grognards.txt

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > grognards.txt

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Drox posted:

Zak, I'm calling you the dunce. I've never interacted with Mandy.

Mandy: "Well, like Zak said, kitten, he's just posting stuff I asked him to post. And no, nobody expects you to defend anyone--that's a straw-woman argument. We're not stupid. I just thought 'Oh, if the thread's supposed to be hilarious examples of misogyny, well that's the first one I think of.' Please don't be a sad kitten, kitten."

# ¿ Mar 31, 2012 20:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:06

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mikan posted:

in terms of the OSR as presented in grognards.txt with some of its most vocal proponents it's not far from the mark.
The reason I'm conflicted is because the mechanics and advice presented in old school books and old school gaming easily lend themselves to the kinds of things people posted (mother-may-I, 10' poles, etc), and I'm not sure where I land on how much of that is the books and how much of it's the players. When you have a game with all those lovely instant death things and trap monsters and bad rules and presented advice it's kinda hard to see how things don't devolve into paranoia mother-may-I

I hope that what I am going to say here is taken in the spirit intended.

I think a lot of the miscommunication comes down to people discussing not the actual thing that happens (games as played) but documents (game texts, after-play reports, transcripts) of the actual thing that happens.

If you are really curious about what most OSR bloggers consider "what all this should add up to" play in Jeff Rients' next game on Google +. He'll take anybody and determines who plays randomly.

If you're not genuinely curious about what most OSR bloggers are really trying to do, then ok, you're not and it's your right.

# ¿ May 15, 2012 00:45

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mikan posted:

When you have a game with all those lovely instant death things and trap monsters and bad rules and presented advice it's kinda hard to see how things don't devolve into paranoia mother-may-I

Mikan says here it is "hard to see" how something results in real fun and not in something totally boring and stupid.

I am saying: play in Jeff's game. Then you will see.

# ¿ May 15, 2012 01:04

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

It's not an argument. Just letting you know this is an option for any interested or curious parties.

See you later.

___
p.s. if for some reason Jeff's game is inconvenient I can give people a list of GMs running open old school G+ games that are also pretty good. Let me know.

# ¿ May 15, 2012 01:18

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

FMguru posted:

We see this in grogland, where a half-dozen people posting and linking the same poo poo over and over to each other on their blogs and discussion forums have convinced themselves that the Old School Renaissance is a huge, growing, dynamic concern that's picking up new converts every day, instead of the sad, crabbed fruitless exercise in nostalgia that it really is.

Or, for example, from you: where a half-dozen people posting and linking the same poo poo over and over to each other in discussion forums has apparently convinced yourself that the Old School Renaissance is a "sad, crabbed fruitless exercise in nostalgia" despite the fact that it results in people of all ages (including ones who never experienced and TSR D&D) having fun and playing games.

You wanna whale on real basement-dwelling "grogs" go ahead. But lumping everyone who ever wrote "AC: 8 or 12" (Jeff, Joesky, Noisms, Natalie) on their blog into the same category and then complaining about that category is about as groggy as it gets.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 21:54

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mikan posted:

Are you actually interested in Real Discussion this time or are you going to drop something in this thread, peace out and whine on someone else's blog about us never engaging in discussion

That is actually a very good question. Mikan. If we can agree that what FMguru just wrote was some seriously over-reachy hyperbole then you may be someone I'm capable of having a conversation with. If you are like "No actually, that sounds exactly right to me" then I'd have to say to myself "No, this is a madhouse and talking to people here is a waste of my time."

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:02

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you think any of us have any ill will towards JOESKY

...and Joesky is totally OSR. So there's a logical disconnect between complaining about the "fruitlessness" of "the OSR" and that. Right?

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:03

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

Some people transcend labels.

JOESKY is one of those people.

You sound like a homophobe defending his love of Elton John.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:06

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mors Rattus posted:

Is this really the comparison you want to jump to?

Why wouldn't I? A stereotype is a stereotype.

OSR = Grog (in the worst sense of the word) is just saying that "plays old games and blogs about it" = "fruitless nostalgist (regardless of actual content of blog entries)" .

It's not helpful. It doesn't make the critique look attractive or sane or anything but mean-spirited. Attack racist homophobic my-way-or-the-highway grogs like BT or Kent. Do that. That's not wholly pointless. But FMGuru attacking any guy or girl who is like "I play Labyrinth Lord and like it and blog about it" is not helping anything.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:12

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Darwinism posted:

Here I'll sum it up for you Zak: OSR is idiotic because of things like the Old School Primer, which puts up strawmen left and right to prove that OSR players are Doing It Right and no one else is a True Roleplayer.

