Autore Topic: [chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage  (Letto 2879 volte)

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« il: 2009-07-10 18:21:28 »
In questo thread, Domon dice:
Citazione
[cite]Autore: Domon[/cite]io non ci vedo ne l'uno ne l'altro motivo. o meglio entrambi, ma come sintomi di quel male che edwards ha definito il brain damage causato dai gdr tradizionali.


Non contribuiamo a spargere notizie false: Edwards non ha MAI detto che i gdr tradizionali provocano brain damage

Il citatissimo (a sproposito) post sul "Brain Damage" si riferiva a tutt'altro.  Il thread originale è lunghissimo, e si attacca ad un altro thread e al blog di lumpley, ma se volete la versione breve, direttamente dalla voce di Edwards, ascoltatevi questo Podcast. Se avere problemi con l'inglese parlato, la prima parte (quella sul brain damage) è stata trascritta in questo post su rpg.net

Questo è il transcript della prima parte. Consiglio di ascoltare il podcast mentre lo si legge, per dare il giusto tono alle parole (essendo un transcript, non un intervista, non ci sono indicazioni di questo tipo e a volte può essere difficile capire il senso)

I: What is "Story?" (pause) I know - you're looking at me funny like I'm crazy, but for the next question I'd like to know what.. how you define "Story".

R: Story's a fictional situation that.. engages an audience and.. (heavy emphasis) RESOLVES.

I: Ok. So the next question I want to get into is, um, was it like a year ago, two years ago, you were discussing "Story" and um.. (long pause) White Wolf games, and..

R: That actually dates probably back to 1999.

I: Oh, really? Okay..

R: So what did you have in mind - anything specific?

I: I wanted to know about the whole brain damage comment that you had a lot of flak about. I actually couldn't read and follow that because there was so much being said..

R: Let me lay it out fairly straightforwardly as best as I can. In the early nineties, White Wolf games hit the hobby like a bombshell and, as people will tell you today, revolutionised roleplaying, changed roleplaying, brought roleplaying to a wider audience, raised the bar of production of roleplaying games, and many other things. A great deal of that, I think, is mis-stated, and in this case I'd like to take a look at the design of the games.

I: Ok.

R: If we're talking about, especially that early first round - the original Vampire, Mage, Werewolf in particular, what we see is no coherent reward for play at all. As I see it, the success of those games, and particularly of Vampire, had a lot to do with lucking on to a teen trend of the time which was the percieved edginess and fascination and excitement of people who dressed in leather or black and were sorta scary-looking and hung out at night and stuff like that..

I: (laughter)

R: I mean, you can take that back to bikers in earlier decades, or, you know, any number of other people who or types of activity that have fulfilled that need in teens to "hang with them" and to "be with those guys" or stuff like that. And in the early nineties, we're talking about the Goth thing, and so practically by the time Goth was dead, roleplaying games put out Vampire and you end up with a whole bunch of people who would looove to be with the gothers, and this game was among the many, many, many things they bought in order to buy into it. It was gear, and you could go to these clubs and you would get laid frequently perhaps and you would be involved in this whole goth scene and the girls would show up trying to be bad girls and the guys would show up trying to be cool guys and this whole thing is going on with or without the game, Vampire. And now we have this game, who briefly had a whole bunch of people that roleplaying store owners had never seen before running in with their hands waving over their heads to buy little orcs and to buy another supplement. And this went on for just a little teeny tiny while, but it *did* establish the idea in roleplaying sales and the store system and the distribution system, that this was some kinda big honker and for quite some time that meant that game stores would load their shelves with it, and continue to perpetuate the myth that it was bringing tons more people into the hobby.

Um, now all this is economic, it doesn't have much to do with the brain damage thing. But what I am going to say is that it - through no fault of its own as a game - was strewn across the early collegiate, late high school, scene of roleplaying. It was 1994, 95, 96, what game effectively did you usually run into when you got going in roleplaying? If it wasn't D&D Second Edition it would be Vampire.

