Even if it was “out of the closet”…

Sorry for the delay in response… I’m horrible on timely comment response. Glad to hear you both agreed and disagreed with us. I love hearing about evoked emotional response. I’d also love to see and link to your response.

This was one of your best episodes ever! I really enjoyed the discussion, though I disagreed strongly with each of you several times. (For instance, I think the problem with simulationism is not that it doesn’t exist, as Ryan maintains, but that it encompasses several different agendas.) But any podcast which inspires yelling is a good one. I’m trying to get a more coherent response in writing, but didn’t want to wait to give you some positive feedback. Great work.

Mike

I’m only 1/3 of the way through this episode, but I wanted to chime in before I forgot. Alexander asked if there were any homosexual characters in any WotC modules. I know Monte Cook through a couple in Return to the Temple of Elemental evil, and I think he did in a few of his other, non-WOTC modules (queen of lies comes to mind). Fascinating interview so far. Keep up the good work!

Kevin Weiser
http://www.themushroom.com

Including the “non-default” descriptors on a character is good in order to be representative of the population. Exploring these non-default descriptors in the story is also good, as long as it’s not for the express purpose of sensationalism (being edgy).

Is that what you’re saying (in my words)?

I’m keen to make my games better, so this topic has given me much grist for the mill. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the time that I handed out the pre-gen characters and a gamer looked across the table at me with a disappointed droop in her face and said, “No girl characters?” I consider myself thoroughly reprimanded, but in search of an appropriate way to move forward.

I’m not sure that Alexander was saying homosexuality, Transgender, or race for that matter, shouldn’t be explored. I think he was speaking out against when it is used to make our game “edgy,” when it’s not really edgy, sexuality in it’s different varieties are part of the human condition.

Of Course… I may be wrong, I expect we’ll hear soon enough….

A good metric is this: consider a straight white male character and a gay nonwhite female character. Which character is more likely to have those attributes incorporated into the plot?

If either answer is correct, then your game likely has a problem.

On the one hand it seems that he (you? are you still reading this?) wants gamers, GMs and designers to avoid automatically using a straight, white, male as the default character and default audience in a game. This opens the way to be representative of the diversity of humanity. It was also suggested that these kinds of characteristics be included as something like an aspect.

On the other hand, it was then suggested that these characteristics not be treated as flags, implying that although a character is X (gay, Maori, Chinese, etc.), that X-ness should not be incorporated into the plot.

I’d like to resolve this. Can you clarify the position a little? If a player brings a character who has “gay” on the character sheet, to what extent would you suggest that a GM bring that into the story?

Justine Larbalestier: http://justinelarbalestier.com/
Libba Bray: http://libbabray.com/agreatandterriblebeauty.html
David Levithan, Boy Meets Boy: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Meets-David-Levithan/dp/0375824006
Mouse Guard RPG: http://www.archaiasp.com/mouse_guard_rpg.php

This recording, by the way, is a textbook example of why voice actors don’t work half an hour after waking up with a hangover by choice. Ahem.

I’m going to have to listen to this aren’t I? I have no idea what bullshit I spouted and in what quantity. I assume copious.

I’m actually a bit surprised by all the rants Alexander had. Is it really necessary to tell guys that gay men don’t want to sleep with them? Apparently it is. I expected that gamers (in general) were more a open-minded group. But, I guess, there is still a large representation of traditional gamers who are, well… traditional.

I’m only 1/3 of the way through this episode, but I wanted to chime in before I forgot. Alexander asked if there were any homosexual characters in any WotC modules. I know Monte Cook through a couple in Return to the Temple of Elemental evil, and I think he did in a few of his other, non-WOTC modules (queen of lies comes to mind). Fascinating interview so far. Keep up the good work!

Kevin Weiser
http://www.themushroom.com

Two things of note: Luke doesn’t talk about projects he’s working on, and Luke isn’t talking about UaSS going missing….

Someone took a picture, but I couldn’t find it. I’l try to grab a pic of the shirt soon. Glad the mechanics discussion was helpful.

I’m a new listener who’s working his way through the shows backcatalogue. I’m really enjoying it, I might add…

I’d really, really like to get a hold of UaSS in pdf, but I can’t find it anywhere. The link posted here doesn’t work and it’s the same with forums I’ve checked out.

Keep up the good work and perhaps I’ll catch up with your more recent episodes soon.

