Greg's Comment:I find that offensive. My reply on the same comment thread:
"Furthermore,
1. In the past, there has been a lot of negative attention on RPGs because of perceived "immoral" aspects.
2. This kind of behavior risks that kind of thing coming back down on the hobby
--------
Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material."
This is why my grandfather fought in WW II. So you can wimp out and declare that fear should censor our artistic vision.
An obvious reply, but fucking true.
Greg's obtuse answer:Greg, you ignorant slut! This isn't a case of Godwin's Law. I'm not comparing you to Hitler. I'm comparing you to Chamberlain.
@ James
Is that a new variant of Godwin's Law? Acts have to be judged as worthy in light of the WWII victory?
TSR was wrong to make concessions to the Satanic Panic of the 80's. Your wanting to appease moralists and declaring:
"Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material."Is offensive.
I find your lack of self-respect, offensive.
I read through both of these posts and Greg seems to misuse a lot of terms. His constant insistence that any analogy to music being a straw man argument for instance. The social contract of RPG consumers is a damn silly idea, I bought the game for the game and the art is incidental.
ReplyDeleteI'm still at a loss as to what his motivation is in arguing his point of view, maybe he should just print of the art-free pdf and leave the rest of us alone.
It would be a variant of Godwin's law because you would be saying that the defeat of Hitler justified whatever you were saying. Your granddad fought for freedom and I am squandering it, therefore my act of freedom must be justified against the mass of evil that is the Axis. Or something similar. It is actually a really convoluted statement in relation to the actual context. You should have just outright made an appeasement comparison if that is what you were going for.
ReplyDeleteIf you were trying to make an appeasement reference, that would also be related to Hitler, thus a potential Godwin's law variant. However, that is a bit more convoluted than the first interpretation, I think.
If you really feel this is appeasement though, then you are going to have a lot of defending to do for all the video games and movies that intentionally control their content to get better ratings to get wider audience reception.
Are you saying that avoiding hard moral subjects to be more widely acceptable is comparable to Neville Chamberlain? Really? That is a pretty bold statement, I would say quite hyberbolic too. Thus very close to the actual reasoning behind Godwin's Law, which is that the comparison is spurious and intended to just win via hyberbole.
An observation:
ReplyDeleteDegenerate Elite just asked why I can't just keep my mouth shut and go with the flow, for saying that I don't like the Grindhouse Edition for not going with the flow. Strange irony, that.
Greg, that snake pit you call a mind is tripping you up, all over the damn place!
ReplyDelete"If you really feel this is appeasement though, then you are going to have a lot of defending to do for all the video games and movies that intentionally control their content to get better ratings to get wider audience reception."
Why in the fuck would I have to defend the actions of video game developers? They're not my actions! And a grab for wider audience reception is not the same thing as fear of reprisal.
And here you go again, your usual tactic of trying to reframe your position, to put yourself in a better light. Typical Greg bullshit.
"Are you saying that avoiding hard moral subjects to be more widely acceptable is comparable to Neville Chamberlain?"
I'm saying, Greg, that your attitude is that of a slave. It's offensive. Here's your hard moral subject: I believe in artistic freedom. If that means Mr. Raggi pisses off, disturbs, or otherwise rocks the boat, then I say Let The Motherfucker Rock.
But not if someone wants to respond, it seems. Then, the Motherfucker must not, apparently, Rock.
ReplyDeleteSo James, you are saying that if James wants to "piss off, disturbs, or otherwise rocks the boat", I shouldn't point out that I find it distasteful? Is that a catch 22?
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to see that I have my own special form of bullshit. I should patent it!
ReplyDeleteSo when a video game cuts out an element to get a lower rating, it is not that a higher rating is a repisal to them, but that a lower rating is some kind of magical audience creator?
No.
They want a lower rating because there is an audience that won't consume the higher rated product. This is a basic form of reprisal. You get the explicit lyrics tag or the Mature rating, and Mom doesn't buy. That's why they have ratings, James. So people can make decisions about what they DONT WANT.
Greg. Pay attention to your own fucking words:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore,
1. In the past, there has been a lot of negative attention on RPGs because of perceived "immoral" aspects.
2. This kind of behavior risks that kind of thing coming back down on the hobby
--------
Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material."
"Even though I think it is a bad idea to create such material, I am not advocating any action against Jim. I think 4e was a bad idea too. That's just my opinion. But as you said, it is my saying "and I think most people would agree with me" that gets people rankled."
Nice, that you don't advocate any action against Mr. Raggi. Of course, that's not entirely true as your recent postings have been all about action against Mr. Raggi.
"They want a lower rating because there is an audience that won't consume the higher rated product. This is a basic form of reprisal."
ReplyDeleteGreg. Try to follow. That's not the same thing as what went down in the 80's. One video game company pissing off their customers, is not the same situation as the Satanic Panic of the 80's.
Your comparison is flawed. Stop. Take a breath. And focus.
@Spawn- I love Joesky. I really do. But your bringing up the idea of a TAX on my free-speech, when I'm involved in an argument defending free-speech, is fucking ironic. :)
ReplyDeleteWhere have I suggested "action" against Mr. Raggi. I will be impressed if you can find a single citation.
ReplyDeleteGreg. Goddammit! Try to follow! I said, above:
ReplyDelete"Nice, that you don't advocate any action against Mr. Raggi. Of course, that's not entirely true as your recent postings have been all about action against Mr. Raggi."
Greg, don't interrupt James: he's saying "fuck" and "fucking" a lot, and feeling like a cool free speech warrior for telling you to shut the fuck up, and comparing you to Neville Chamberlain and himself to the soldiers who fought in WWII. It's all very important.
ReplyDeleteI never told Greg to Shut Up, Anonymous. I called him a fucking coward. Get your shit straight.
ReplyDeleteI CAN READ, TREBEK!
ReplyDeleteHence the question, please provide a citation where I am calling for action against Mr. Raggi.
YOU WONT FIND ONE! I said in the original post that nobody was calling for censorship. I made a follow up post where I cited James Raggi talking about how his game was going to be outside of the normal artistic bounds.
CASE CLOSED. When someone cites you arguing the position you are attacking, you lose the argument. GAME OVER
I HAVE NEVER CALLED FOR ACTION AGAINST JAMES RAGGI OF ANY KIND, MERELY EXPRESSED MY OPINION
LEARN TO READ, DUDE
@James: Sorry for the miscue. I'm referring to the bit about "any comment over 25 words" incurs the tax. I defer to folks saying whatever they like on their own blog and it's not my business to get up on that (because if I don't like someone's blog I can not read it, if I don't like someone's product I can not buy it and also not publicize by writing about it everywhere). It's just like the fun in the OSR is being systematically hunted down and killed over the last week and a half.
ReplyDeleteAnd for my tax, Holy Water Bolas:
Holy water bolas were developed by Innominus the Follower of Endra in the Lands of Ara. Each set comprises 2 half-vials of holy water in specially blown containers on the end of two leads, and a third lead with an iron weight. When thrown against undead they can cause 1d8 damage as holy water, but will also entangle the abomination and reduce its movement. They are so bad-ass that when used against intelligent undead for the first time, they will be startled and say "Holy (or Unholy) Shit!". If the attack is successful, after the searing pain of righteous burning subsides, the undead will nod appreciatively and acknowledge the cleric's bad-assness by saying "Good one."