Now here's my beef. What's up my nose, why am I annoyed, why am I actually literally pissed off about that? And it has everything to do with what I was talking about, with the reward system of the game. If the game were functioning in a way that paid off for playing it, in a way that made sense to everybody at the table - and you could appreciate it when it happened to someone else as well as yourself - then fine, but it doesn't have that. Instead what you effectively have is.. a mish-mash of combat mechanics that are effectively derived from Shadowrun, you have a mish-mash of character generation which is effectively derived, with a few intermediate steps, from Champions and related point-buy games like GURPS and stuff from the eighties. And you also have this overlay of insisting - verbally insisting, and you should take a look at that first edition Vampire - insisting that this was going to produce not only a watchable cinematic narrative or story - which is to say an arc of rising action on a conflict, and a climactic resolution, and fallout from that - not only was it going to do that but it would also be *literature*. And it would separate you, the person who has bought this game, from all that awful dungeon crawling. Text mattered. Text mattered a great deal. People sitting in their college dorms or in their ?? at high school or whatever poring through this, page by page by page, getting it all wrapped up in their minds just how this is supposed to be done and how this was going to turn out and what it was going to make *them* - and also, by then, membership in these edgy people. You know, it's not geeks anymore, we're the CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT or whatever. This is attracive, I don't really want to mock it, it's an ongoing teen and adolescent issue and it's just going to be here with us as long as we're people - what I'm really driving at is that the game is promising that level of epic literature and reliable creation of rising action, climactic confrontation, and resolution and fallout - and there's really nothing in the game that does anything of the sort. There's a humanity score, when it drops your character's actions are constrained constrained constrained further which is the very opposite of climactic decision in confrontations. It also features this Golden Rule thing. Now let me give you an example of when I read something like the Golden Rule.. well, why don't you tell me the Golden Rule.

I: Well I actually, for the show, I've been calling it Rule Zero. I think we're talking about the same thing..

R: Well, the rule as stated and called the Golden Rule, is "if it's not fun - if the rules are not fun then don't follow the rule this time."

I: Correct.

R: Well, let's see. Here I am. Let's pretend I'm playing any old roleplaying game, so I'm not picking on Vampire or anything right here in this particular moment, I'm saying let's look at any roleplaying game. And we have that rule, it's explicit, and the rule says "this is how we do it and we do this because we're *real* roleplayers and we don't like the dice and the rules to rule our fun" or some similar statement. Okay. Umm.... The... you know, the prince of the city has told us, the weeny vampires, that we have to go trotting across the city and get the jade amulet and so we get the guy with the jade amulet and we're taking him back to the prince and, wham, the NPC jumps out of the dark alley and he's a badass and he smacks my character and smacks the other character and I say "ok, we attack back" or whatever - they're grabbing the guy with the amulet of course, or this guy is - and we say "we attack back" or whatever and the GM says, oh well you know, he gets away. (pause) And you're kinda going... "well, actually by that rule that you said, that wasn't fun".

I: (laughs)

(segue)
« Ultima modifica: 2010-01-29 15:31:20 da Moreno Roncucci »
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #1 il: 2009-07-10 18:23:34 »
R: "Can we do it this other way that we can do according to the book or there's these other rule options, or maybe the GM uses a rule and says well this guy's got an Obfuscate of such-and-such and I rolled and that was his success, and I'm kinda like, well yea but that wasn't fun so why can't you not do that?" I don't think I've ever seen that Golden Rule applied as I just described. It, in application, means "things go my way if I'm the GM". That's what it means in application. So effectively what you have is this notion not of story creation through the processes of communication during play, the processes of procedure, of activities that you carry out at the table with each other communicating - no, you will, IF you get a story, it's because the GM felt like making one up, had one in his head beforehand, or makes it up as he goes along as you play. And that's what story comes from. Now that's the confusion in many cases - that story is product. You talk to a group like that, they say "oh but we *did* make a story, it was a great story!" and you're kinda saying "well yea but I watched you play, I'm maybe even playing in the group with you, and I didn't see you actually make story. I saw a story get imposed upon play." It's different. I'm not talking about product, I'm talking about process.

