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

[Crimson Longinus]

The Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland had Alice’s father said he would “believe four impossible things before breakfast,” as a poetic way of expressing that innovation can make the seemingly impossible, possible. But, Edwards seems to be using it the opposite way here - to mean that the thing the gaming community seems to believe is possible, isn’t. Also, I’m pretty sure the Forge came first, so I’m guessing they’re both referencing something else I’m not familiar with.

It's from the original Alice in the Wonderland book.

 

[hawkeyefan]

IMHO, I have not found the academic-level theorizing about RPGs as helpful as I have found the amateur stuff for sussing out my views and preferences about roleplaying games. The sort of theory and questions that interest academics of TRPGs are drawn to addressing tend to be different, IME, than those of hobbyists (including designers). The same is true, again IME, when dealing with academic theories and hobby theorists (including designers) regarding digital games (e.g., computer, video, mobile, etc.).

Sure, I get that! That's probably more what I was saying than speaking specifically of Edwards's essays or any other theory document. I think discussing games with many folks here has been the key element for the improvement of my gaming experience. But many of those discussions have included or been informed by theory, so I know how influential it has been to the hobby.

But yes, conversation here is the more important thing to me.

 

[Malmuria]

The Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland had Alice’s father said he would “believe four impossible things before breakfast,” as a poetic way of expressing that innovation can make the seemingly impossible, possible. But, Edwards seems to be using it the opposite way here - to mean that the thing the gaming community seems to believe is possible, isn’t. Also, I’m pretty sure the Forge came first, so I’m guessing they’re both referencing something else I’m not familiar with.

Oh, Alice in Wonderland!

…

That’s what he took from Alice in Wonderland?

 

[Manbearcat]

Right? You were engaged in a good faith discussion for several pages. I asked @Manbearcat to expand upon his thoughts re: Torchbearer. That’s the opposite of shutting down discussion. Unless, taking any issue at all with the way Edwards communicated, even in the most notorious example, is the same as “shutting down discussion.” Or, citing Edwards at length on his own terms is “shutting down discussion.”

I’ll get to a post on that, though I’ll probably do it in the existing TB thread (unless someone makes a new post focused exclusively on incoherence and dysfunction) as it will likely just be a bunch of noise in this thread (as it’s pivoting too wildly and moving too quickly imo). I can’t do it today as I need time and space from obligations to gather my thoughts and compose some pretty complex thoughts coherently ( NYUK NYUK NYUK).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay. You use words that you actually meant to be different words,

I do not. I am having a normal conversation with conversational English.

ignored the third, and most influential, part of GNS until you said it's just somewhere between the other two,

yeah that is what I said and in a broad over view it is 'close enough'

completely admit that you've never looked at the source material,

that is a strength when show casing 'common knowledge' and not 'expert knowledge'

You how ever are so upset that the expert knowledge is being swept aside by an overly simplistic understanding that you are missing out...

it's like people that argue we need 19 types of swords... long short two handed can cover all 19, or you can get a little more indepth... to be honest long and short can really cover it.

will long sword/ short sword be as perfect as 2e phb+arms and equipme 3-5 more splats worth of weapons? no... but at it's most simplistic it is an easy break down.

and anyone correcting anything is really only concerned with scoring points against a layman's point of view. Is this where we are?

yes. yes it is.

if this thread was "In Depth Look at Forge Terms" I would be asking more questions.

how ever it is "Explain it WITH OUT useing the jargon" so I took a basic high level over view.

I'm trying to make sure I know what you mean.

then take a moment and think about what I am trying to show case. What someone who has seen these terms thrown around has found in its most basic level sees it. Now if you want to make correction that don't make it more complex go ahead... but the moment you start to add complexity you are missing the point.

Does 'layman's point of view' mean "uninformed opinion" in this conjecture?

I would not call anyone who spends any amount of time on message boards "uninformed" about gaming. Now as I said my knowledge is not from the forge... its from 30+ years of gaming and talking about games and figiting with games... but sure.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have no idea if he did or did not. I expect even if he did, nothing would change. I also don't think he really needs to apologize.

I'm going to try one more time, since I really think that there might be a failure of understanding here. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I just want you to imagine one of us, recasting the Edwards comments and saying that people who use Forge terms or GNS are literally brain damaged, and that they behave similarly to a twelve-year old victim of sexual abuse. The damage of the Forge, like the damage inflicted on a childhood victim of sexual abuse, can never be undone*, and at best we can hope to make "functional repairs" to the people who have had the Forge inflicted upon them.