That is why they're mocked; not for liking a certain game but for having more than a few of the leaders of that particular community stating that their way of play is the right way and other ways are naturally inferior.

Joesky doesn't do this. He gets that a game should be fun, from everything he posts, and doesn't pretend that other people are playing elfgames wrong.

Do you believe me when I say "reading and agreeing to everything in the Old School primer" is not a requirement for saying you're "in the OSR"?

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:14

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

Half the people in this thread play old games. poo poo we may as well get a Basic Fan Club going on. We certainly gushed about it enough a few pages back.

So you know. Not really.

What, for you, puts someone "in the OSR"?

Can I get an answer to that? Maybe this is all just confusion.

I, for one, never considered myself "in the OSR" until a million morons attack the girls in my group (including many in the OSR) and every major blogger in the OSR (Raggi, Jeff, James Mal, Joesky etc) all were like "You guys can gently caress off, Zak and his group are Old School enough for us no matter what." And I was like, provisionally, "Ok." And then my book came out and everyone was like "This is Old School, I like it" or "This is Old School, I hate it" so I was like "Oh well, guess I'm Old School".

Maybe you assume The Real OSR is some cabal of forum posters at the bottom of Dragonsfoot I never heard of.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:19

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Guilty Spork posted:

We do sometimes fall into the trap of over-generalizing about the OSR around here. It doesn't help that there are some OSR bloggers who have really amazingly crappy attitudes, but there are plenty who don't.

Rock on, Pony. Thank you for that piece of anti-Grog. That's all I'm asking for here.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:24

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Dr Nick posted:

Hey Zak, not to change the topic too much but when I watched the first episode of "I hit it With My Axe" after our last discussion, the new player said something to the effect of: "We spent the whole session arguing and I didn't get to do much but suck" when you asked if she had fun. Do you consider this particular play experience to be integral to the tabletop role playing game experience? Just curious.

Dr Nick, whether it is deserved or not, your statements in this thread have never seemed to me to have come from a place of good faith, so I do not want to have an extended conversation with you, especially about one of my friends.

Also, this is what they call in legal terminology a "leading question" (and also contains an imprecision). I know that this will not be a good enough answer for you, but for anyone else reading I'll say: there is quite a lot more to say about that player playing D&D than what Dr Nick just said. Her final word on the game is probably best expressed in the Maxim article--which is free on-line.

If you would like to see episodes that represent what I or one of my players would consider "typical" play at our table, you can ask me or any of my players. All of them are on-line somewhere.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:32

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mikan posted:

Flying Swordsmen seems cool and I think it's an OSR thing but it actually gives Fighters something to do so maybe it isn't

I have given a lot of thought to the "giving fighters something to do" question (as have a lot of other OSR and not-OSR bloggers and designers I talk to), much of which is tied up in the nondisclosure agreement.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:38

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

I think nonfun should not be an element of any game.

I think trying a tactic, failing, and then trying a new tactic can be a rewarding and interesting element in certain kinds of games, especially if the standards for success and failure are well-described.

I also think this process is much more complex in D&D than in, say, chess, because, as has been pointed out in this thread by many people in many contexts, in almost all RPGs the GM has to essentially both make up rules (in the form of situations with tactical parameters if nothing else) and describe them (by saying what the PCs receive through their 5--or more--senses and perhaps imparting metagame knowledge). In some games this process is made easier for new GMs than others. I think that's a good thing, but I also think it is not a simple task since RPGs are, perhaps, the most complicated kind of game ever devised.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:47

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mikan posted:

It shouldn't even be a question

I get it, what I'm saying is: I've thought about solutions to the problem from the angle of making fighter play as various and interacting as wizard play no matter what kind of person is playing the fighter as have many other people I've spoken to.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 22:49

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Dr Nick posted:

I disagree but I think we might be operating from different definitions of the term "fun", maybe? I think that Role Playing Games should be fun even in failure but I get the feeling that you may think that too otherwise you may not have used the term "rewarding" in the way you do.

I fully admit that I didn't watch the whole series and presumably she stuck around so that's good but my primary concern is that a new player having that experience may just decide role playing games are not for them and move on. While this isn't terrible in itself as a broad trend it may spell doom for our little hobby. I admit that seeing that reaction from a new player was a little shocking. When I first played Dungeons and Dragons I was fully invested and my reaction to the question of: "Was it fun?" would have been "HELL YES." My gut presumption was that this difference in reaction was a result of wildly divergent play styles. Of course I could be wrong.