When somebody's making up a story, there is a point in the history of time when the story does not exist. I don't care if this is right before his first rough draft, I don't care if this is right before his final cut, I don't care where it comes in that particular person's process but there will come a point where there wasn't a story and now there is. What happens in that person's mind is a matter of some debate - you can talk to creative people all you want to and you're going to just run into days of debate - what I do know is that those things can also occur at the group level of discussion and it's not just freeform consensus until everybody agrees and moves onto the next scene. It is, in fact, a procedure, a dynamic interaction that generates results that no one person could possibly have predicted or imposed. That's what I mean when I say "story now". It means that the process of actually making the damn thing is occuring here, during play, the processes of play. That's opposed to what I like to call "story before" which is where somebody sits down in play fully aware of the story in mind, as much as saying, well then they're going to confront this villain at the end of, well you know we're going to be playing for about four or five hours, I figure with one hour left they're going to confront the villain around then. And I used to run my games like that, I used to sit down and play Champions and I'd have that in mind, and I was improvisational enough, you know, and I had enough stuff going on in the game that I could kind of stall them a little bit in the first round of play and throw them a few clues, and play the NPCs, and maybe had a revelation they could find out along the way, but roundabout an hour to go I was set. And then, ok, you find him. So where'd the story come from, effectively speaking? It came from me.

And then you have "story after" where *nothing* really happens at the time, it's all a big mess, but people go back in their heads, or perhaps one person in prepping for the next session sort of dissects a bunch of stuff that you can cobble together to make into that story with the rising action, narration, and stuff and treats it that way, so that's kinda "story after". The processes of play really didn't produce one that was enjoyed as a story at the time. So does that clarify a little bit about the story before, story after, story now?

I: Actually, tons compared to what little I had grasped of it so far.

R: Excellent. So let's move to getting to your real question, which is this business about the brain damage. What I am saying is that people have aesthetic interests in role-playing, a lot of us really would like to have this "story now" experience and actually be authors and audience at the same time, get all the best of both worlds in that regard, the same way that musicians playing music get the best of both worlds, of being both creators and audience to the music at the same time. Musicians do that. Not *everybody* wants that, and I don't even want it all the time. You know, I played cut-throat today! "Story now" my ass, I was there to become the top dog in that cut-throat motorcycle band and we were going to have a great time just playing dominating, going on raids, sending our girlfriends to go and winkle out each other's secrets, and you know, you play opposition to other people's conflicts and so you try and come up with conflicts that would be humiliating if they lost so that way they'd be hampered in the bragging rights competition in the next phase - you know, it's competitive. That's a blast if that's what we're all for. There's many different approaches and as you know I think they can be categorised fairly easily into distinctive things, creative agendas, at the table with the group.

What I'm saying is that let's take whatever subset of teenagers who were hit by this pack of games, the White wolf games and their ilk, which is to say a wide variety of games that were a very strong attempt to be just like them..

I: Games with attribute/skill..?

R: Not just attribute and skill, but the whole idea of this dark edgy outsider, you know..

I: Okay.

R: Smooth blend of the X-files and Nightmare on Elm Street perhaps.

I: You're talking more about the feeling than the rules.

R: I am, and so that's very attractive - I mean, I didn't even really mean that derisively, you know, if you want to say "X-Files and Nightmare on Elm Street" I'll say well that sounds kinda fun, I could do that.

I: They're both cool.

R: But the issue is, you get a bunch of people who see that, that's the medium of play is that imaginative context right there that I've just described, and they are also totally into it because of all the teen effects that I've talked about before and now they're convinced - some of them, some of them just blaze over all that reading stuff that had to do with story this and story that, they just want to make badass vampires and kick butt, that's fine - others, you know, they wanna dress up. They love Anne Rice, they wanna dress up like an Anne Rice character and act like an Anne Rice character and that's good too, especially if you can do it at the table then go off and do it at the LARP and maybe get laid that night. Whatever. But the deal is that neither of those are the only things that people would want out of Vampire. Some people reading those texts, of what amazing epic thematically significant stories were going to emerge from all this - and that's high art - they were impressed! And well they should be, if someone promised me something like that, I would jump at it! I get to do that with role-playing? Yea, baby! They sit down, they try to play it and what do they encounter? They never encounter that. They encounter at most story before and story after.

Well, I was a determined teen, I read everything imaginable - RuneQuest and Champions - with this determination of this particular kind of desire. And I read everything you could imagine of those games and many others, trying to cobble together some way to get that "story now" thing going. And occasionally succeeding. There actually are some secondary texts in both games that really are very inspiring and fully of really great instructions for that - and then there's a bunch of other instructions that are about other things.. but, the issue is that the game never told me that it was gonna do that. I was just determined to do it. Here, the game *is* telling you. So what's going to be the perfectly reasonable and rational response - especially if you're looking at people who are effectively the equivalent of young filmmakers and young musicians, and if it doesn't work out the first time, what reasonably and rationally are they going to try to do tomorrow? They're gonna try again. They're gonna try again, harder. They're going to buy into it *more*. And in the case of the White Wolf games, I mean "buy into it more" very literally, because of the extremely cynical supplement model those games were working with especially in the mid nineties.