@Greg: While you do not directly advocate "action" vs. Mr. Raggi, you DO say that "I don't think it is a good idea to create such material." This implies that you think Raggi should not produce such stuff, yes?
ReplyDelete@James: As you say, Let The Motherfucker Rock!
Well Greg, I didn't say you called for action against Mr. Raggi. See above, again.
ReplyDeleteI said your recent posts have been all about that. As in, your posts, your actions.
Although, I have no doubt that you've been wanting assholes like Anonymous up there, to jump on your bandwagon. You know, since you have that social contract thing all sussed out.
But, you can't really rely on Anonymous Assholes.
Hate on LotFP and Mr. Raggi all you want. Criticize the Grindhouse Edition, be all offended, whatever.
But if you're going to take it upon yourself to define the Social Contract for others, and in such a disrespectful way, to boot, you're gonna catch flak. Isn't that what you wanted?
@ Carter
ReplyDeleteNo. I think it wasn't a good idea to make 4e either. I'm not advocating a WotC boycott, just giving my opinion.
So my posts have been "about action" but not "calling for action".
ReplyDeleteWow, that is one hell of a parse, James.
Carter Said- " While you do not directly advocate "action" vs. Mr. Raggi, you DO say that "I don't think it is a good idea to create such material." This implies that you think Raggi should not produce such stuff, yes?"
ReplyDeleteA quick quote from ADDGrognard:
"I am not mad at you and I have promoted your material in the past right on this very blog if memory serves me right. I don't have a problem with you not liking a product. I have a problem with you telling people it should not be made. That is censorship. That is wrong. And when you compound the problem by speaking as if this is the feelings of the masses then that really hits a nerve."
Greg's Reply:
"No, you're wrong ADD
Saying that something should not be made is not censorship.
The Star Wars prequels should not have been made
D&D 4e should not have been made
Those two opinions don't mean that I am censoring George Lucas or WotC."
"So my posts have been "about action" but not "calling for action".
ReplyDeleteWow, that is one hell of a parse, James."
Gee Greg, I'm sorry that's too fucking subtle, for you!
Re-read my reply. If anyone else not obviously being an asshole says they fail to understand my point, I'll explain it to you!
And one more thing -- the following statement (made by Greg in the original comment thread and amply refuted by ADD Grognard) is false: "There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary."
ReplyDeleteThat's different than "action," Carter. Freedom to create material that some consider offensive also means freedom for the people who consider it offensive to say, "I don't think people should produce that material."
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that there are any ethical and moral responsibilities in imaginative gaming (apart from Letting the Motherfucker Rock)?
You can't have it one way, and not the other. JR is free to publish whatever material he wishes. Other people should be FREE to discuss their opinions, thoughts, ideas, WHATEVER on said material. It's called free speech. Right??? There's a lot of hypocrisy in the OSR blogosphere when discussing this topic.
ReplyDelete"It's just like the fun in the OSR is being systematically hunted down and killed over the last week and a half.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Spawn. And sometimes this shit just has to be aired out.
@ Carter
ReplyDeleteThen disagree. DISAGREE
Have you always agreed with me 100% in the past? Nope. Why is this causing people to lose their shit? I don't get it.
"You can't have it one way, and not the other. JR is free to publish whatever material he wishes. Other people should be FREE to discuss their opinions, thoughts, ideas, WHATEVER on said material. It's called free speech. Right??? There's a lot of hypocrisy in the OSR blogosphere when discussing this topic.
ReplyDeleteBefore anyone else misconstrues my actions, let's get one fucking thing straight! I NEVER said Greg couldn't say what the fuck he wanted. I said I find his lack of self-respect offensive. I said he was a fucking coward. And I said a lot of other shit, but I NEVER said he couldn't say a damn thing!
Just like I never said Raggi couldn't publish, James.
ReplyDeleteOr should I call you Kettle?
@Anonymous: No, I don't believe that there are any ethical and moral responsibilities in imaginative gaming -- so long as the producers of the material clearly label their gaming products as to their content, which Raggi does. No one is forcing anyone to read, look at, or play Mr. Raggi's game.
ReplyDeleteTo take an even more extreme example, consider FATAL -- this is a game that contains some stuff I find personally distasteful, but I will staunchly defend its creators' right to produce the game, and anyone who enjoys playing it to play it.
In the end, I don't object to Greg having his own opinion or going public with it, but I am disturbed at his cloaking that opinion in this abstract notion of "community standards", which are nonexistent IMO. Or his claim that folks like Raggi should abstain from expressing their creative visions due to fear of backlash from some imaginary bunch of tightwads.
Fuck that!
No, James, you just resorted to ad hominem attack, compared him to Neville Chamberlain, and, when he asked you if you denied his own right to free speech, didn't respond.
ReplyDeleteTwat.
Carter, that's an excellent point.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteJust put Greg Christopher on your "ignore list"; I find it makes the OSR Blogosphere much more pleasant without that passive aggresive "quisling" asshole.
"Just like I never said Raggi couldn't publish, James.
ReplyDeleteOr should I call you Kettle?"
No, you said he shouldn't publish. Stop trying to argue shit not on the table.
"No, James, you just resorted to ad hominem attack, compared him to Neville Chamberlain, and, when he asked you if you denied his own right to free speech, didn't respond."
@ one of the anonymous folk: An ad hominem attack is deplorable, when used to dodge or deflect the argument at hand.
Greg's cowardice is the argument at hand.
And I've responded repeatedly, that I didn't deny Greg's right to free speech.
I find his speech offensive. Because, guess what? Some speech really is offensive.
The next anonymous person who misconstrues what I've said gets deleted.
Carter, I respect your position on no limits so long as things are labeled. (FATAL did come to mind as an example.) And I think that Greg's appeal to community standards was weak--not that those standards are nonexistent, but Greg didn't make as compelling a case as I'd have liked for what those standards are and how one would even know.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that James makes the important distinctions you do. Or, if he did, it was lost in all the chest-thumping.
Wow. Curse words. Really helps your point. I don't think I misconstrued anything, I made a general statement about what I've been reading in all the blogs, and the comment sections. I really don't think that Greg lacks in self respect. Seems to me he has plenty of it for defending his position on this subject.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like Americans - using free speech to the full!! No BS, no irony - you should all take a sec and thank whatever that you have the right to speak your mind about whatever issue moves you. This is why RPGs could only even have been invented in the US, and why the OSR is largely at home there.
ReplyDeleteJames and Greg, I admire you for agreeing to disagree. I am quite enjoying these OSR controversies. Keep up the good work (though personally I lean towards James' opinion...)
@Anonymous- Which important distinctions? I'll let you know.
ReplyDelete@Zanazaz- Yes. I can curse on my own blog. More free speech.
Yes James, I said he SHOULDN'T publish a violence porn game, because in my opinion it is just needlessly inviting controversy to the hobby.
ReplyDeleteThat I find the art distasteful, as an atheist libertarian, makes me feel that people with much much more conservative views would have real serious problems with this art.
For that reason, I don't think it should be published.
HOWEVER
I don't think 4e should have been published because it sucks donkey balls. That doesn't mean I am calling for censorship of anyone.