Well we can talk about me (which is simple: I have a group, we have fun, and everybody comes back if they are in the same city and sometimes we're all in a bar or a car or something and they're like "Let's play!" out of nowhere. My game goes over well with my particular people.) That proves little, however, about Old School or anything else.

Or we can talk about "everyone in the OSR" which is a larger circle.

Or we can talk about "everyone who pays older editions" which is an even larger circle.

Or we can talk about whether the methods and ideas espoused by any of these groups:

a) Is exportable via text in rulebooks to other tables, or

b) Should be exported, or

c) Is the version of the game ideal for exporting to other tables.

I think these are all separate questions. One frustrating thing that happens is one person announces one rule that is unequivocally good for his or her table and this is criticized as if it is a universal recommendation about how to introduce people to the hobby of RPGs.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 23:06

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

glitchwraith posted:

But you must admit there are people who's personal table rules are obviously not good for any other table (or even their table if they are especially dense), much less good for bringing new players into the hobby

I agree completely and entirely.

quote:

yet they do espouse it to all as the "One True DnD Gygax always had in mind".

And I hate these people too. And they hate me. And once in a while they hate on James Mal and send me angry letters.

quote:

Those usualy seem to be the primary target of this thread.

I sincerely hope that you believe that.

quote:

How well it sticks to that target, I cannot say.

With decidedly mixed success, I'd say. Hint: every time anyone writes "Old School is about" (and then something insane) then the thread has failed to do that. And it's failed even more when it says "The OSR is all about" (and then something insane).

# ¿ May 16, 2012 23:35

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Dr Nick posted:

I think the problem is that there are people out there who seem to absolutely believe that playing Role Playing Games shold be a frustrating experience. They don't use the word frustrating but I hear things about how (as one example) anybody who can't (or won't) use THAC0 shouldn't be playing "our" game. Those are the types of opinions I'm reacting to.

Well gently caress all of them. But nobody "important" (or: with a lot of followers or products out) in the OSR blog community I'm familiar with spouts any of that.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 23:37

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Y'know what? I'm checking myself here: Raggi talks a lot of smack. It is pretty much the mirror image of the smack talked here, but it is still smack-talking.

I can tell you from experience that in real life he is not the jerk he might appear to be on-line. However, he is a far deeper believer in outrage-as-publicity than anyone I know.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 23:49

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

The only real commonality I see in all Old School bloggers is a belief that there are many mechanical and aesthetic ideas that appear in older games but not in newer ones that are (despite their having fallen out of fashion) not complete poo poo.

In addition, most of the more interesting OSR bloggers believe that some of these ideas can be built on to form whole new games and ways of playing games using these ideas.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:05

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Dr Nick posted:

Oh.

Oh no.

So, Zak, I'm going to come right out and ask this: how do you feel about rape in Role Playing Games?

Well I play with people (all women--mostly strippers and porn actresses) who talk about rape and sexual abuse pretty much every day (outside of games) of their own accord (sometimes seriously sometimes not). And while I have never introduced it into a setting (and wouldn't) they have and do, but they bring it up on about a 'South Park' level of seriousness--not as a thing any of the PCs do or as a wish-fulfillment. And it comes up much less than it does in ordinary conversation.

I have never seen the slightest indication from James in real life that he had the slightest interest in having players enact rape fantasies at the table.

I mean, if you have players who want to do that, I think the problem is waaaaay more serious than what edition you're playing.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:13

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

the vast majority of what makes up the "OSR" comes from places like RPGsite or Dragonsfoot or the particularly horrid posters at ENWorld and RPGnet.

Ok, this is the source of the confusion.

I don't read forums much. The OSR-of-my-understanding is a web of mostly blogs extending from Jeff Rients, the blogger, James Mal, the blogger, and a network of retroclone publishers at the center.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:17

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

ProfessorCirno posted:

I mean, check it: when you first entered das blagosphere Zak, the overwhelming response from the "OSR" was that you were some sinister sexhaver monster seeking to corrupt their proud citadel of old schoolery. And when Penny Arcade did a full piece on playing a retroclone and enjoying it, they howled and threw their poop like so many monkeys at how he wasn't showing them the proper respect in their blatent advertisement and how they were just a bunch of snot nosed kids.