*To be clear, this is not my opinion, but that is in Edwards' quote.


I could not imagine someone saying that, no matter how internet awesome and edgelord-y that person thought they were being. Nor would I want to be put in the position of defending that or minimizing that- because I wouldn't.

I also differ on the value of apologies.

So my point on this matter was not to limit anyone from takin part in any conversation they'd like, but for people to exhibit some self control, and simply not engage in threads where their sole contribution is going to be "Hey all you guys who are chatting about this, you shouldn't be chatting about this". That's no one's decision to make other than Morrus and the mods, and I see anyone doing that as an attempt to shut down conversation simply because they don't like what's being said, and so I'm against that.

I'm against that as well; I just think that perspectives will differ as to where the issue is occurring. Which, again, likely means it might be an issue of perspective.

 

[Malmuria]

And, to be honest, some people enforce that requirement, so that if you try to talk about a particular game (like the ones you mention) using your own language, you open yourself up to criticism.

Please, point me in the direction of those coitizing you for failing to use approved jargon while discussing these games. I have words. I would speak those words to those people. I haven't seen any of this anywhere, though, so any pointers would be helpful.

Okay. You use words that you actually meant to be different words, ignored the third, and most influential, part of GNS until you said it's just somewhere between the other two, completely admit that you've never looked at the source material, and anyone correcting anything is really only concerned with scoring points against a layman's point of view. Is this where we are? I'm trying to make sure I know what you mean.

Does 'layman's point of view' mean "uninformed opinion" in this conjecture?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right? You were engaged in a good faith discussion for several pages. I asked @Manbearcat to expand upon his thoughts re: Torchbearer. That’s the opposite of shutting down discussion. Unless, taking any issue at all with the way Edwards communicated, even in the most notorious example, is the same as “shutting down discussion.” Or, citing Edwards at length on his own terms is “shutting down discussion.”

Okay, let me run this past you and see if you see it. People are discussing things Edwards has said, and doing so in a way that advances some of the ideas. Suddenly, someone drops in a bomb, and Edwards becomes a toxic person for the ideas he said. Ideas that are being discussed in the thread. Do you really not see the easy move of assigning the bad faith attributed to Edwards to anyone that supports anything he said in the thread? @Crimson Longinus has already started this shift. Pretty soon, if someone makes a strong argument for something Edwards has said, the response is going to be about Edwards being deplorable and why are you advancing the ideas of a deplorable person.

This isn't a slippery slope conjecture, this has happened many times in similar threads. Once people make Edwards and how horrible he supposedly is (if you can bear it, go watch one of his videos talking about playing games with other people and come back and tell me how horrible a person he is) then that's the touchstone. It's the easy "I win" button. And for every poster that has the fortitude to not press it, three will show up that will gleefully hit it. And here we are, already. The one inclusion of that essay, which doesn't say what people claim it does, has totally upended the thread and all useful discussion. If you want to ascertain motives, look to actions. No one is saying "I think Edwards is a bit of a <bad word>, but let's put that aside and talk about the ideas." Instead you get, "Edwards is deplorable, he said all of these things that makes him deplorable, and I will not brook any contrary argument." Except, the things he said are part and parcel of some of the ideas, they're labeled at badwrong, and you cannot redeem them because they're now aligned with Edwards being deplorable.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right? You were engaged in a good faith discussion for several pages. I asked @Manbearcat to expand upon his thoughts re: Torchbearer. That’s the opposite of shutting down discussion. Unless, taking any issue at all with the way Edwards communicated, even in the most notorious example, is the same as “shutting down discussion.” Or, citing Edwards at length on his own terms is “shutting down discussion.”

Also, for the record, while I think quoting him was the thing that triggered this digression, I don’t think you were wrong to do so. It made sense in context and supported your argument quite well. If anything, my offhanded comment that his writing was off-putting to me was the problem. Sorry for that, didn’t realize it would be such a controversial statement. In retrospect it didn’t add anything productive and I should have realized it was potentially inflammatory.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's from the original Alice in the Wonderland book.

Is it? I don’t remember that part. Are you sure it’s not in Through the Looking Glass, cause I haven’t read that one.