What it means is that I am disagreeing with the design decisions of James Raggi.
Is that a crime now?
@Greg- I didn't accuse you of a crime.
ReplyDelete"That I find the art distasteful, as an atheist libertarian, makes me feel that people with much much more conservative views would have real serious problems with this art.
For that reason, I don't think it should be published."
I accused you of cowardice.
More from Greg:
""People don't want their beloved games on the same shelf with this stuff, they don't like to see it included in the mix. They don't want someone looking at LOTFP Grindhouse Edition as being a part of RPGs, lest the negativity flow back onto other RPGs. Our hobby went through a very long and painful doldrum period where we struggled with negative reputational effects. We are just now getting to the point where it is not a big issue anymore. The last thing people want is for something like this to trigger even more negative associations. I try very hard not to describe RPGs as being "like D&D" because of this negative history. I would truly hate to have to disavow even more material."
"The problem with LOTFP Grindhouse Edition is that it violates the boundaries set by the community. It goes over the line that people are willing to comfortably tolerate, it is beyond the acceptable standard of behavior, and people have reacted to that in a variety of ways."
And who the fuck are you to decide my boundaries?
I love this part:
"I try very hard not to describe RPGs as being "like D&D" because of this negative history."
You're part of the problem, Greg. I've never been ashamed of my hobby, or let other people's opinions dictate how I feel, or been afraid to tell people about D&D because of what they might think.
That's nice to say, CanaTed.
ReplyDeleteForget it, Greg, the heavy metal guitar solo is in full wail, spotlight on the courageous and indomitable James Who Bows To No One! I'm outta here.
ReplyDeleteYes James you are free to curse on your own blog, but does it really help make your point? Does it make you feel better. I can rationally discuss something without cursing. The emotions are running high, and I don't think cursing helps. This is creating deep wounds in the OSR blogosphere. I've already stopped following one blog. I'm sure there are more to follow.
ReplyDeleteI also have relatives who have fought in just about every war, and served in the military. I was in no way offended by Greg's opinion about Grindhouse.
@Anonymous: Fair enough. I would add that when I said "imaginary tightwads" in my comment, I did not mean to suggest that there are no real-life tightwads or that there aren't people in the gaming "community" who do in fact object to certain content -- obviously there are. But I DO think that suggesting (as Greg did) that edgy material should not be published just because it will offend some is a very dangerous road to travel.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Greg
ReplyDeleteWhat you said clearly means you do/did not want Raggi to publish his material. Unless the
"I don't think it should be published"
Means instead you like to chew on cat anus for breakfast.
I will not cast any doubt upon your own words and take them at face value. You obviously meant that Raggi should not have published his material.
It means nothing more than that.
I am afraid that if you possessed the power to stop Raggi from publishing LotFP: Graidhouse Edition you would have used it to do so.
I'd say it's definitely a crime for an author to even consider for a milisecond dialing back the content of a work of art because of what someone who isn't the author might think.
ReplyDeleteThat's the road to the middle of the road and we've all been there a million times thanks to capitalism providing it to us all day every day.
Gorefests may not be some new and exciting territory for everyone, but that's the dungeon Rags wants to be in and you want any good work out of the man, you have to let him play the module he wants to be playing.
And you know what? Probably maybe nothing he ever finds in there will:
-appeal to Pope Christopher
-appeal to people more conservative than Pope Christopher
-grow the hobby
But that's the price we pay for demanding the man do the best work he CAN rather than shackling his talent to the same "what the boss wants" machine that everybody is hooked up to all day in their day jobs.
And sorry, I truly don't mean to fan the flames here, but cursing rules. Saying "Fuck" in public is one of the great joys of life, IMO. Rock on, James.
ReplyDeleteJames, if you are going to wage a war against gamer shame, you are going to need a bigger gun.
ReplyDelete"Yes James you are free to curse on your own blog, but does it really help make your point? Does it make you feel better. I can rationally discuss something without cursing. The emotions are running high, and I don't think cursing helps. This is creating deep wounds in the OSR blogosphere. I've already stopped following one blog. I'm sure there are more to follow.
ReplyDeleteI also have relatives who have fought in just about every war, and served in the military. I was in no way offended by Greg's opinion about Grindhouse."
Yes, Zanazaz. It does help me make a point. That's one of the reasons people use those words. I shit you not!
And just so I'm clear, it's not Greg's dislike of Grindhouse that offended me. Carter's last sentence, above is what I found offensive. And Greg's presuming to speak for everyone else.
No Greg. I just need you and everyone else to stand up for themselves.
ReplyDelete"Forget it, Greg, the heavy metal guitar solo is in full wail, spotlight on the courageous and indomitable James Who Bows To No One! I'm outta here."
ReplyDeleteI have courage. I'm still standing. And you are absolutely correct, anonymous, I Bow to No One.
I proffer respect and sometimes love. I don't always do a very good job of that.
I shouldn't have called you a coward, Greg. I apologize for that. You're merely acting cowardly in this instance. I don't believe that's the be all and end all of Greg. And as I've tried to point out, on more than one occasion, you have a self-respect problem. And you're being a dick to boot!
I really didn't have much of an opinion about Grindhouse until I read something on Raggi's blog today. It pushed me to the point that I can't support his publishing endeavors, which I'm not really happy about because there are some of his products I wanted to purchase.
ReplyDeleteWhen he made this comment...
"NAKED WOMEN performing HUMAN SACRIFICE while a CREATURE pops out of a GIANT VAGINA and DEMONIC NURSING is happening! And some INVISIBLE DUDE is stealing NIPPLE GEMS off the GIANT TITTY STATUE!
If you take that seriously, I suggest suicide.
Really??? He's suggesting suicide? Serious or not, I don't find it funny in any way, shape, or form, and socially irresponsible. So I stopped following his blog. I wanted to purchase Vornheim, and some of his other modules, but eh... I'll live.
You, Zanazaz--or should I say Pope Zanazaz??--are a coward, and exactly the kind of thinking that let Neville Chamberlain sell out Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and tear down those awesome Czech Giant Titty Statues. Seriously, your kind of quisling Chamberlain thinking is the one that is taking us on the road that leads to the road to the middle of road, where capitalism shackles us a million times a day to our soul-numbing cursed jobs (unlike those non-capitalist societies which are so nonconformist and wonderful), rather than allowing us to say Fuck You to the Man, and liberate our inner truths via Giant Titty Statues. *Takes bong hit* It's that kind of Fucking Bullshit that turns people off of the OSR, dude!
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, when I mentioned "Carter's last sentence, above" I meant Carter's sentence:
ReplyDelete" But I DO think that suggesting (as Greg did) that edgy material should not be published just because it will offend some is a very dangerous road to travel."
was a handy summation pointing to what I found offensive about Greg's statement. I was in a hurry.
Yes he did suggest suicide because if you take the picture seriously you have stick shoved so far up your arse that the discomfort must be incredible and the only way to deal with it is put a bullet in your noodle.
ReplyDeleteDude. Lighten up.
Capitalism is the reason I can buy LotFP instead of waiting for it to be approved by Comrade Christopher. "Libertarian" my ass. I wonder what he thinks that word means?
ReplyDelete@ greg
ReplyDeletethe D&D moral panic makes Christianity look like an idiot. they can take us on, but it will mean free publicity for us and cost them followers. don't sweat it.
