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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

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.

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

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?

Again, this is a bad take, intentionally assuming ill intent and malevolence and assigning it to someone you don't know as if he actually did terribly things. Edwards is "deplorable" now because he used some words you don't like. I don't like them either, but you know what, what he's saying with those words is really good stuff. This is more attacking the speaker to dismiss the ideas. Edwards isn't saying your game sucks, he's not acting in an elitist way about games (fair cop to discussing his attitude towards people's engagement with criticism). He likes a lot of the games that people are saying he's trashing. @pemerton has said that Edwards' essay on Simulationism described his play exactly and he continued to do it and got better at it for the description. That's not actually possible to do if the intent and extent of the essay is trashing a game or idea.

Some games do not work. If we apply this to a game like FATAL, no one argues. If you look at where games that are more popular than that fail to do what's on their tin, people get testy because you're impinging on identity for them. Edwards didn't care whose feathers he ruffled, he called it bluntly as he saw it. But, that bluntness seems to be what everyone stops at and claims that analysis is bad because blunt. They don't get through to the actual ideas. You can disagree with Edwards, for sure (I do in areas), but if you can't even get through to the ideas then you aren't disagreeing, you're dismissing.

And it's fine if you want to dismiss. It's the attempt to shut down discussion with people that don't want to dismiss it, or poison the well by bringing in, mischaracterizing, and then sensationalizing other things said with no intent to further the discussion that's a problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Right. It would be like saying "I dislike railroads, which are characterized by X, and here's how I avoid them" as being incendiary and deplorable because someone else likes railroads and is offended. It's ridiculous. Not liking a thing doesn't mean analysis is wrong.

 

[Cadence]

Again, this is a bad take, intentionally assuming ill intent and malevolence and assigning it to someone you don't know as if he actually did terribly things. Edwards is "deplorable" now because he used some words you don't like. I don't like them either, but you know what, what he's saying with those words is really good stuff. This is more attacking the speaker to dismiss the ideas. Edwards isn't saying your game sucks, he's not acting in an elitist way about games (fair cop to discussing his attitude towards people's engagement with criticism). He likes a lot of the games that people are saying he's trashing. @pemerton has said that Edwards' essay on Simulationism described his play exactly and he continued to do it and got better at it for the description. That's not actually possible to do if the intent and extent of the essay is trashing a game or idea.

Some games do not work. If we apply this to a game like FATAL, no one argues. If you look at where games that are more popular than that fail to do what's on their tin, people get testy because you're impinging on identity for them. Edwards didn't care whose feathers he ruffled, he called it bluntly as he saw it. But, that bluntness seems to be what everyone stops at and claims that analysis is bad because blunt. They don't get through to the actual ideas. You can disagree with Edwards, for sure (I do in areas), but if you can't even get through to the ideas then you aren't disagreeing, you're dismissing.

And it's fine if you want to dismiss. It's the attempt to shut down discussion with people that don't want to dismiss it, or poison the well by bringing in, mischaracterizing, and then sensationalizing other things said with no intent to further the discussion that's a problem.

She did end with asking if we can stop trying to defend him and get back to discussing his ideas, right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't think the problem is with the people who did not find it offensive, either. I absolutely fit the description of what he was talking about. It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything. Is that a problem?

However, I don't really blame anyone for finding it offensive upon first reading.... sure, it's a bit insulting, and I get why it bothered people. But can't we just get over it?

Like, you cite one of the problems with it was his comparison of it to something staggeringly more serious and harmful. Something that happens and always leaves a lasting mark on those affected. I agree the comparison was inappropriate, even if I get the idea he was going for. It was in poor taste and just ill thought out.

I prefer to actually behave that way toward his comments on brain damage. They don't have that level of import, so I can easily dismiss them. Bringing them up again and again makes them seem more significant than they are. I get that there are many who only heard them for the first time recently.... I only heard them years after the fact. But we can't change the past, and I don't think they were significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the rest of his thoughts on gaming.

Like, my take is "Wow yeah, the Brain Damage thing sucked. But what about his ideas about Step on Up?"

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.

I don't think that's even remotely the case. We have only to look to a few pages back where there was reasonable discussion and debate and clarification. If the folks who didn't want this conversation to happen just didn't involve themselves in the conversation, there would be no issue. It's really simple that way.

For example, I don't care about the future of Greyhawk. I have any/all the material I'd ever need to run a game in that setting if I so choose. Know what I didn't do? Jump into @Snarf Zagyg 's thread about Greyhawk and say anything. That I don't care about Greyhawk is a very different thing from me wanting to tell others that they shouldn't care about Greyhawk, or to otherwise disrupt their conversations on the topic.

I saw the title of the thread, I read Snarf's OP, and I didn't really go any further. I don't have anything to add, and any comments I make will likely distract from those who are interested in the topic.