And at that time, think about people in their teens who are struggling to do this, the more it doesn't work, and the more they find ways of arriving at story in some ways that really aren't all that fun, the harder and harder and harder they're going to glom onto their difficult solutions. Here's one of those difficult solutions: effectively sitting down and talking at one another - not knowing when to roll the dice at all, and that's where you get these anecdotes, the one I'm thinking about is where they spent 45 minutes with a vampire trying to operate a copy machine because they didn't have the skills for it and they were trying to use the dice to have this happen and they were just really frustrated because they didn't even really know when to roll dice and when not to, and so they're saying well we're gonna talk most of the time and then sometimes when we're supposed to we're going to roll these things. And that doesn't work out very well - what's the "sometimes"? When do you roll the dice? There's no reward system to go to, either. There's no way to look and say well, what is my payoff for playing, when are we going to get that epic story? Well, then you have another form of vampire play, which is the highly metaplot based one, which many many many of the supplements do that, and you read the supplements and they effectively just order the players to do this and that. You know. "Then the ghouls attack. After you kill the ghouls..."; this is the old D&D style of supplement making - "when the ghouls attack... after the players have killed them off they'll pursue the leader of the ghouls". It's very locked in, what the players are going to do. And in those groups you get this kind of obedience thing where they all become very very good at sort of opening their mouths like baby birds for the GM to drop in the next thing that they're supposed to do, and then they bust out their combat mechanics and stuff and dutifully fight the ghouls and nobody really seems to worry about whether somebody's going to go down or not because they never do - of course they'll get their asses kicked by the big NPC who comes along and teaches them a lesson once in a while. But that's the other form which is, effectively speaking, the group - or the people in the group who are inclined in that direction - just give up on the "story now" thing. Others take over and find dysfunctional ways, like for example somebody who says "well we are going to have a story here dammit, I'm going to basically emotionally and socially dominate these people until they accept my story!" And you find that - people who all insist about how Stan is the most amazing GM, he makes the best stories.


(prosegue)
« Ultima modifica: 2009-07-10 18:30:26 da Moreno Roncucci »
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #2 il: 2009-07-10 18:23:44 »
And so a lot of these things existed before the mid-nineties but I think in the mid-nineties is when we actually see it being demograptically settled into the minds of the people who are determined to find "story now". One of the nice things about the late seventies was the extremely broad array of mismatched game mechanics just scattered across a wide range of games, and the idea being that if the group was into "story now" kind of play, or into highly competitive play, or highly modelling-the-world-around-them play, or an imaginary world, you know, all those things, they could probably excise pieces of a variety of different games and glue other pieces together and come up with a way to play. That kind of house ruling - which was effectively rewriting and making your own game without thinking about it - was pretty common throughout eighties play. And when I think back to all the groups that I knew back in the eighties, most of them actually did pretty well in terms of having a great time. A number of them didn't if they ran into issues of, usually "story before" where somebody dreamed of writing his fantasy novel and then wanted to move all the characters through this fantasy novel but that was relatively rare in comparison. And people who didn't like being shoved around would grab a couple other people and start another group that was more to their tastes.

I: Right.

R: It was in the mid-nineties that I think, a bunch of people were hit at the right time with the right promises, the right subcultural context - and the wrongest possible game to attempt to satisfy it in such a way that they would sieze upon it and insist in their own minds that this *must* deliver, to make it deliver you have to do a whole bunch of things that are effectively not going to work. That sounds contradictory, to make it deliver you're going to do things that don't work, but that's effectively what happens. You get monstrous railroading, you get monstrous flailing about when to use or not use the resolution system, you get incredible social games to try to keep the group together - because if you can't keep the group together, then it's not working, so people will pull all kinds of head games on each other to keep the group together. Why is it specific to "story now"? Because the other itches can get much more easily scratched. You can ignore a bunch of stuff in Vampire and play a fairly highly competitive game and enjoy it. It can be done. It's harder - you've got to really give up on 50% of the stuff in the book to do it, it's harder than it would have been with a lot of the earlier games - but you can do it. But if you try to do that and get rid of a lot of the competitive elements in the game, you know, like in Werewolf for example there's many competitive elements, but you want to do some "story now" Werewolf so you slice out some of those competitive elements but what's left isn't going to work.