@ CanaTed
Do you really think D&D couldn't have been invented in Australia, Scotland or any civilized country? That they're not "free" enough? HG Wells invented tabletop war gaming and he was an Englishman. Americans are a little bit 'racist' toward other countries, it's mildly dickish.
@ James
I feel like the OSR is being trolled here. He says he's not posting shit about it on his blog so things will blow over, but posting in other peoples comments to clarify his position. That's fuel on the fire, the exact opposite of what anyone would do if they really wanted it to blow over.
@ Zanazaz
Really, Curse words? That's the sort of thing somebody's 90 year old grandmother would say. If you're a ned flanders type why play "Satan's Board Game"?
re: Original post. Fuck yeah! And didn't we go through this BS a few times already? Carcosa and something else Raggi published?
ReplyDeleteWait wait wait wait
ReplyDeleteThanks to Blair I have just achieved total moral and rhetorical clarity on this issue:
What Would Lemmy Do?
That's it. That's all we have to ask ourselves. From now on.
[For the younger readers trying to follow along, Lemmy was to the 70s what Rick Springfield was to the 80s, Kurt Cobain was to the 90s, and Justin Timberlake was to the 00s.]
ReplyDelete@Spawn- But Lemmy is still cool!!!!!!
ReplyDelete@spawn
ReplyDeleteI've heard some weird shit this week, but you just took the cake.
Zak said: "What Would Lemmy Do?
ReplyDeleteIf that means grab a guitar and find someone to fuck, then you've got a point.
@James: Yes.
ReplyDelete@Zak: Yes.
@Travis - Suicide is a serious thing. NOT FUNNY.
ReplyDelete@ANON #1 - How ironic you call me cowardly, yet you post anonymously. Keep smoking whatever you are smoking, it's doing you a world of good.
@ANON #2 - Nope, I'm not a Ned Flanders type. I just feel that offensive language or insults do little to help further intelligent discussion or debate. Would it make you feel better if I called you a shithead? Understand my point now?
I am not going to get into the RPG argument, but I feel the need to point out that video game developers go for a lower rating because major stores flat-out will not carry "adults only"-rated games, period, because they fear backlash from the vocal minority who would be outraged. It's purely about getting their games distributed and seen by the public. In the case of something like a niche RPG hobby market, this is no concern at all. There aren't millions of dollars in development money to account for and make back in profits.
ReplyDeleteWho cares what some dudes on the internet think?
ReplyDeleteThis 'argument' has as much meaning as the wind.
The OSR is indeed an echo chamber filled with dudes who have nothing better to do than argue over cotton candy and dropped pennies.
Oh, and Zanazaz, good of you to use your name, unlike those Annonymous cowards. Ahem..
ReplyDeletePS: Verification word: unity! ha!
Using my username is a lot less anonymous, than just posting under anonymous. Also if the arguement has no meaning then why comment? Do you have nothing better to do?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI think people from any nation COULD have invented RPGs eventually, but I think Yanks DID because their national character is more outspoken and individualistic in many regards. Who wants to move armies all day when you can be a hero? The good side of that is that free speech is held in high regard, the bad is that any idiot can say what he wants. But that's the price of freedom.
As for the whole art issue, we used to have a 30 foot high pussy called 'The Red Trench' on the wall of my uni. It created controversy and riled people up, which I think is a good thing considering the terribly prudish body issues many north americans have. Being afraid of a normal backlash against nerdy rpgs because they have gruesome art seems a bit self-defeating in my opinion. Therefore, I side with James on this one. However, discourse degenrating into name-calling also seems self-defeating.
James, don't you dare pull this blog down in protest! Fight the good fight mate!
Okay, I've tried to follow this debate. Can I ask a couple simple questions?
ReplyDeleteWHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT GREG THINKS?
I'm mean seriously. Dude's entitled to his opinion. Why should it matter one way or the other whether he publicly disapproves of Raggi's game? Also,
WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A CRAP WHAT'S INSIDE LOTFP?
If Raggi was in charge of TS goddamn R and actually publishing something that was going to appear on the shelf of K-Mart circa Xmas shopping 1981, we'd have ourselves a ball game. Otherwise it's just a dude selling something on the internet that some people may not approve of. Big deal. Like there aren't a million guys like that. And his product is just some variant of D&D in a golden sea of alternatives. I kinda like it, but so what?
These are not rhetorical questions. I honestly don't understand why this debate continues.
@jeff
ReplyDeleteIf those are indeed not rhetorical questions I got an answer. (It's not an answer anyone's really brought up yet so far as I know.) But only if you really wanna hear it.
I was pretty much done with all this, but you say the word and I'll say it.
But only if you really wanna hear it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Jeff but I'd still like to hear it, because my feelings are pretty similar to his.
Greg, you are an incredibly stupid douchebag. Look in the mirror and tell yourself that.
ReplyDelete@Jeff
ReplyDelete@James
Ok here is why this isn't going away:
Greg isn't just worried about LOTFPRPGGHE's effect on the community or industry, he sees putting it out as an act which is -bad in and of itself- rather than just in its effects. As in: BAD. A bad thing for a person to do.
Like if I gave Jeff a buck for Miscellaneum of Cinder and he didn't give me the book that'd be bad-in-itself even if it had no further effect on anybody else. Not as bad as burning a cat with a cigarette but in the same category of behavior: just wrong. An itsy bitsy tiny little thing, but definitely, identifiably, no-disputing-it wrong.
(That didn't happen, that's just an example.)
Likewise: people on the other side of the debate see publicly encouraging (not "demanding" or "requiring", but still, "advocating for") someone NOT to publish a labor of love the way they want to publish it but instead to change it to fit some perceived ethical or commercial imperative is likewise equally bad-in-itself. As in: indicative of you're not entirely a good person. Like if you encourage someone to burn a cat with a cigarette that's bad and messed up--if you encourage someone to not use their creativity in the direction that moves them--that's messed up.
This may very likely be because SO many people in this hobby blame just this kind of thinking for why TSR (and WOTC) made crappy products--people encouraged them to follow their wallets and/or someone else's idea of what was "acceptable" and they did and the next thing you know, the game wasn't what they wanted.
In other words: this isn't -just- about the effects of games or the effects of ragging on games, it's about "the other guy is actually doing something that'd be bad even in a vacuum".
So people get their backs up. It's about actually what you value in this life.
(Also: Raggi likes controversy 'cause it advertises its book and Greg likes blog traffic for some as-yet-unannounced reason, so neither has an incentive to chill themselves or their people out.)
"Who cares what some dudes on the internet think?
ReplyDeleteThis 'argument' has as much meaning as the wind."
Yes, anonymous. Internet people aren't real people. And real people have absolutely never argued these issues. And the OSR are the only illusory, internet people to ever argue such unimportant issues as artistic freedom, individuality and personal integrity.
And gamers are just too silly, to argue such unimportant issues anyway?
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand why you guys give so much of a fuck about my opinion that you have a total mind meltdown.
I made a bold post, it triggered some discussion, I thought that would be the end of it. But you people seem to have lost your goddamn minds.
Personal insults have come out, people have drawn steel, we have entered the twilight zone.
Take the weekend off guys, have a few beers, maybe get laid or something, cool the fuck down. Jesus...