Yeah, your "they" is not my "they"--as I explained in my previous post.

The major OSR bloggers were very kind and curious and nice. Unlike, say, certain forums I could name.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:19

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

FMguru posted:

It's totally unfair to judge a person by his record of public statements and public behavior

That one cuts both ways.

We can condemn you and James or neither. Which would you prefer?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:21

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Glitterbomber posted:

So basically this is like me constantly running into a thread and throwing a shitfit when Esquire is mocked because I like a couple of their regular columns? Do you see the issue here?

To me it's about a stereotype and about how you're not helping what I think is, with some posters, a sincere desire to advance a discussion about RPG design by promulgating a stereotype.

It's like deciding ideas must be back-engineered to be bad because they appeared in Esquire. It slows progress down.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:24

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Glitterbomber posted:

It's almost like this thread made to make fun of people being dumb isn't the place for a deep examining of the community as a whole including the totally normal dudes.

Here's a thing.

What, to you, I'm sure looks like the harmless "point and laugh" part of the thread looks, from the outside, like the "Pointless Tribal Chest-Beating" part of the thread.

And what, from inside the OSR, just looks like harmless "point and laugh" posts looks, to you, like "Pointless Tribal Chest Beating", I'm sure.

A confusion of the serious and the unserious (and who considers what serious) is a big part of real things that come up here in this thread.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:30

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mors Rattus posted:

In fairness, 'are mean about elfgames' is not quite as damning as 'rape supporter'.

When you say that, are you saying "I believe that James Raggi is in favor of rape"? If not, what are you saying?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:31

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

There is a genuinely interesting question here:

How "serious" (or "obviously unserious") does a cultural product have to be before it's allowed to address the subject of rape?

Is Poison'd allowed a pass because, basically, it's (considered) good and Carcosa doesn't because it's (considered) bad?

Can rape be in a South Park joke?

Can rape be in that Misfits song "Last Caress"?

These are real things worth talking about. But deciding that James wants people to be raped because of Carcosa is disingenuous and I think at least some people here probably know that.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:38

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

counterspin posted:

Do you really think that describing how to kill and repeatedly rape a girl counts as "dealing with" rape on any serious level? You can address rape in all sorts of media, but let's not pretend like Carcosa "deals with rape." It's just using rape as puerile bullshit to fill out its spell descriptions.

I definitely do not think it "deals with" the subject in any real way. No. My question still stands--are South Park and the Misfits as bad as James here to you? Why or why not?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:48

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Glitterbomber posted:

I believe James Raggi is a man who supports rape culture through his support of games with rape as a major facet, ironic or not.

Also South Park is terrible, so yea not really able to fall into that trap.

And the Misfits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2MyMqVD0E

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:51

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Glitterbomber posted:

How about you make a point instead? I dig a lot of the Misfits but I can't listen to youtube right now, so I can't play your dumb "and THIS are you against THIIIIIIS?!" game. James Raggi cheerleads for two games that have rape as a major part, ironic or not this supports rape culture and is a bad thing, that's the topic.

I feel like I understand your position. I am trying to understand where it comes from.

I am not trying to make you like James Edward Raggi, I am simply trying to figure out what makes this--as opposed to other things--tip the scales for you. I hope you can appreciate that this is an example I'm using to try to understand where you're coming from, not an elaborate mind game.

Here's the lyrics to Last Caress (originally by the Misfits, covered by Metallica): "I've got something to say/I raped your mother today/Doesn't matter much to me as long as she spreads". It's loud, it's the hook, you can't hear the song without hearing this line fairly legibly.

If your position is "treating rape casually contributes, accidentally or on purpose, to rape culture" this is a position I understand, whether or not I share it.

If your position is "putting rape in an RPG means people will use the game to act out rape fantasies" then this is a position I think is strange because I think the real problem is "Holy hell you have someone nuts at your table!".

If it's something else, exactly, I'd like to know what that is.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:00

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Gau posted:

Do you want to respond to my actual point?

I don't. It seems to me like you're just accusing me of posting in bad faith which me saying "That's not true!" is not really going to change.

Either ignore me or don't.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:04

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Mors Rattus posted:

Second, I do not feel comfortable with any game which encourages me to introduce rape among my friends or encourages my friends to introduce rape to me. I do not want to be friends with people who casually introduce rape into our fun elfgame time, and I do not want a product to encourage that by including it as a major factor!