It's that simple.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This hardly feels like a (+) thread anymore.

it didn't feel like one when I tried to give a simple overview and was basically shouted down with "WRONG"

 

[Ovinomancer]

She did end with asking if we can stop trying to defend him and get back to discussing his ideas, right?

This concedes that Edwards is a deplorable person. I'm unwilling to do so. For one, it establishes an easy route to dismiss anything at any time that becomes difficult later.

We shouldn't need to all agree that a person, a human person, is deplorable to advance discussion. Especially when the assignment of deplorable rests on terrible takes about what they said and intended. If you think Edwards is a bad person because he was trashing games to trash games, this shows that you do not grasp the things Edwards was saying at all. It's the core of the ad hominin. A discussion cannot move forwards with this established AND talk about what was actually said -- it's already been discarded!

 

[iserith]

I don't think that's even remotely the case. We have only to look to a few pages back where there was reasonable discussion and debate and clarification. If the folks who didn't want this conversation to happen just didn't involve themselves in the conversation, there would be no issue. It's really simple that way.

For example, I don't care about the future of Greyhawk. I have any/all the material I'd ever need to run a game in that setting if I so choose. Know what I didn't do? Jump into @Snarf Zagyg 's thread about Greyhawk and say anything. That I don't care about Greyhawk is a very different thing from me wanting to tell others that they shouldn't care about Greyhawk, or to otherwise disrupt their conversations on the topic.

I saw the title of the thread, I read Snarf's OP, and I didn't really go any further. I don't have anything to add, and any comments I make will likely distract from those who are interested in the topic.

It's that simple.

How many flaming wrecks of threads will it take to show that it isn't advisable to bring up Forge jargon in a D&D discussion on these forums though? Because I've seen plenty of them and I'm not even in most (or I abandon them once the Forge jargon kicks off). I can't be the only one noticing this.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have never been to the forge, I don't even pretend to understand half there jargon, but I will try.

RPG theory of GNS is just a break down of weather the game itself is more important or the story that the game creates is more important.

So I will try again... high level overview with not jargon and no detail that someone NOT in RPG space wouldn't get is still this

 

[Cadence]

This concedes that Edwards is a deplorable person. I'm unwilling to do so. For one, it establishes an easy route to dismiss anything at any time that becomes difficult later.

We shouldn't need to all agree that a person, a human person, is deplorable to advance discussion. Especially when the assignment of deplorable rests on terrible takes about what they said and intended. If you think Edwards is a bad person because he was trashing games to trash games, this shows that you do not grasp the things Edwards was saying at all. It's the core of the ad hominin. A discussion cannot move forwards with this established AND talk about what was actually said -- it's already been discarded!

Attempting to defend* him seems off topic for the thread. Discussing his theory doesn't.

*Edit: or trash him as a person

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am inclined to judge something like the forge more on the grounds of its ideas than how those ideas were expressed. I am not a huge fan of GNS theory, but I don't have an issue with Edwards himself. He is a colorful personality, who has a clear point of view, and expresses it. I've watched a number of his YouTube videos. Again I don't really agree with him on a lot, but I do find him compelling to listen to and I feel like its useful for me to have to hear what he has to say if only to sharpen my own perspective (and he has a vaguely theatrical manner that almost reminds me of a WWE wrestler). Sometimes he's said things in ways I find baffling (the brain damage remark for example, calling sandboxes kitty boxes-----the latter I can see the humor in though even if it is directly at a style I like). But I also am not going to judge someone for one moment on the internet or how they expressed an idea, especially when I am negatively inclined to some of their ideas (and there is a suspicious level of convenience if you disagree with someone, to want to emphasize that particular negative I think). He made those remarks. I don't think those remarks were intended to be mean to abuse survivors or people with brain damage. I think he was just trying to convey an idea about how he felt early experiences with gaming shape peoples future gaming (and I disagree with him on that, but I'd rather focus on why I think the idea is wrong, than on how it was stated). And these are things he said many years ago when people weren't taking as fine a comb to words people uttered in think pieces on blogs (though to be fair the brain damage remark is pretty infamous). I think one is much better off tackling the ideas themselves . I will also say I had a handful of interactions with Edwards long ago and found him to be quite nice in personal exchanges. I think there is also a difference in how writers convey their opinions in an article or blog post sometimes, versus how they convey them one on one.

Also credit where it is due. I think there are a lot of issues with GNS. I don't find it particularly useful for myself. But the ideas have taken hold in segments of the hobby for a reason and many of the people among whom they've taken hold are good at making the case for those ideas. It is very easy to straw man something like GNS or the things Edward Said, when I think, as I am pretty sure the OP laid out here or elsewhere, steal manning is a much better way to go. It sharpens your own blade, it bridges the divide between you and the person you are debating (there is more room for mutual respect when you focus on what they are actually saying rather than paraphrase it in an uncharitable way). That is a door that swings both ways of course.

As much as I care about play style discussions, I'd rather not 'win' simply because someone expressed an idea on the other side in a way that can now rile people up.