So Greg says his opinion.
ReplyDeleteJames calls him a coward and says that he has no self-respect, and also his grandad fought in World War II so Raggi can publish his violence fantasies from Finland.
Greg is hardly the conservative the mob is making him out to be. Having standards doesn't make you a moralist. He is a bit over the top in his social contract arguement. But it takes courage to voice it in the OSR echo chamber - as all the people attacking him here prove. If he was acting cowardly, he would not voice his opinion and provoke all the generic cussing and arguements he has recieved here.
Not sure where the apparent lack of self-respect comes in, or why it drives James into a stream of cussing. Indeed, cussing in this manner by several of the posters here is more indicative of low self-esteem - saying "fuck" a lot on the internet gives it to you, doesn't it, big boyz?
Lots of people have relatives who fought in World War II. Basking in their reflected glory does not make you righteous - it underlines your lack of faith in your own words. It is cowardice.
Timothy
"
ReplyDeleteNot sure where the apparent lack of self-respect comes in, or why it drives James into a stream of cussing. Indeed, cussing in this manner by several of the posters here is more indicative of low self-esteem - saying "fuck" a lot on the internet gives it to you, doesn't it, big boyz?"
Cussing just doesn't mean the same fucking thing to me as it fucking does to you Timothy.
The WWII thing wasn't about "rightiousness." It was an important point, which you don't get. And if you really think I don't have faith in my own words, fucking read again!
I also believe that Greg's whole industry standards argument is a dodge, being used to cover up his personal moral judgement. Why else would he be making the argument that creating a Grindhouse themed D&D is somehow worse than creating a Grindhouse themed movie or a death metal album? I don't think I've seen him say that, for example, Tarantino *can* make a grindhouse movie, but *shouldn't*. Or that Cannibal Corpse *can* use Vince Locke art, but *shouldn't*.
ReplyDelete"I really don't understand why you guys give so much of a fuck about my opinion that you have a total mind meltdown."
ReplyDeleteGreg, characterizing my actions as a "meltdown" may give you some comfort and hopes of marginalizing my statements, but you've never come close to witnessing a "meltdown" from yours, truly.
And waltzing in here, pretending to be the voice of reason, just makes you look like more of an asshole, than you already did.
@Marcus - I just don't know what Greg really thinks. I've accused him more than once, of doing all this just to get attention for his work. It's been suggested elsewhere, that he's just jealous of Mr. Raggi. I'm sure that's a lot of it.
ReplyDelete> WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT GREG THINKS?
ReplyDelete+1. He is full of doublespeak. Although Greg claims that he has no animus for Mr. Raggi, I have a forwarded message from the beginning of this year saying he aims "totally knock him from his pedastal in the OSR community".
Why? What's it to him if Raggi has a certain audience while Greg builds another? For some unknown reason, Greg has selected Mr. Raggi as his enemy in a zero-sum game for the loyalty of "the OSR community".
In all his rambling, equivocating diatribes over the past year, including his debate with Zak about sexism in gaming art, his discussion with Gaptooth and Risus Monkey about story games, and with James Smith about various issues, he has repeatedly stated (in various ways) that there is only one legitimate way to enjoy role-playing games. He has repeatedly appealed to "the community" or "the majority" as his authority for determining what is and isn't okay.
He seriously thinks there is some kind of standardized, uniform approach to the hobby and that any deviation from that is not reasonable. Not only is it not reasonable, but he takes offense at the mere suggestion that other people may enjoy things that don't conform to his idea of community standards, whether it's cheesecake art, story games, or a non-prescriptive alignment system. Whenever anybody points out the inherent totalitarianism of this view, he makes claims about being an atheist, humanist, liberal, or libertarian, as if those tags cover him for spouting ideas that are completely antithetical to liberalism or liberty.
If someone's view of the hobby is that myopic, how can anyone expect to persuade him that it's okay for individuals or small networks with niche interests to enjoy their hobby in their own way?
To use a colloquialism, fuck him. He has behaved like an unrepentant bag of dicks.
Well, I do think he enjoys all the attention. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish he'd admit that saying Raggi shouldn't have released Grindhouse for the greater good of the RPG industry is an absurd opinion at best.
ReplyDeleteFor those who keep questioning why I say that Greg has a self-respect problem, the summation from Macbeth, above, will go a long way in answering that question for you.
ReplyDelete@ MacBeth
ReplyDeleteThat e-mail was in regards to my plans to make a horror module that was better than Death Frost Doom. It was not about Raggi in general.
I said I was surprised DFD got the reception it did and I was writing my own module with an aim to displace it as th go-to horror example.
I have to say that I am really surprised that was forwarded after I specifically sent it to that person because they were asking me my opinion of the module and I did not want to slag it in public. Apparently, trust is a thin thing.
"Likewise: people on the other side of the debate see publicly encouraging (not "demanding" or "requiring", but still, "advocating for") someone NOT to publish a labor of love the way they want to publish it but instead to change it to fit some perceived ethical or commercial imperative is likewise equally bad-in-itself."
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget, as Macbeth related:
"He has repeatedly appealed to "the community" or "the majority" as his authority for determining what is and isn't okay."
It's easy to just laugh at Greg and ignore things like that. You know, he's just a kook. Nobody is going to listen to him anyway. Again, more from Greg:
""he problem with LOTFP Grindhouse Edition is that it violates the boundaries set by the community."
WHY ARE PEEPLE MAKING HATE AND BAD=WORDS AND WHOLE PHILISPOPHEES OUT AF UKKING GAME!!1
ReplyDelete:(
-NUNYA
EVN IF ITS BAST GAME EVAR?!!1
ReplyDelete:p
-NUNYA
"It's easy to just laugh at Greg and ignore things like that. You know, he's just a kook. Nobody is going to listen to him anyway."
ReplyDeleteYou are listening, James. You are obsessed with what he is saying, to the point of mis-stating his words intentionally, and bringing in WWII. To people who have served this country, it is sad to see people use the service of others to try and bolster their weak arguements. But you wouldn't know this.
Obviously, this point will go over your head since I have not cussed.
But please keep trying to prop yourself up with cussing and lying about the words of others and the sacrifices of others.
Timothy
Gee, Timothy. Whenever some asshole suggests we give up our rights, to appease people who wished they could infringe upon our freedoms, it's just not beyond the pale to remind them of the many, many sacrifices that have been made for that freedom, they're so quick to surrender.
ReplyDeleteThat's not me claiming laurels, I have no rights to. That's me respecting those who have made that sacrifice.
And if you post another comment, without proving I've intentionally mis-stated Greg's words, I'm going to delete it.
"Whenever some asshole suggests we give up our rights"
ReplyDeleteThis is a mis-statement. He did not say this. It is your self-righteous spin on his words. Mis-stating.
Your various words above are filled with this kind of word-twisting.
While Greg's wrong on his social contract arguement, it is not as offensive as what you (and others, to be fair) have done.
"And if you post another comment, without proving I've intentionally mis-stated Greg's words, I'm going to delete it."
Because you are so passionate about free speech, eh?
Now, James, I think you are a decent guy, despite this ridiculous stance and dust-up. But you are not thinking about what he is actually saying, and he is not going to clarify it for you. Isn't it time to move on and post something about your cool games?