Ok, real question here: is the idea you are afraid your friends will literally become more likely to commit rape or is it more the desperate unfun-ness of it as a topic to bring up with them?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:06

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Glitterbomber posted:

No one is ever saying the second thing.

It's the first one, don't use rape in your loving elf game because rape culture is a real, oppressive, force in the world. Jeff supports two games that do that, and your only defense to it is 'well he's doing it ironically to get attention' which is just as not-ok than if he was doing it 100% seriously, is this still confusing?

I understand your position perfectly, Glitterbomber. I am now interested to see if everyone else writing now shares your position.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:07

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Piell posted:

Literally everyone here arguing with you has this position, not the dumb strawman you are trying to build.

I am not trying to build a strawman. I am trying to separate what I think is a common position ("treating rape casually contributes to a rape culture") from an uncommon position suggested to me by (proably hyperbolic) statements I have seen here in this thread concerning the plethora of grogs and their rape fantasies.

I am, on a larger scale, trying to figure how sane the people here are.

The first position is sane, the second...less so.

I need to separate belief from rhetoric in order to have a conversation.

Again: you can assume I'm telling the truth when I write or just ignore me.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:16

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

Piell posted:

Great, you've now learned everyone's position, now stop whining and building strawmen and let's have a conversation.

Ok, so.

If your position is that casual references to rape contribute to rape culture then you are all totally justified in hating the OSR. Because the majority of the OSR that I know about (pretty much all of it except maybe the guy from the RPGCorner and Scrap Princess) is ok with Carcosa.

There are also a few Christian Crusader grogs (grogs by any standard) who are anti-Carcosa.

But within the people I consider "the community", it is pretty much universally accepted and not considered much of a big deal.

Joesky wrote a scenario for it, Jeff of the gameblog plays in Carcosa, James Maliszewski reviewed it positively, James Raggi published it, the women in my group dismiss it as "just a game" and I seriously considered working on a project with its author (Also, outside the OSR, Andy, proprietor of Story-Games said he'd totally play it, just not at a con--a common sentiment). We all talk about it as a decent product and the rape part rarely comes up as a serious issue.

Whether this comes from a lack of agreement on what leads to real rape in real life or simply a callous disregard for the safety of humans is your call.

In comparison to--what must seem to you--our total lack of humanity on this major issue, my piddling concerns about rhetorical fairness and playstyle probably come off as fairly hollow. So what if there is no element of nostalgia in my young players' interest in Old School play? So what if sandboxes are not the hideous caricatures described here? So what if someone mistakes the part for the whole and are rhetorically sloppy? By your estimation, we are apathetic to the advance of rape culture. Everything else you say must seem like a minor crime committed in earnest to halt the advance of a monstrous foe to you.

I can hardly ask for fairness or serious debate on anything else in light of that.

I'm pretty sure you and--yes, pretty much the whole OSR--are at a real and genuine impasse.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:33

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

I still do wonder how everyone other than the people who sounded off already feel about South Park and the Misfits. And Patton Oswalt ("the entire economy is based on rape"). Or Louis CK. etc.

Is the line always the same?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:43

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

mllaneza posted:

None of those artists are throwing unnecessary detail in to titillate the audience. The line is usually right around there, and by 'usually' I mean I can't think of an example where it wouldn't be.

This is a separate point then.

For you, anyway, this then comes down to "is this detail included in Carcosa to titillate the audience?". Now it never occurred to me that it was there to do that. (Nor do I know anyone who thinks that in the OSR. The rape is considered a bad thing that happens in a bad place, to be avoided, in all discussions I have seen.) But I can see how it would seem psychotically crazy if you assumed it was.

Another theory I have seen advanced is that it was there to be "edgy". This is a difficult claim to prove or counter. It doesn't seem plausible to me, it more just seems like it was there to emphasize (as in the Patton Oswalt joke) that the place was apocalyptically corrupt.

Now, to some people, this will not matter: a reference to rape in an RPG is unacceptable period. But neither the "edginess" or "titilation" theses seem very plausible to me, for what that's worth.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:06

Zak S: Mar 1, 2012

dirtycajun posted:

I have unfortunately sat down at multiple tables with new gaming groups that used it. At one point a GM saw a new female player and had his DMNPC rape her character. She broke down sobbing. Guess what, turns out she had been raped.

Where on earth do you live? Is this at cons or what?

# ¿ May 17, 2012 01:57

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > grognards.txt

«‹›5 »