And so my claim, is that you get a number of people who are so internally and externally trained to play in a way that is impossible to satisfy. And the reason I call it brain damage is because it's ingrained at that developmental level of these people coming into adulthood.

I: So you're not talking about physicality, then?

P: Is behaviour physiological?

I: Good question.

P: Is behaviour physiological? Do you have hormones, do you have brain impulses, do you have electricity in your head? We do. And the way that those turn into what we call personality is through experience - that's a physiological process. If a person has undergone a serious trauma - say as a pre-teen - and their ability to cope with later situations that remind them of that trauma, or may not even be exactly the same trauma but they've got it so ingrained in them that they'll react to it as though it is - is that or is that not damage to that person? Did not the person who inflicted the trauma on that pre-teen cause damage?

I: Right... What I'm stumbling on, I guess is that, probably this would lead off to a debate that I'm not sure I'm ready to get into because that would take away from everywhere else that I'd like to go, but, um.. I think that you're completely right that all those things exist, and I also think there's a function of us - I think it's multi-level, multi-layered, and so I understand what you're saying that there's a level where the behaviour actually would make .. it does have some kind of thing..

R: Let me make it a little clearer. I wouldn't call it "damage" if we was talking about people who were experiencing all these phenomena I'm talking about at 25. Because that's when, I mean there are other things going on for the person but, on the average, people at the ages I'm talking about are putting together the kind of adults they're going to be.

I: Ok, let me try this again.. what's tripping me up, personally, if you take a stake and drive it in a guy's head that's obviously brain damage, I understand that, that's physical. If you were to jump across the table and grab me by the throat, and then I'm afraid to get near your house again or something, I understand there's some kind of basis there but that's what tripping me up - I personally don't see that as physical and that's why I'm having a hard time following.

R: I understand that. That's why we should probably focus on what I keep mentioning, which is the business of the teen mind developing into the adult mind.

I: Aahhh! That makes it more clear, because the brain isn't fully developed?

R: Right. Well, whether it's ever *fully* fully developed is one thing, it is continually added to, but there are definate windows and steps and things that will occur between the pre-teen phase and the earlier twenties that have a lot to do with what we might call values, habits, standards of behaviour and expectations.

I: Now, that is absolutely perfectly clear to me what you're saying now.

R: So with that in mind, we're ending up then with folks who in many cases are extremely obsessively hanging on to their loyalty to this particular game and/or games like it, or the standards of play that it represents, which of course are now widely imitated by many many others, and there they are trying to make this "story now" stuff. You see, everything I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with people with other priorities. The game may have served them well, it may have served them badly depending on how they used it, but they probably went on to something else if they didn't like it.

I: Right, I totally played the hell out of that game in the nineties and went on to other stuff.

R: Sure, and I'm not sure what particular kind of rewards and fun and standards of what you wanted you brought to it, but whatever it may be, when you realised that it wasn't really delivering on it you moved on. Or maybe it *did* deliver and you were done. I don't know.

I: It would probably be that, different stories.. different genres, different everything, right. Because I played the hell out of it.

R: What did you get out of it? What was fun?

I: For me I'm big into immersive play so a lot of the times we just ignored a lot of it and socially resolved things without a system.

R: Right, do you want my jargon for what you just described?

I: Go, jargon away.

R: Extremely strong character exploration. And if it didn't necessarily generate "story now" in the long run or the short run or either way, and if that wasn't really an issue, you just got to be, you know, Vlad..

I: Sometimes that's totally what I would be going for, right.

R: Then it would deliver. You would have to excise a good - I'm going to estimate based on my memory of first edition.

I: Probably a good 80-90% of it.

R: I was going to say actually 70, but you're probably right with the experience but a hell of a lot of the book has to get junked. You just read the cover text at the beginning and that's pretty much all you did.

I: Everything on it was just a guide, I mean, Humanity's just a guide, right..

R: Well, it depends. Is it just a guide or did you ignore it?

I: We used it for the roleplaying, so it wasa guide, but..

R: But as a mechanic it wasn't really a powerful thing?

I: It wasn't enforced, so I guess if you felt it was appropriate for it to go down then that's what would happen.

R: Now what I'm stating in this example is that with what you've just described, I wouldn't characterise your experience of the game of Vampire as anything like what I'm describing. I'm saying there's who knows how many people who came to Vampire, scratched their itch or didn't scratch their itch and either way we're done or either way continue playing, whatever.