Timothy
@Timothy-
ReplyDeleteGreg's words:
"
"Furthermore,
1. In the past, there has been a lot of negative attention on RPGs because of perceived "immoral" aspects.
2. This kind of behavior risks that kind of thing coming back down on the hobby
--------
Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material."
""That I find the art distasteful, as an atheist libertarian, makes me feel that people with much much more conservative views would have real serious problems with this art.
For that reason, I don't think it should be published."
"The problem with LOTFP Grindhouse Edition is that it violates the boundaries set by the community."
ReplyDeleteHe has a point, if his point is that "the community" is simply "a large segment of the mainstream RPG audience." The mainstream "community", if such a thing exists, mostly likes middle of the road things. PG-13 movies. Applebee's. John Mayer. That's because we're talking about a demographic, not individual people.
So it's no gotcha moment to say that a lot of D&D players might be squicked out by grindhouse style art. They might be squicked out by Kill Bill or Robert Crumb or GWAR too. But we don't bemoan the existence of NC-17 movies or underground comics or death metal albums as violations of a community standard, do we? Isn't that a part of their function? Unless we're talking about the PMRC or something like that.
I'm sure there's a lot of squicked out people. But, Greg hasn't proven it's a majority. And he hasn't proven a majority agrees with his position, or is accepting of him as its spokesperson. He's just trying to get by on sheer bluff!
ReplyDelete"Because you are so passionate about free speech, eh?"
ReplyDeleteNo, because I got rather annoyed at several anonymous folks, misconstruing my words, last night.
You can say anything you want. But if you're going to come into my house and accuse me of something I haven't done, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Otherwise, I might just kick you out of my house, because you're wasting my time. Say whatever you want in your house.
Gah. I'm the one who asked Greg, privately, about his opinion on Death Frost Doom, and the substance of his reply is pretty much what Greg said here. I passed the message on to a personal friend who originally suggested Greg's site to me, and I didn't imagine it would be quoted online— especially half a year later in an OSR ruckus. I don't know if he'll see this, but I apologize for that. I don't agree with Macbeth's decision to publish a private communication in which no one was threatened.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with Greg's appeal to majoritarianism, and his view that there is only one sound creative agenda for role-playing, but we've hashed that out before.
Who the hell is Greg?
ReplyDelete@Gaptooth - Thank you for replying and straightening that out.
ReplyDeleteCertainly never a dull moment.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Looks like someone left the pissing tap on.
ReplyDelete@Macbeth:
ReplyDelete"Capitalism is the reason I can buy LotFP instead of waiting for it to be approved by Comrade Christopher. "Libertarian" my ass. I wonder what he thinks that word means?"
Oh, I think you'll find that the most vocal defenders of the "free market" also tend to be the most priggish, Bible-humping, bigots you'll find.
@Anonymous:
"...the D&D moral panic makes Christianity look like an idiot."
Oh, you don't need the late Patricia Pulling, Jack Chick, or the Moral Majority to make Christianity (or religion in general) look retarded. That whole mess about an invisible man who lives in the sky is more than sufficient.
Hey James, did your grandfather really fight in ww2 for freedom of speech? Did he tell you that? Because I don't think "free speech" is up there among the reasons the US entered the war - I thought it had a lot to do with being attacked at Pearl Harbour. My guess is that like most Americans your grandfather fought in ww2 because he thought he should. That is, he was meeting the terms of a social contract (where have I seen that word recently).
ReplyDeleteOf course, you guys are all hot to prove you haven't signed any social contract. Which would be why you think it's cool to enlist your grandfather's martial legacy in defence of some petty shitstorm on the internet. How else could you justify calling someone you don't know a coward, except by enlisting your grandfather's war record?
To channel the words of Greg Christopher: if you don't want to look like an arsehole, I don't think you should do that.
@faustusnotes: you paint with a broad brush there. I can't speech for anyone else, but I for one did enlist in the U.S. Army in 1988 to protect freedom and preserve Liberty.
ReplyDeletewhat kind of broad brush is that, Anthony? Your reasons for joining the US Army are broader than defending free speech. Let's suppose you were in the army in 2003, having joined up in 1988. You might not think that invading Iraq served to "protect freedom and preserve liberty" but chances are, you'd still do it - after all, you're an enlisted man, so it's your responsibility. Does that mean your grandkids can say you "fought in iraq to defend freedom and preserve liberty"?
ReplyDeleteIt's even more ludicrous in the context of world war 2. All those US merchant seamen who died protecting and shipping lend lease goods to the Soviet Union - were they protecting free speech? Did Tito protect free speech? In fact many of James's grandfather's allies were furiously committed to the destruction of all forms of free expression - and the post-war US itself was hardly a hotbed of free speech, was it?
It's a neat rhetorical device, since it would be terrible to criticize James's grandfather or his military service. But it's bullshit.
yo, cocksucker, that is why I joined the Army. To preserve American liberty. No other reason. So, why don't you fuck off?
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I'm not questioning your motivation for joining the army. I'm not sure how you could think I was. I'm simply observing that your grandkids claims about your reasons may not match your actual reasons. And the behaviour of the army when you were in it may not have matched your aspirations.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why the rhetorical device "my grandfather fought a war so that I could publish pictures of tits" is not a particularly good one.
"faustusnotes said...
ReplyDeletewhat kind of broad brush is that, Anthony? Your reasons for joining the US Army are broader than defending free speech."
Anthony, you said
ReplyDeleteI for one did enlist in the U.S. Army in 1988 to protect freedom and preserve Liberty.
Do you think that is as narrow a concept as "defending free speech"? I would think it also includes the right to free association, economic activity, various property rights, the right to marry who you want, etc. Furthermore, some people who defend liberty do so by restricting free speech (e.g. the evangelists who tried to ban D&D were quite frothy at the mouth about American liberty and saw D&D as subverting it).
You also, no doubt, joined up because you think people should, not because you think people shouldn't - this is a subsidiary reason to your motivating factor, but it's still part of your decision.
Many people of James' grandfather's generation, on the other hand, were conscripted. Many may not have cared about free speech at all - McCarthy, for example, was a soldier of a probably similar generation to James's grandfather. Do you think he joined up to defend free speech?
So again, the rhetorical device is cheap.
I've been one of those people who haven't been able to post comments on blogger blogs for the past few weeks so I apologize for coming in late to the party.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who's been involved in horror roleplaying since 1st ed CoC, I really wonder what all the 'controversy' is about. Is the OSR 'puritans' completely unaware of what's been published outside of fantasy RPGs? Some of which has garnered critical and popular acclaim?
LotFP is extremely tame compared to stuff that's been coming out over the last 15-20 years.
The extreme art by Blair Reynolds on the covers of the first 9 issues of "The Unspeakable Oath" not to mention the subject matter within completely revitalized CoC and pub Pagan Publishing on the map.
The Kult RPG, both in art (especially 2nd ed) and content matter makes Raggi's stuff seem pg-13 and, while not to everyone's taste, was praised for it's cosmological depth and hard-hitting moral questions.
"The Book of Unremitting Horror" for the Gumshoe system has incredibly hard-hitting content that would probably make people like GC call for the pitchforks.
And that's without invoking the "Black Dog" imprint material from White Wolf back in the 90s.