Hey, Clyde, missed you somehow at GC… so what’s the quote on the shirt?

I think about a game’s mechanics the same way when I am reading through a new set of rules. It all comes to me as a set of Legos. They are pieces that fit a certain way but could also be rearranged to get something completely different.

Good stuff!

These posts are the last thing I do after editing, and uploading. I’m usually ready to be done, so I skimp on notes. It’s quite common for me to claim I’ll do more notes later, but then I don’t.

I don’t understand this part Clyde. What did you mean?

Does that make sense?

Much better convo with Vincent than the last one I heard with him- that clouds and boxes shit was indecipherable. Sorry, Vincent. I still think you're the man.

I wanted to unpack Joel's “traction vs. randomness” thing a bit. That's definitely not about rules engagement, in my experience- it is its own thing. I usually come down solidly on the “traction” side- why bother making decisions if you can't reasonably expect your actions to weight the results sufficiently to achieve goals? I tend to break down into a puddle when in a situation where there is no course of action I can expect a reasonable chance of achieving with the mechanics. This is an independent issue from “points of contact” or “engagement with the mechanics”. The mechanics of Don't Rest Your Head, for example, are hella engaging. When you play that game, you are f*cking ENGAGED, 100% of the time. You can't really not be. AND, separate from that, you have a reasonable expectation that if you make a decision, you can make progress toward achieving that goal. The mechanics of the ORE have far more points of contact than DRYH, and arguably you can be just as engaged with them, but the expectation of reliable achievement depends entirely on where your character's requisite skill falls on the curve. When playing in an adventure-fantasy setting, I found this often frustrating. I was engaging the mechanics, but could not get traction. When playing in a medical drama setting, engaging equally with the mechanics as in the fantasy setting, I found myself coming down much more comfortably on the “randomness” side of the scales- abject failure in the face of best efforts being an understood core trope of medical drama as a genre.

I'm kind of babbling, so I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I'm just trying to add weight to Joel's ideas about “traction vs. randomness” as a legitimate issue for further examination, aside from (but not necessarily separate from) issues of Creative Agenda… perhaps tied in more with Vincent's idea of “Technical Agenda”, which also makes sense to me, whether or not it can be teased out from CA or not.

Thanks for another good show, Clyde; keep 'em comin'!

I was wondering if you can point me in the direction of an article or blog post or something that is about Simulationism/Right to Dream but written by someone who really likes it. I have an inkling that RtD describes the play that I most enjoy, but I keep encountering descriptions from Forge-types who love Story Now and occasionally dip into Step on Up but seem to have this kind of masked contempt for RtD, making their descriptions of it almost impossible for me to identify with (or, frankly, really understand).

I don't know if this was the case for VB – he definitely didn't seem to see what the fun of RtD would actually be, and rightly identified himself as probably not the right person to talk about it…I'm wondering who is the right person. (I tried to read Ron Edwards' essay on RtD but being outside of the Big Model bubble I didn't really follow how what he was saying was meaningful, though clearly others find it to be).

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. On the subject of bangs… I hear your point. I also think the more clear explanation is also due to my increased understanding of what a bang is… compared to two or so years ago. I do agree that my shows with other people are much more interesting, than my solo shows. Heh, we can't all be Tevis. I think though that there are times when a solo show is a better way to deliver the particular information I have.

Holy crap, I haven't been checking in on Forge-y action and the indie community in a while (got here from a link from Ron in a recent thread on the Forge). I've got a bit to catch up on. I'm probably going to use you podcasts to open up some RPG theory discussions on the principiadiscordia.com forums. Here, have a memebomb: A Conclusion is simple where you've Stopped Thinking.

+5 Tons of Flax for the site, btw.

The game discussion was really interesting for the game theory and design as well as the subject matter of both of the games. It was really inspiring to me. I like how both of you have done games that explore things that are so personal and important to you. It changes my understanding of what game design is for (or, rather, can be for).

One thing that I wanted to point out to you Clyde, is that your explanation of Bangs in this episode was far more clear and concise than either of your other attempts in previous episodes. I think you really benefit from having another person to interact with. It's something you might want to consider as you do more theory episodes.

Also, I'll know to speak much, much slower the next time I do a voice interview. Ridonculous.

I'm still digesting the conversation. I wish I could have been there at times to add to the conversation, which to me is the hallmark of a great podcast interview/conversation. I'll come back later with more once I hear it again.