I: No, I totally did get in games like what you're talking about and I didn't stick with those.

R: Right. Now the people who stuck with them were the ones who wanted the "story now" and were convinced that this was supposed to deliver.

I: Ahh..

R: And that would generate now, habits of play, habits of the sociality of play, and shall we say a protectivness over what they were doing. These groups often tend to become very private, they tend to become very very oriented toward "our special group because we make stories". And they also have tendancy to, well, display a whole lot of social fragmentation that no-one ever really wants to talk about. In many groups of this kind when I talk to people, or people with this play history, they'll talk all about their GM Stan or whatever and you kinda say "so what.. how did Stan get this going? How did you all get this going while, you know, Henry was running the game?" And they talk for a little while, and they say "well, you know, things didn't really work out" and a few sentence fragment and then they say "well, then Stan started doing *this*" and there was no transition, their transition's very incoherent, they don't talk about how there was this enormous power struggle between Stan and Henry in terms of whose story was actually going to rule. Stan was a player in the game who was really pissed off that he didn't get the story he wanted out of Henry's games and he basically pulled a coup.
« Ultima modifica: 2009-07-10 18:31:18 da Moreno Roncucci »
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #3 il: 2009-07-10 18:42:00 »
Tutto il podcast dura 100 minuti circa (un ora e 40 minuti) ma la trascrizione copre solo i primi 30, circa. Ed è un peccato perché manca la parte in cui si specifica meglio di che tipo di "danno" sta parlando (e poi passa anche ad altri argomenti)

Come vedete, Edwards parla di un gioco specifico, in una situazione specifica, e solo per giocatori molto giovani. E parla di comportamenti.

Ovviamente, visto che internet è quello che è, e il livello d'attenzione medio di chi legge i post idem, da qui in breve si è sparsa la voce che "Edwards ha detto che tutti quelli che giocano ad un gdr tradizionale subiscono danni al cervello"

Non ho né le conoscenze scientifiche nè abbastanza esperienza con "ragazzi che abbiano giocato a vampire per anni cercando una CA narrativista mentre erano molto giovani" (credo di non averne mai conosciuto manco uno) quindi non vado in giro, come tanti altri, a dire che non può essere vero o no.  

Quello che so è che è scorretto parlare qui di quello che "Edwards pensa". Quando potete chiederglielo direttamente su the Forge.  Qui chiedete al massimo a me cosa penso dei danni prodotti da D&D, che li conosco meglio...  :-)

Ho postato questo thread all'inizio solo a scopo informativo, chiudendolo ad ulteriori post, perché sinceramente non ho molta fiducia nella capacità di discutere pubblicamente questi temi senza arrivare al flame. Però, dopo averci pensato parecchio (e ancora ho qualche dubbio) ho deciso di riaprirlo. Di dare fiducia agli utenti di gentechegioca.  Ma alla minima polemica chiudo tutto di nuovo...
« Ultima modifica: 2009-07-10 20:04:58 da Moreno Roncucci »
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Simone Micucci

  • Facilitatore Globale
  • Membro
  • *****
  • Simone -Spiegel- Micucci
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #4 il: 2009-07-10 21:27:56 »
Citazione
Qui chiedete al massimo a me cosa penso dei danni prodotti da D&D, che li conosco meglio...


Cosa pensi dei danni prodotti da d&d? (non sono in cerca di polemica, giuro ^^)
Simone Micucci - GcG Global Fac - Fan Mail: 70 - Pacche sulla Spalla: 1. "Difficile avere nemici con Caldo+3"

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #5 il: 2009-07-10 22:46:55 »
Citazione
[cite]Autore: -Spiegel-[/cite]Cosa pensi dei danni prodotti da d&d?