Have Old-School D&D players been living under a rock or is it just that since LotFP is, ostensibly, an OSR D&D product that they are now paying attention to something that's been going on in the rest of the RPG world for decades?
A point I forgot to make: The examples above (not to mention lots of other products in the Horror and Dark Fantasy categories of RPGs) haven't brought about any new manifestation of the 'Burning Times' by the outside masses who think ill of the hobby and neither will LotFP.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who's afraid it will *is* acting as a moral coward and anyone who thinks that there is a 'social contract' within any RPG 'community' hasn't been paying attention to what's been going on in the greater RPG community (i.e., horror gamers).
Osskorrei, the overreaction is because the OSR is a very conservative scene that is obssessed with tits in a puerile teenage way - witness the sexually aggressive language the boys here use just because they can't read a post properly. Greg's concern is with the broader community's conception of role-players, not with whether or not these movements within the OSR are bad.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand how you can think there isn't a "social contract" in RPGs. A group of people gather around a table to play a game that involves mutual interaction and trust, and you think there's no social contract? More generally, to the extent that the social contract as a concept is tractable, it's impossible to say that any group of people interact without having one. You may think Greg's vision of this contract is wrong (I do) but that's a different issue.
As an example: in the OP James refers to Greg as an "ignorant slut". Do you think that if James was reporting a disagreement with his own grandmother on this blog he would use that language? Do you think that James Mal would approve of a game where the rulebook referred to female NPCs with this language? Do you think it would be appropriate for a teacher to refer to his students as "cocksuckers" the way Anthony did after he misunderstood my comment?
Every social interaction is governed by a social contract. It's just classic of the petty pre-teenage mentality of the OSR that the boys hereabouts think your little scene is special in this way. "You can't tell me what to do, maaaaaaaan!" is not a creed by which adults live - it's the plaintive cry of kids exploring their teenage identity.
Any other scene would have responded to Greg by saying something like "our social contract doesn't work like that" or "good point but you're wrong." Only in a corner of the world as febrile as this would you find people respond with this "Don't Tread on Me" crap.
I hate to tell you this Faustus, but I use cocksucker occasionally in my job as an adjunct history professor at the University of Texas at Tyler...while lecturing. Not towards my students, of course, but then they wouldn't have the gall to say that they know what motivates me about anything I do.
ReplyDeleteOh, and then backpedal when I point out that they said just what I thought they did. Or wrote, as the case may be. :)
Shall I quote you again?
"faustusnotes said...
what kind of broad brush is that, Anthony? Your reasons for joining the US Army are broader than defending free speech."
Which I never said. "but I for one did enlist in the U.S. Army in 1988 to protect freedom and preserve Liberty." I never said it was solely to defend Free Speech.
Sorry that you like to make things up and misread sources. I give students an F for papers like that.
try a little harder, Anthony. Let's go back over the exchange shall we?
ReplyDeleteMe: James's grandfather probably went to war for more reasons than just free speech. Most Americans had multiple reasons for joining up.
You: you're painting with a broad brush there. I joined up to defend Freedom.
Me: So you joined up for more reasons than free speech?
You: cocksucker.
Me: You said that you joined up for more reasons than defending free speech. That's what I originally said most Americans did.
Who's misreading who here?
I'm glad that you work in such a libertine situation that you can use swear words in lectures. In my experience of academia in Australia, the UK and Japan that would be an extremely bad idea. But you're not adding any information here; you still admit to a social contract (you can't call your students cocksuckers). Do you think James would be judged well by his readers if he used the language he applied to Greg about his own grandmother?
@faustusnotes
ReplyDelete"Greg's concern is with the broader community's conception of role-players, not with whether or not these movements within the OSR are bad."
My point was that, considering that more extreme content has been published, for decades now, by larger publishing companies and sold in major outlets *without* affecting the broader communitiy's conception of roleplayers his reaction to LotFP seems a bit of an overreaction based on personal tastes.
"I can't understand how you can think there isn't a "social contract" in RPGs."
I understand what your saying. But I was referencing the context in which Greg and this whole controversy has been using the term 'social contract' (and honestly didn't think, after all of the posts on all of the blogs that I needed to qualify that).
Let me explain a little more. My point is that, as professional companies have been producing such material for their RPGs and having a substantial following for such products (some of them for many years now), the idea that LotFP has overstepped the bounds of an agreed upon 'social contract' is absurd. As is the idea that there is one social contract that can be transgressed in this way.
As you pointed out, there are many social contracts... so much so that saying there is 'one' that any one product can violate is idiotic.
"As an example: in the OP James refers to Greg as an "ignorant slut". Do you think that if James was reporting a disagreement with his own grandmother on this blog he would use that language?"
I honestly saw that as a slightly tongue-in-cheek Gilda Radner/Dan Akroyd SNL reference and nothing more.
""You can't tell me what to do, maaaaaaaan!" is not a creed by which adults live - it's the plaintive cry of kids exploring their teenage identity."
While the internet is full of... less than mature... interaction, I think it's only natural for people of any age to react strongly to what they feel is infringing upon their ideals of liberty - especially in areas that they identify with. Even something as seemingly insignificant as the hobbies they engage in. Especially when one person seems to be trying to lay down the righteousness of a situation for other people.
For right or wrong, it's impulses like that that breed activism, start unionization, and create loud voices against perceived cries for official or tacit censorship.
Which, despite certain juvenile language, is what the current resistance to Greg's stance seems to be.
Try again, Faustus. btw, I like people who use fake names on the Net.
ReplyDelete"faustusnotes said...
what kind of broad brush is that, Anthony? Your reasons for joining the US Army are broader than defending free speech."
"Your reasons are... ." Not a questioon. Not a request for clarification. A statement. You wrote that "your reasons are." Doesn't follow the your little storyboard outline line very well.
And my statement wasn't merely "cocksucker," it was also a clarification that you had either misread or deliberately misquoted a simple statemnt of mine; therefore, you may go and masturbate off.
As to social contract, I never said there such does not exist. So "you are barking "up the wrong tree," as my great uncle James would say. Actually Uncle James would say, "You're a-barking up the wrong fucking tree, pardner."
As to James using the word "slut," did I ever say there wasn't an implied social contract? Who the hell are you, John Locke? Of course, James wouldn't use that language about his grandmother. Perfectly ok for men to use it to each other. We'll generally respond in kind.
Osskorrei, I agree with you that greg is wrong, even were those more extreme products not to exist. I think there are other reasons to say Raggi "shouldn't" have made LoFTP (e.g. it appears to sway heavily towards violence against women) that are more relevant (and not necessarily correct either). But this leads us into a sensible, rational discussion amongst adults as to whether or not greg is wrong about the social contract amongst role-players.
ReplyDeleteWhat we get instead is this ludicrous reaction against "censorship" and any notion of a shared social contract. How can it possibly be, for example, that "one person seems to be trying to lay down the righteousness of a situation for other people"? This is a person with no power or authority giving their opinion of what someone unrelated to them should have done. Reacting to this in any way except with a reasonable "I disagree" is just ridiculous. It's exactly the kind of "don't tread on me" bullshit I mentioned above. And as for claiming that someone is a "moral wimp" or a "moral coward" for saying some language and some images are inappropriate in some settings... wtf?
And if these are "perceived cries for official or tacit censorship" then you're just misinterpreting the writing. It's some guys opinion about how some people should act in one situation. This is no different to me saying "I don't think James should call people sluts." Or "I don't think YDIS should use such vicious personal slurs."
Anthony, are you saying I "should" use my real name on the internet? Am I breaching an implied social contract?
ReplyDeleteYes, "Your reasons are..." was a statement. A confirmatory statement. Because "I enlisted to defend freedom" is a broader statement than "I enlisted to defend free speech." You do understand that "free speech" is a subset of "freedom" don't you?
If you think the words that followed "cocksucker" were a clarification you probably need to work on your presentation style a little.
Since you accept this social contract, can you tell your attentive readers - would you appreciate your grandchildren employing their own interpretations of your reasons for enlisting to win a petty shitstorm on the internet?
@ Faustusnotes
ReplyDelete"I think there are other reasons to say Raggi "shouldn't" have made LoFTP (e.g. it appears to sway heavily towards violence against women) that are more relevant (and not necessarily correct either)."
Not correct at all, if people actually *read* LotFP as opposed to seeing cherry-picked examples on a third-party website.
Raggi gives some context of this in this thread
http://lotfp.blogspot.com/?zx=a876be4ed4cf5de8
when he says
"There are four women in the whole of the game who die, are in the process of dying, or have just died in the art. All adventuring types, no innocent victim types. By comparison, there are four dead men in the Rules book by page 9.
"(this doesn't count the zombiethings at the front of the Tutorial or end of the Referee book since those are more monster types - you don't count the existing zombies in a horror movie as "victims" - nor the corpse at the feet of Ollam Onga because I tried to crop that out as much as I could because it was godawful in quality compared to the rest of the piece, so you can argue 5 or 7 depending on how tough you want to be with the qualifications. But if you want to count those, then you have to count the 100+ dead men in the halfling picture, and the proportions get even more lopsided)
"Complaining about violence in the art? Valid. Complaining about violence against women in the art? No basis at all."
And this seems to influence some of the reactions from the Raggi supporters: namely that many of the people (especially on the Rpgnet threads) dismissing him or his work on moral grounds haven't even read the damn thing.
As for whether or not responding to one blogger's comments in the way they have is reasonable or not... I think different people have different ideas of where the beginning of the slippery slope lies (and yes... it is just as possible that the backlash against Greg's comments also comprise another unpleasant slippery slope).
"I honestly saw that as a slightly tongue-in-cheek Gilda Radner/Dan Akroyd SNL reference and nothing more."
ReplyDeleteSome people no doubt missed the cultural reference.
... and it was Jane Curtin, not Gilda Radner.
ReplyDelete"While the internet is full of... less than mature... interaction, I think it's only natural for people of any age to react strongly to what they feel is infringing upon their ideals of liberty - especially in areas that they identify with. Even something as seemingly insignificant as the hobbies they engage in. Especially when one person seems to be trying to lay down the righteousness of a situation for other people."
ReplyDeleteThere are people in this country, who think we should put our tail between are legs, bow our heads and hope the big, bad world will just leave us alone. They're willing to give up their rights, so as to avoid offending extremists.
When those people claim to speak for me as well, I feel not one whit of regret for reminding them, harshly, that they do not. My posts were not about "winning an argument."
Faustus, like I said before, I do not doubt that there is a social contract, so I have no idea why the FUCK you keep harping on it. As for my future grandchildren using "cocksucker" as a word, as long as they did in the proper place and with the proper people, no problem at all. See, in Texas, we call a spade a spade, if you don't like that, tough.
ReplyDeleteGo back to grade school and polish up those reading comprehension schools, youngster. Then drop by high school and join a debate team since your debate skills were obviously learned by leftist liberals (i.e, you grab onto one point and twist out of context and then infuse your own ideas into the argument as well as telling people what they think).
I'm glad that you're obviously a psychic and can obviously use time travel as you can get into my head and know what I was thinking 23 years ago (on the 19th of June) when I raised my hand and said, 'I,Anthony N. Emmel, do solemnly swear..."
For myself, this argument is over.
"... and it was Jane Curtin, not Gilda Radner."
ReplyDeleteDamn... I guess this means I need to re-watch more classic SNL ;-)
"When those people claim to speak for me as well, I feel not one whit of regret for reminding them, harshly, that they do not. My posts were not about "winning an argument." "
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Also, while I'm not saying this is Greg's intent, quite a few 'morality' based lobbying groups start by one person getting it into their head that their outrage over something 'indecent' or 'dangerous' is objectively correct and that they are speaking for the populace. A populace that needs that individual's voice to lead the charge.
For those where artistic freedom is a paramount concern (whether at the governmental or just the local advocacy group level) this very often falls into the 'Eternal Vigilance is the price of Freedom' category in a way that has ontological weight and is more than just jingoism.
hahaha, Anthony, reading comprehension problems eh?
ReplyDeleteGo back to grade school and polish up those reading comprehension schools, youngster. Then drop by high school and join a debate team since your debate skills were obviously learned by leftist liberals (i.e, you grab onto one point and twist out of context and then infuse your own ideas into the argument as well as telling people what they think).
Did you mean "skills," "from," "twist it out" and "infuse the argument with your own ideas" respectively?
As for reading comprehension... it should be clear to all but the thickest of adjunct history teachers that I did not ask you if you would be comfortable with your grandchildren using the word cocksucker. Try re-reading the sentence and actually comprehending the question before you berate others on reading comprehension.
And once again, I did not assume anything about what you were thinking when you enlisted. I pointed out that "defending freedom" is different to "defending free speech," and this point you now can't accept, can you, because it would show you haven't understood anything you've read since the beginning of this thread.
Osskorrei, thank you for that description of Raggi's response. When I initially heard of this controversy I actually assumed it must be misplaced prudishness, because the impression I've got from Raggi's site is that he selects artwork that is vastly better (in terms of gender politics) than a lot of the traditional or mainstream gaming companies - the woman who was the signature pic on his site for a while being the best and most obvious example. I haven't seen the game and I've only been exposed to other people's opinions, and I was merely pointing out that I think violence against women is a much more serious reason to not produce art than just, well, tits. I wasn't actually saying I think this is the case for Raggi's work (hence my bracketed "These aren't correct either"). I'm glad that there is a defense against this claim on the internet (though sometimes I find Raggi's defenses a tad self-serving, but whatever).
ReplyDeleteI don't play OD&D and I almost certainly wouldn't use any product of Raggi's, but I really respect his efforts and energy, and I would much prefer to see his work criticized on the basis of its quality than the usual cheap OSR prudishness, because I think the world needs more Raggi's and less WoTCs, and I know if I were Raggi I would long since have burnt out from all the negative attention. My interest in this argument is with these ludicrous accusations of censorship and self-righteousness. Hence my commenting here, because James's invocation of his grandfather is just so tasteless and cheap, and a very good example of how hyperbolic and silly this debate has become.
It's funny how Americans can do this thing - they have the highest imprisonment rate in the world, but they're worried that a guy on the internet saying you should choose not to put so many tits in your book is the slippery slope to tyranny.
This thread is now closed, as I've been ignoring faustusnotes for about a year and everyone else seems to be done.
ReplyDelete