoherently and toxically regurgitating decades and centuries old theory in a place where people could easily find them. People are only impressed with him because he’s likely the first person they happened across who wrote about these topics. In RPG theory, he’s about as impressive as the person who posts “first” in a thread or comment section...despite the conversation already going on for at least 30-40 years by the time he gets around to opening his mouth.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, this is not helping, mate. Now "addicted to harmful substance" certainly technically is less offensive framing than "brain damage" or "sexual abuse" but only because the latter two are insanely offensive.

And casting yourself as some sort of survivor who is just trying to get others to see the light and abandon their harmful ways is massively condescending.

If you don't see this, I don't know what else I can tell you.

I used an analogy to show that people doing a thing are often highly resistant to people that don't do that thing anymore telling them things. I used a personal touchstone and experience to do so. Since I used my personal experience, I'm being told I'm putting myself above others, or suggesting that what they do is harmful, when I explicitly said I was not trying to do that. That this is your takeaway -- that that statement had to be dishonest and I'm actually doing the things I said I wasn't -- is very telling. And hurtful that I shared about myself only to be mocked for it in an attempt to shut down discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Umbran.

Discussion of the Edwards essay is being used to shut down discussion. There's a free opportunity for people to continue to weaponize it by only discussing the terms found offensive, and moderation has made any counter impossible. Please shut this line of discussion down, as it's now just a club.

 

[Campbell]

I’d go further. Edwards’ “contributions” are not impressive in the slightest. His only “claim to fame” is incoherently and toxically regurgitating decades and centuries old theory in a place where people could easily find them. People are only impressed with him because he’s likely the first person they happened across who wrote about these topics. In RPG theory, he’s about as impressive as the person who posts “first” in a thread or comment section...despite the conversation already going on for at least 30-40 years by the time he gets around to opening his mouth.

I guess spearheading the indie RPG movement, inspiring games like Apocalypse World and pioneering emotional safety techniques like lines and veils counts for nothing? Good to know where you stand.