Che li vedi ogni volta che vedi com'è ridotto il mondo del role-playing...
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Simone Micucci

  • Facilitatore Globale
  • Membro
  • *****
  • Simone -Spiegel- Micucci
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #6 il: 2009-07-11 00:27:28 »
lapidario -_-
quindi per te la colpa è da attribuirsi solo a d&d?
Simone Micucci - GcG Global Fac - Fan Mail: 70 - Pacche sulla Spalla: 1. "Difficile avere nemici con Caldo+3"

Renato Ramonda

  • Membro
  • Renato Ramonda, faccia di Janus
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #7 il: 2009-07-11 00:56:38 »
Beh, ha un senso... ci ripetono da sempre che DnD ha il 95% del mercato e gli altri non contano niente... se qualcuno ha fatto qualcosa dev'essere stato DnD, no? :)

Ezio

  • Membro
  • Ezio Melega
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #8 il: 2009-07-11 01:00:21 »
Ragazzi, ma soprattutto Moreno, nel caso sorga davvero una discussione, potreste specificare di quale D&D parlate? Giusto perché così riuscirei a seguirla meglio.
Scatola Rossa? 3.X? Advanced? Tutto "l'universo" D&D?

@Renato: Il ragionamento non fa una grinza. XD
Just because I give you advice it doesn't mean I know more than you, it just means I've done more stupid shit.

Moreno Roncucci

  • Big Model Watch
  • Membro
  • *****
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #9 il: 2009-07-11 01:59:20 »
Citazione
[cite]Autore: Aetius[/cite]Ragazzi, ma soprattutto Moreno, nel caso sorga davvero una discussione, potreste specificare di quale D&D parlate? Giusto perché così riuscirei a seguirla meglio.
Scatola Rossa? 3.X? Advanced? Tutto "l'universo" D&D?


Non importa quale, sarebbero tutti off-topic in questo thread...  :-)
"Big Model Watch" del Forum (Leggi il  Regolamento) - Vendo un sacco di gdr, fumetti, libri, e altro. L'elenco lo trovi qui

Eishiro

  • Membro
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #10 il: 2009-07-11 08:22:40 »
bellissimo....

mi sento perfettamente di concordare con Edwards con gli effetti devastanti dei giochi WW sul cervello di un giocatore....

@moreno:apri un thread dove spieghi il BD di D&D no?

[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #11 il: 2009-07-11 12:23:01 »
Citazione
[cite]Autore: Moreno Roncucci[/cite]
Citazione
[cite]Autore: -Spiegel-[/cite][p]Cosa pensi dei danni prodotti da d&d?[/p]
[p]Che li vedi ogni volta che vedi com'è ridotto il mondo del role-playing...[/p]


AP? :D
« Ultima modifica: 2009-07-11 12:23:34 da Gabriele Pellegrini »

Niccolò

  • Membro
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #12 il: 2009-07-11 13:43:47 »
i danni di dnd... direi che DIPENDONO dalla versione.
non so, agli albori c'erano i fanatici della one true way, ai tempi di adnd una saturazione del mercato ridicola e la "dnd fallacy" del simulazionismo+gamismo. dnd3 ha creato un mercato e poi un riflusso di mercato che ha distrutto molte piccole case poco accorte. dnd4, forse, niente, almeno per ora.

e poi c'è la mitica "cultura del marchietto"

Citazione

mi sento perfettamente di concordare con Edwards con gli effetti devastanti dei giochi WW sul cervello di un giocatore....


per inciso: il discorso è praticamente intercambiabile mettendo "parpuzio" al posto di "giochi white wolf", non so se si nota aabbastanza :)

Ezio

  • Membro
  • Ezio Melega
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #13 il: 2009-07-11 14:45:18 »
Citazione
[cite]Autore: Domon[/cite][p]i danni di dnd... direi che DIPENDONO dalla versione.
non so, agli albori c'erano i fanatici della one true way, ai tempi di adnd una saturazione del mercato ridicola e la "dnd fallacy" del simulazionismo+gamismo. dnd3 ha creato un mercato e poi un riflusso di mercato che ha distrutto molte piccole case poco accorte. dnd4, forse, niente, almeno per ora.[/p][p]e poi c'è la mitica "cultura del marchietto"[/p]


Nuovo thread?
Just because I give you advice it doesn't mean I know more than you, it just means I've done more stupid shit.

Eishiro

  • Membro
    • Mostra profilo
[chiarimento leggende urbane] Brain Damage
« Risposta #14 il: 2009-07-11 21:25:24 »
Citazione
[cite]Autore: Domon[/cite]per inciso: il discorso è praticamente intercambiabile mettendo "parpuzio" al posto di "giochi white wolf", non so se si nota aabbastanza :)


i WW son il peggio possibile, inoltre fa riferimenti specifici alla "cultura goth del cappero" (per non usare parole volgari) che ruota attorno a vampiri e simili

Tags: